Calories and exercise

Hi!
I'm just starting out as well and had the same question!
If you daily calorie intake is to be 1410 - then you keep on track with that. Don't eat extra to replace calories you've burned extra. The idea is to burn more calories then you eat everyday.
I might be wrong - (as I said I 'm just learning myself) but that is the way I understand it.

I eat back a percentage of my exercise calories. You will lose weight since you are still eating at a deficit.

Claudialane doesn't understand how MFP works either.

While true you eat less than what you burn - that is in TOTAL. After all, if a bigger deficit was better, why not just stop eating?


MFP, by your selection of non-exercise activity level (sedentary, right?) calculates a maintenance figure. Say 2000.

So you select weight loss goal, that takes calories off that figure daily. Say 1 lb loss, or 500 calories off.

Eating goal is 2000 - 500 = 1500 daily sedentary lifestyle no exercise.

But now you do some walking for 1 hr. And you burn 100 calories.

Your maintenance for the day is now actually 2000 + 100 = 2100

Remove same deficit 500 calories 2100-500 = 1600 eating goal.

Same deficit. Same eating less than what you burned daily.

That's how MFP works. Many folks get confused because first MFP isn't clear about it, though the increase in your daily goal should be rather obviously. Most are blindly following a number anyway, why not blindly follow the new number too.
Second, most other sites ask you what your PLANNED exercise is going to be, estimate what your maintenance would be on average with exercise included, and then take a deficit.

MyFitnessPal I guess is pal because to eat more, you have to exercise. But you also get the deficit whether you do or not.

And if you are walking the speeds in the exercise database flat, you are burning those calories. It's not much, true, unless you go faster.

If you're truly burning that many calories during your workout, then you definitely should be eating more than 1410 calories per day. Are you using a heart rate monitor or are you just guesstimating how much you're burning?

I'm really struggling understanding the calories I use whilst exercising, my daily cal is 1410 and today with walking and swimming I've burned 1480 calories do I need to eat those additional calories as well as my 1410 to lose weight I've lost 10 lbs in 4 weeks it's just not coming off like I thought it would pls help

Alright, a few things that I'm going to address here.

1. You say you've lost 10 pounds in 4 weeks. This is more than the 2 pounds per week that's generally considered a healthy threshold for weight loss. It's not unusual to lose more than that at the beginning of a program, but the weight is coming off at the pace it should be. It sounds like you really don't need to accelerate it.

2. Yes, the program is designed for you to eat back your exercise calories. When MFP figures your calorie goal it doesn't take exercise into account, just the activity level you entered (most people choose sedentary). It creates a calorie goal with a safe deficit built in. When you exercise, you increase that deficit, possibly larger than your body can handle. The larger the deficit, the more risk there is for muscle loss, nutrient deficiencies, etc. That's why MFP adds the calories you burn back in to keep your deficit at a safe and steady level.

3. MFP and some other calculators have a tendency to overestimate your calories burned. If you're using MFP's estimates then it's often recommended to eat back about 50-75% of your burned calories, just to be safe.

This.

And this again. And again, and again, and again.

When walking I use endomondo to track my calories which is then transferred onto mfp and that is where I get my calories from could this be a true reading or over estimated how am I best recording what my calories usage is when exercising

It's going to use the same formula from studies then that are very accurate for 2-4 mph flat.

The question will be does it have the distance correct?
Time it obviously does.

If you know the distance and time, you know the pace. You know your weight. Use current workout as example.
Use this. Gross option is what Endomondo and MFP and HRM would be reporting, NET is what you would eat back.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Curious how far and how long you walked?

