Exercise calories - too high?

JavaJeanie
JavaJeanie Posts: 10
edited November 12 in Food and Nutrition
Hi - I am fairly new here and a bit confused.

I have really been pushing myself to exercise more than normal and have been (pleasantly) surprised at the number of calories the site says I can add to my daily total. I do usually eat most of the calories available to me each day and am meticulous about counting every single bite or pick or nibble of food I eat. But I have stopped losing weight and have started going the other way (!!!). I am wondering if the calories from exercising are too high for what I actually burn.

Has anyone else experienced this?

How many calories do you usually try to stay under each day?

Thanks!!!

Replies

  • asdjlo
    asdjlo Posts: 76 Member
    I'm assuming that you could be gaining muscle which weighs more than fat. I rely more on measurements than the numbers on the scale.

    As to the calorie amount for each day. I try to stay around 1400 net calories.
  • katevarner
    katevarner Posts: 884 Member
    Yes, I find that the site gives me too many calories for exercise, sometimes way too many. I have a BodyMedia Fit and usually record my calories from there. Even Endomodo that I have connected overestimates according to my BMF. You might want to eat back only 75% of the exercise calories instead. It's all really trial and error as no calculation can tell you exactly what your body will do.

    Good luck and stick around the forums--there is lots of great advice here.
  • lasmit4477
    lasmit4477 Posts: 308 Member
    I would suggest eating back only half of the calories that the site states. Everyone is different so everyone's calorie needs are going to be different, esp based on activity and goals. I would also suggest setting your account to only losing 1/2 to 1lb per week and setting your activity to moderate if you are planning to stay active with your exercise, that way you would not have to worry about eating back calories.
  • umer76
    umer76 Posts: 1,272 Member
    Yes the calories burnt shown on MFP for various exercises are higher. You may want to compare the calories from another website like my.calories.counter.com. You can compare and take the one that looks more realistic.

    Ideally I think we should try to be under 300/400 calories if not exercising and with exercise additional deficit is even better.
  • zentha1384
    zentha1384 Posts: 323 Member
    it is an estimate. If you want to make sure you calories burned are correct then you should look into a HRM, if you want a basic one most people here will recommend the Polar FT4. I got one and I love it. If you are strapped for cash then look at Bodytronics.com you can get it for about $55

    Edit to include: If you are including your exercise in you activity level then you should not be counting it again. If you want to count all your calories burned you should not have them in your activity level
  • lasmit4477
    lasmit4477 Posts: 308 Member
    I'm assuming that you could be gaining muscle which weighs more than fat. I rely more on measurements than the numbers on the scale.

    As to the calorie amount for each day. I try to stay around 1400 net calories.


    How does a pound of fat weigh more than a pound of muscle!?! To put it in simple terms, a pound of muscle takes up less space than an pound of fat does. Also, you can't GAIN muscle in a calorie deficit! Your statement is untrue!

    However, I do agree with measurements rather than focusing on the scale!
  • Vonwarr
    Vonwarr Posts: 390 Member
    The calorie burn is an estimate - it has a tendency to estimate high for women and low for a lot of men. Generally I tend to eat back about 50-75% of my exercise calories. I eat back less cardio calories, more weight training calories if that makes sense.

    A heart rate monitor which tracks calorie burn is a more accurate estimate if you can afford one. They are great investments.
  • Abells
    Abells Posts: 756 Member
    i would figure out your BMR and TDEE if that his happening instead. There are a bunch of online calculators you can use and I would do it that way so you don't overeat which seems like that is happening so you are more accurate. If you just recently really upped your exercise it could be water retention so wait it out a week and see if it drops off. I'm not sure how long you have been on this new kick so its hard to tell
  • sandobr1
    sandobr1 Posts: 319 Member
    Most will tell you MFP overestimates calorie burns, without a HRM it is all just a decent guess depending on the exercise. I just got a HRM and for some of my activities it was right on, others high and low, so all over. I don't as a rule eat back too many of those cals so it was more of a log then a reason to eat more.

    I recently (like right now) am switching up my calorie goals using "In Place of a Road Map" then resetting again after this week to actually eat more then I have/had to lose this 40 pounds. You can search here in the forums for in place of a road map, it is popular post(s). Take a look at that and do some figuring, it might be another option for calorie goals.

    Hopefully others will chime in with some ideas, good luck.
  • Rum_Runner
    Rum_Runner Posts: 617 Member
    Yes I do believe the site over estimates exercise calories.

    I would suggest getting a heart rate monitor to get a much more accurate reading on your burns. Also, you can stop eating all your calories back and eat only 1/2 for a few weeks and see if that works.

    Another thing to take into consideration is muscle. I don't know how much you have to lose, but as you start to lose the scale may not move as much but things are shifting - I'd suggest taking measurements!!
  • tlacox1
    tlacox1 Posts: 373 Member
    I try to not eat my calories back or at least leave some alone. I try to stay around 1400.

