HELP? I don't understand?

zgaa2014
zgaa2014 Posts: 2
in Getting Started
ok so my calorie goal is 1410. and today I ate 1383 and I exercised and burned 325, so its saying I ate or my net is 1058. Ok so why can you eat more calories when you just burned them off by exercising? doesn't that defeat the purpose? Yes, I know exercising is good for you.

Next question is. on my food chart it says I ate 1383 but my daily goal is 1735. I don't understand why on there it is different? shouldn't it say your daily goal is 1410 like my home page dose?

Replies

  • Mandi98U
    Mandi98U Posts: 115 Member
    You don't have to eat that in fact some a fair amount of people don't eat back their calories that is just say going you could eat that
  • higgins8283801
    higgins8283801 Posts: 844 Member
    Because 1200 is already a pretty big deficit for most people.

    1200 is the minimum a woman can eat for her body to function appropriately

    Since 1200 is a deficit, you will lose weight, exercise or not.

    Eating back ensures you're still getting the minimum number of calories needed.
  • higgins8283801
    higgins8283801 Posts: 844 Member
    You don't have to eat that in fact some a fair amount of people don't eat back their calories that is just say going you could eat that

    I'm pretty sure most on 1200 calorie diets are eating them back or are not counting right and are getting more calories than they think.
  • BombshellPhoenix
    BombshellPhoenix Posts: 1,693 Member
    Your body burns calories by just being alive. If you've set yourself up for sedentary activity level, this means you sit in bed all day and do nothing.

    1200 calories is pretty aggressive for most people. So, if you were to exercise, you're burning more calories than the aggressive deficit you already have in place. Your aim would be to eat back those calories you burn and fuel your body properly.

    The larger of a deficit you create, the more likely you are to jeopardize muscle along with fat, rather than minimizing muscle loss by picking a less aggressive deficit. I lost 53 lbs eating around 1650 net. So, most days I'd eat closer to 1900.
  • zgaa2014
    zgaa2014 Posts: 2
    Thank you all so much I get it now.
  • mymodernbabylon
    mymodernbabylon Posts: 1,038 Member
    MFP sets up a deficit WITHOUT exercise, so when you exercise, you need to eat back some of those calories (many people eat back 1/2). If you don't eat back the calories, you can set yourself up to having too deep a deficit and thus not getting the nutrients that you need.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    Dealing with net calories and eating back excercise calories would only confuse me, so I just enter what I eat every day and enter my weight once a week. Works perfectly.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    Most people only eat back half the exercise calories, as it allows room for miscalculations. Remember MFP often over estimates on calories burned and people often underestimate calories consumed.
  • AskTracyAnnK28
    AskTracyAnnK28 Posts: 2,817 Member

    1200 calories is pretty aggressive for most people. So, if you were to exercise, you're burning more calories than the aggressive deficit you already have in place. Your aim would be to eat back those calories you burn and fuel your body properly.

    Since I don't have a lot of time to work out like I should, this is why I stick with 1200 calories.
  • gabrielleelliott90
    gabrielleelliott90 Posts: 854 Member
    No it does not defeat the purpose. If you were to eat 1058 that wouldn't be healthy, you have to eat at least 1200 for your body to live on. 1058 would be starving yourself. Hence why when you exercise you have to eat it back. Many people just exercise to burn off calories so they can eat more. Some people do it when they have overeaten just to get back to their calorie goal. I always eat back my calories as I eat 1200.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    ok so my calorie goal is 1410. and today I ate 1383 and I exercised and burned 325, so its saying I ate or my net is 1058. Ok so why can you eat more calories when you just burned them off by exercising? doesn't that defeat the purpose? Yes, I know exercising is good for you.

    Next question is. on my food chart it says I ate 1383 but my daily goal is 1735. I don't understand why on there it is different? shouldn't it say your daily goal is 1410 like my home page dose?

    MFP calculates the deficit for your weekly loss goal without factoring in exercise. If you want to lose one pound per week, that deficit is 3500 calories for the week. When you exercise, MFP adds the needed calories back to keep the equation in balance and keep you on path for that one pound per week loss. The biggest problem isn't if people eat back those calories or not ... it is if they accurately log or not. Underestimation of intake coupled with overestimation of exercise burns is quite common on MFP. People claim to eat 1200 net calories and burn 500+ through exercise when in reality they eat 1400+ and burn under 200 ... essentially eating back their exercise calories unintentionally then consuming more based on inaccurate logging.

    When a person who admits to netting around 700 total calories per day is saying you don't have to eat back exercise calories ... take that advice for what it's worth considering the unhealthy behavior of the person offering it.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    I honestly don't like how they have that set up cause then it makes people think they should eat more. you should keep your eye on how much you actually have eaten and how much exercise you have done. your net intake shouldn't go over your goal. its kind of stupid the way it is worded and displayed. if you eat back all the calories you burned and your goal you won't lose as fast or at all for some. I have had days where I have had negative calorie intake from the difference in what I ate and exercise. find a balance that works for you just remember though eating back what you burn isn't really helpful. good luck on your weight loss goals!

    Umm ... if you exercise you should eat more than if you don't exercise. It's basic fueling. If you only eat back the calories you burn from exercise, you then hit your net caloric goal. The fact you somehow managed negative net calories is revealing.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    ok so my calorie goal is 1410. and today I ate 1383 and I exercised and burned 325, so its saying I ate or my net is 1058. Ok so why can you eat more calories when you just burned them off by exercising? doesn't that defeat the purpose? Yes, I know exercising is good for you.

    Next question is. on my food chart it says I ate 1383 but my daily goal is 1735. I don't understand why on there it is different? shouldn't it say your daily goal is 1410 like my home page dose?

    First, your NET calories are the amount of calories your body has taken in today. It subtracts your exercise because those are calories you've used up and your body is not getting those calories because you've spent them on exercise. MFP is set up to give you a deficit to lose a pound a week, or two pounds, or whatever your goal is. It has already subtracted the calories to enable you to lose this weight. If you don't eat your exercise calories, you're not going to be feeding your body enough to maintain it properly. There will be times when you are extremely glad you have those exercise calories to eat back.
    Next, the food chart shows your new higher goal because it has changed due to the exercise. If it's saying your goal is 1735, then that is how many calories total you should consume to Net your 1383.

    Gross calories consumed - Calories burned via exercise = NET calories for the day.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    I honestly don't like how they have that set up cause then it makes people think they should eat more.

    I'm the same, it depends on personal psychology. I see many people exercising to "get more food" which for me is just a waste of time and probably money. If I do a bit of exercise I tend to bank the benefit for weight loss, not stick my head in the trough.
  • happyfeetrebel1
    happyfeetrebel1 Posts: 1,005 Member
    Because 1200 is already a pretty big deficit for most people.

    1200 is the minimum a woman can eat for her body to function appropriately
    .

    Eating back ensures you're still getting the minimum number of calories needed.

    Edited because my first response sounded snippy and it wasn't meant to be.
  • Chezzie84
    Chezzie84 Posts: 873 Member
    I honestly don't like how they have that set up cause then it makes people think they should eat more.

    I'm the same, it depends on personal psychology. I see many people exercising to "get more food" which for me is just a waste of time and probably money. If I do a bit of exercise I tend to bank the benefit for weight loss, not stick my head in the trough.

    So what your saying is that on someone who runs 10 miles a day should eat the same as a couch potato if their calorie goal is the same?
    That's a bit like saying I am going to put 5 litres of fuel in my car to do 2 miles but not anymore than that to do 25. Its a waste of time and money!!!
  • mandimahoney5
    mandimahoney5 Posts: 93
    That doesn't seam correct to me. From talking to a doc and a personal trainer the info I got, was eat my set calorie goal. Try not to eat my exercise calories.
    Your car example doesn't work. A car doesn't have extra fuel hidden else where besides the tank like a person does.
    After my body burns it's 1300 daily calorie goal, it then goes to my reserves of fat, it will break that fat down and use it as fuel. This is what you want.
    I honestly don't like how they have that set up cause then it makes people think they should eat more.

    I'm the same, it depends on personal psychology. I see many people exercising to "get more food" which for me is just a waste of time and probably money. If I do a bit of exercise I tend to bank the benefit for weight loss, not stick my head in the trough.

    So what your saying is that on someone who runs 10 miles a day should eat the same as a couch potato if their calorie goal is the same?
    That's a bit like saying I am going to put 5 litres of fuel in my car to do 2 miles but not anymore than that to do 25. Its a waste of time and money!!!
  • Chezzie84
    Chezzie84 Posts: 873 Member
    MFP has you at a deficit anyway to lose weight without exercising.
    So if you consume 1200 calories and burn 500 that's a consumption of 700 calories after exercise.
    So in order to bring your calories back to what is reccommended as a safe level you eat some back.

    My point was the more you do, the more fuel you need to give your body in order to do it. Maybe the car analogy was not strictly 100% but you get the drift.
  • 5stringjeff
    5stringjeff Posts: 790 Member
    ok so my calorie goal is 1410. and today I ate 1383 and I exercised and burned 325, so its saying I ate or my net is 1058. Ok so why can you eat more calories when you just burned them off by exercising? doesn't that defeat the purpose? Yes, I know exercising is good for you.

    Next question is. on my food chart it says I ate 1383 but my daily goal is 1735. I don't understand why on there it is different? shouldn't it say your daily goal is 1410 like my home page dose?

    MFP is based on net caloric intake per day.

    If your daily calorie goal is 1410, and you do no exercise, then eat 1410 calories.

    If your daily calorie goal is 1410 and you burn 325 calories, your new calorie goal for that day is 1410 + 325 = 1735. So eat 1735 calorie that day - 1410 for what you would normally eat, plus the 325 to fuel your body for the workout you had. (As others have mentioned, MFP tends to overestimate the number of exercise calories burned, so you may choose to eat back fewer than the 325 calories).
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    That doesn't seam correct to me. From talking to a doc and a personal trainer the info I got, was eat my set calorie goal. Try not to eat my exercise calories.
    Your car example doesn't work. A car doesn't have extra fuel hidden else where besides the tank like a person does.
    After my body burns it's 1300 daily calorie goal, it then goes to my reserves of fat, it will break that fat down and use it as fuel. This is what you want.
    I honestly don't like how they have that set up cause then it makes people think they should eat more.

    I'm the same, it depends on personal psychology. I see many people exercising to "get more food" which for me is just a waste of time and probably money. If I do a bit of exercise I tend to bank the benefit for weight loss, not stick my head in the trough.

    So what your saying is that on someone who runs 10 miles a day should eat the same as a couch potato if their calorie goal is the same?
    That's a bit like saying I am going to put 5 litres of fuel in my car to do 2 miles but not anymore than that to do 25. Its a waste of time and money!!!

    Were the doc and trainer discussing NEAT or TDEE calories? It matters. One includes exercise, the other doesn't (hence, NON EXERCISE Activity Thermogenesis)
  • Chezzie84
    Chezzie84 Posts: 873 Member
    That doesn't seam correct to me. From talking to a doc and a personal trainer the info I got, was eat my set calorie goal. Try not to eat my exercise calories.
    Your car example doesn't work. A car doesn't have extra fuel hidden else where besides the tank like a person does.
    After my body burns it's 1300 daily calorie goal, it then goes to my reserves of fat, it will break that fat down and use it as fuel. This is what you want.
    I honestly don't like how they have that set up cause then it makes people think they should eat more.

    I'm the same, it depends on personal psychology. I see many people exercising to "get more food" which for me is just a waste of time and probably money. If I do a bit of exercise I tend to bank the benefit for weight loss, not stick my head in the trough.

    So what your saying is that on someone who runs 10 miles a day should eat the same as a couch potato if their calorie goal is the same?
    That's a bit like saying I am going to put 5 litres of fuel in my car to do 2 miles but not anymore than that to do 25. Its a waste of time and money!!!

    Were the doc and trainer discussing NEAT or TDEE calories? It matters. One includes exercise, the other doesn't (hence, NON EXERCISE Activity Thermogenesis)

    Since nobody mentioned either. We can only assume that the MFP way, is the way it is being done.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    That doesn't seam correct to me. From talking to a doc and a personal trainer the info I got, was eat my set calorie goal. Try not to eat my exercise calories.
    Your car example doesn't work. A car doesn't have extra fuel hidden else where besides the tank like a person does.
    After my body burns it's 1300 daily calorie goal, it then goes to my reserves of fat, it will break that fat down and use it as fuel. This is what you want.
    I honestly don't like how they have that set up cause then it makes people think they should eat more.

    I'm the same, it depends on personal psychology. I see many people exercising to "get more food" which for me is just a waste of time and probably money. If I do a bit of exercise I tend to bank the benefit for weight loss, not stick my head in the trough.

    So what your saying is that on someone who runs 10 miles a day should eat the same as a couch potato if their calorie goal is the same?
    That's a bit like saying I am going to put 5 litres of fuel in my car to do 2 miles but not anymore than that to do 25. Its a waste of time and money!!!

    Were the doc and trainer discussing NEAT or TDEE calories? It matters. One includes exercise, the other doesn't (hence, NON EXERCISE Activity Thermogenesis)

    Since nobody mentioned either. We can only assume that the MFP way, is the way it is being done.

    No, one could ask for clarification since the techniques are so different. NEAT is not the default system for expressing metabolic rates and associated caloric burn.

Categories