I'm really struggling understanding the calories I use whilst exercising, my daily cal is 1410 and today with walking and swimming I've burned 1480 calories do I need to eat those additional calories as well as my 1410 to lose weight I've lost 10 lbs in 4 weeks it's just not coming off like I thought it would pls help

here is what I DO.... for my calorie intake LEAN BODY MASS X 14 calories = total daily calorie intake

i do 5 days of strength training, no cardio yet, but i will when i need to further calorie deficit in the last 4-6 weeks of my fatloss journey

i will record intensity of the chosen cardio and see how much calorie burn i did for that session with the intension of progressing depending on fortnightly weight result

food intake specifically carbs will be decreased progressively by 10-20 grams when plateau hits but for starters stay on the original calorie intake LBM x 14 calories.

CONSISTENTLY log all foods as close as possible to my macronutrients allowance for the day...

I GAVE MYSELF TIME...... 1 lb a week to lose so im giving myself 30 weeks to lose 30 lbs. yours might be a different timeframe GOODLUCK

When walking I use endomondo to track my calories which is then transferred onto mfp and that is where I get my calories from could this be a true reading or over estimated how am I best recording what my calories usage is when exercising

How much exercise are you doing to burn 1480? That's a huge burn and I personally can only burn over 1000 if I run 10 miles!

example on MFP overestimating,today I ran 5K my HRM said I burned 330 cal,MFP said something like 530 something..I went with my HRM..

It's different, therefore it's more accurate?

How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is


Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.

example on MFP overestimating,today I ran 5K my HRM said I burned 330 cal,MFP said something like 530 something..I went with my HRM..

It's different, therefore it's more accurate?

How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is


Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.

it was an example of the differences,,take it any way you want! I have already upped the HR zone on it because it was to low for me..I went with the lower one instead of doing the 50% of what MFP says. Again just an example! nothing more in that post.

It's different, therefore it's more accurate?

How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is


Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.

it was an example of the differences,,take it any way you want! I have already upped the HR zone on it because it was to low for me..I went with the lower one instead of doing the 50% of what MFP says. Again just an example! nothing more in that post.

Agreed!I would rather take the lower one than kid myself that I am burning more than I actually am.

But how in the world would you ever know how much you are actually burning, to even logically say you want to take the lower because you think the higher is burning more than you actually are.

Logically - that means you know exactly how much you are burning, to make that kind of statement.

Then why not just use that exact calorie burn then even the lower one.

I'm just trying to point out the illogical comments that always come along with comparison of HRM calorie estimates to MFP calories estimates - from people that have no clue where either one comes from, but are just sure the HRM is correct because it's different, and as you state, it's lower.

It's different and it's lower, therefore it's more accurate. Wow.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

I never said it was 100% accurate,did I now?I was agreeing with the poster that wrote it was just that way for her,likewise it is just that way for me!

I would start the ap on my phone and it would give me 500 calories burnt in an hour,then it would upload on MFP and be maybe another 200 added on to it.Nice figures but I didn't believe it so just changed it to what the phone said.

Now the HRM will give me maybe 320 and no I am not saying this is accurate either but I prefer to use this number as so many people recommend them on here.If I burn more then good but I prefer to have a figure rather than guessing.

It's different, therefore it's more accurate?

How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is


Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.

it was an example of the differences,,take it any way you want! I have already upped the HR zone on it because it was to low for me..I went with the lower one instead of doing the 50% of what MFP says. Again just an example! nothing more in that post.

Agreed!I would rather take the lower one than kid myself that I am burning more than I actually am.

But how in the world would you ever know how much you are actually burning, to even logically say you want to take the lower because you think the higher is burning more than you actually are.

Logically - that means you know exactly how much you are burning, to make that kind of statement.

Then why not just use that exact calorie burn then even the lower one.

I'm just trying to point out the illogical comments that always come along with comparison of HRM calorie estimates to MFP calories estimates - from people that have no clue where either one comes from, but are just sure the HRM is correct because it's different, and as you state, it's lower.

It's different and it's lower, therefore it's more accurate. Wow.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

Amazing link and info you posted on that link. But, wouldn't that make MFP, which estimates higher than a regular (aka Polar) HRM even more inaccurate? Because if Polar is .33% too high for females, or as you say in the thread, subtract 12% from your HRM amts, and err on the lower rather than higher end? BTW fascinating!!!