    You also need to make sure the calories logged are correct. When I use my elliptical, MFP says I burn 423 but my machine says 341, as well as several other sites I have went to for checking accuracy.
  • HisangelG
    HisangelG Posts: 96 Member
    I'm assuming that you could be gaining muscle which weighs more than fat. I rely more on measurements than the numbers on the scale.

    As to the calorie amount for each day. I try to stay around 1400 net calories.


    How does a pound of fat weigh more than a pound of muscle!?! To put it in simple terms, a pound of muscle takes up less space than an pound of fat does. Also, you can't GAIN muscle in a calorie deficit! Your statement is untrue!

    However, I do agree with measurements rather than focusing on the scale!
    While a pound of muscle weighs a pound and a pound of fat weighs a pound as well, we often hear the comment that muscle weights more than fat. Or that a pound of fat takes up more room than a pound of muscle and so while some people may not see any weight loss while trying to lose weight, they may see their clothes are fitting way looser and think this has to do with the difference in the "weight" of muscle and of fat.

    Here is more:
    However, if your weight stayed exactly the same and we theoretically took off 5 lbs of fat from you and replaced it with 5 lbs of muscle, you would weigh exactly the same, but because muscle is more "dense" than fat, the 5 lbs of muscle takes up less space and so you would appear slightly leaner and/or thinner..Now, there is something else that can happen that will result in a weight gain and will show up in the muscle tissue and may increase the size of the muscle and it is not more muscle. It is glycogen (which is 75% water).
    http://healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=549:does-muscle-weight-more-than-fat&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267](National Health Association)

    So, theoretically, no, muscle does not weigh more than fat. Muscle does take up less space...but it is the glycogen in muscle tissue causes a possible weight gain when you are developing muscle.
  • StonesUnturned
    StonesUnturned Posts: 94 Member
    I find the activities with an associated speed aren't too bad for estimated burn (running 5.2 mph or biking 10-12 mph, for example). But for general things like "elliptical" or an hour playing a particular sport, when there is no way to quantitatively determine your intensity relative to what the site assumes, they tend to be high. The discrepancy with the elliptical, in particular is huge. The number on the machine can be about 200 while the number MFP estimates is 460. Now that I've been on a while, I adjust the calories based on how hard I feel I've worked and a little bit of trial and error using my weight as feedback. Good luck.
  • rockstargrad
    rockstargrad Posts: 25 Member
    MFP absolutely overestimates. If you're on a machine, use that number and if you're doing something like say dancing, use a HRM. A HRM alone is not going to be the most accurate because it doesn't know the difference between speed walking and the elliptical with a lot of resistance but it is certainly more accurate than MFP. I agree when it comes to things like walking or running with a set mph, MFP tends to be spot on with my HRM.
  • joshheyfred
    joshheyfred Posts: 1 Member
    Of course you can gain muscle in a calorie deficit. Your body will use stored fat to make up the calorie deficit you've created. Your stored fat will be converted into a sugar and transported to your muscles. A calorie deficit diet needs to have the correct carbs, proteins, and amino acids to build muscle; but as far as energy is concerned....if you’re somewhat fat…..you got plenty, literally hanging all around you…..and it can be used….that’s what it’s there for.

    Once you're in shape and no longer have reserves of stored fat, it will be much more important to eat what your body needs in calories. Remember, calories are only a measurement of energy (1 Cal = 4.2 joules). It doesn't matter where you get your energy from because all of it has to be converted into usable sugars; however, all foods are not created equal....nutrient dense food has benefits not pertaining to weight loss.

    Don't listen to body builders, trainers, nutritionist...etc. Listen to your doctor and scientists. The people at the gym are usually wrong....it's confusing because they look great; but the reason they look great, is because they exercise a lot and don't eat too much.....

    Everything else is bologna concerning weight loss.
  • rproko
    rproko Posts: 1 Member
    In my opinion, if I actually expended 400 calories and the MFP estimate was 600, THAT would be "over-estimating". Yesterday, my fitness monitor claimed that I climbed 21 staircases (it was actually only 4) and that my total exercise calories amounted to 1782 for the day. The correct value would be in the 300 to 500 range. This is just plain WRONG - not an overestimate or inaccuracy.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    rockstargrad wrote: »
    MFP absolutely overestimates. If you're on a machine, use that number and if you're doing something like say dancing, use a HRM. A HRM alone is not going to be the most accurate because it doesn't know the difference between speed walking and the elliptical with a lot of resistance but it is certainly more accurate than MFP. I agree when it comes to things like walking or running with a set mph, MFP tends to be spot on with my HRM.

    Machines overestimate greatly too. I'd eat back half.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories