Beware "eating" your exercise calories!!
Options
Replies
-
I don't eat back any calories!! I'm at my goal weight and have stayed there for months now. I work out moderate to vigorous intensity 5-6 times per week. I don't think eating back calories should be a thing. If you're starving, give yourself a protein rich 150-200 calorie snack then cut it there. I played the exercise-more-so-you-can-eat-more game all through my 20's, and it simply does not work.
@Cevalite
How did you figure your calorie goal?0 -
First, MFPs estimates are high for pretty much everything. Yes, even running and walking. Even considering that MFP is reporting (apparently) gross and not net burns for exercise.
But, they do adjust for the weight you have currently entered (or I should say, they did before UA took over - haven't checked recently), so if you enter the correct exercise at the correct intensity at least the % overestimate is generally consistent. That's why people often eat back 50-75% of the calories burned.
I run and there's a known calculation for net calories burned based on distance and weight so I calculate my own numbers.0 -
First, MFPs estimates are high for pretty much everything. Yes, even running and walking. Even considering that MFP is reporting (apparently) gross and not net burns for exercise.
How do you know that? Is there some standard? MPF's estimates have been dead on for me - certainly within 10%.
0 -
I don't eat back any calories!! I'm at my goal weight and have stayed there for months now. I work out moderate to vigorous intensity 5-6 times per week. I don't think eating back calories should be a thing. If you're starving, give yourself a protein rich 150-200 calorie snack then cut it there. I played the exercise-more-so-you-can-eat-more game all through my 20's, and it simply does not work.
If you don't eat your calories and are eating at the goal that MFP gave you, you are eating at your maintenance level. Either your profile is set up in a way that accounts for your exercise activity level or you are eating more calories than the MFP goal or some combo of those two. It doesn't really matter, since you are happily maintaining, but when using MFP to lose weight, the deficit is calculated into the base calories. There is no need to skip eating exercise calories in order to lose weight. Some people prefer that but it's absolutely not necessary and, in many situations, it's not optimal for overall fitness.0 -
First, MFPs estimates are high for pretty much everything. Yes, even running and walking. Even considering that MFP is reporting (apparently) gross and not net burns for exercise.
How do you know that? Is there some standard? MPF's estimates have been dead on for me - certainly within 10%.
There's a published paper where they measured calorie burn for runners and for walking and came up with a standard calculation. It was summarized in an old Runner's World article runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning, but the paper does exist and the formula they reported is directly out of the paper. I checked.
Net calorie burn per mile, running: .63 x your weight in lbs.
Net calorie burn per mile, walking: .3 x your weight in lbs.
Obviously, like any standard there's going to be variances and it doesn't take changes in elevation into account. MFP puts me 20% higher than the calculation. When I'm running 10+ miles, that error wipes out my deficit. I'm short and don't have much to lose.0 -
CarlydogsMom wrote: »You can also change the calorie number manually when you select that exercise...instead of using the default, making it a bit easier to track your personal calories (rather than continually doing some math in your head).
This, I used a HRM for years and know pretty close to what I burn. If the default comes up high I manually enter what my HRM says. Also, if you only eat back half your calories, why not just enter half of the default number.
But like others have said, these are all estimates anyway. You are the one that knows your body the best. If your method isn't getting you to your goals, you're the one that has to change it.
0 -
First, MFPs estimates are high for pretty much everything. Yes, even running and walking. Even considering that MFP is reporting (apparently) gross and not net burns for exercise.
How do you know that? Is there some standard? MPF's estimates have been dead on for me - certainly within 10%.
Mine too0 -
I just checked and when I use the "running 6 mph" choice for 30 minutes (3 miles) in MFP, I get 340. When I use the calculator above (150x.63x3) I get 283.5. That's only 67 calories difference. I'm not sure how accurate/inaccurate either of those numbers are but, to me at least, that difference is pretty minor and doesn't concern me.0
-
I don't eat back any calories!! I'm at my goal weight and have stayed there for months now. I work out moderate to vigorous intensity 5-6 times per week. I don't think eating back calories should be a thing. If you're starving, give yourself a protein rich 150-200 calorie snack then cut it there. I played the exercise-more-so-you-can-eat-more game all through my 20's, and it simply does not work.
I guess it depends on what your goals are. I can guarantee that after a 4 hour training run, I'll be needing way more than a 150 calorie snack. I always eaten 1500-1700 to lose and 2000-2200 to maintain plus I eat back every exercise calorie. After 3 years on MFP including 2 years of maintaining a 100lbs loss, it's worked for me.0 -
First, MFPs estimates are high for pretty much everything. Yes, even running and walking. Even considering that MFP is reporting (apparently) gross and not net burns for exercise.
How do you know that? Is there some standard? MPF's estimates have been dead on for me - certainly within 10%.
There's a published paper where they measured calorie burn for runners and for walking and came up with a standard calculation. It was summarized in an old Runner's World article runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning, but the paper does exist and the formula they reported is directly out of the paper. I checked.
Net calorie burn per mile, running: .63 x your weight in lbs.
Net calorie burn per mile, walking: .3 x your weight in lbs.
Obviously, like any standard there's going to be variances and it doesn't take changes in elevation into account. MFP puts me 20% higher than the calculation. When I'm running 10+ miles, that error wipes out my deficit. I'm short and don't have much to lose.
So you're saying the variance that comes with MFP is unacceptable, while the variance that comes with that formula is OK?
It's all just estimates, and what might be very close for some people could be very wrong for others. People need to quit trying to be accurate and worry more about being reasonable and consistent, then accept that there is probably going to be some trial and error.0 -
That's the lesson I've learned too so I reduced my calorie intake stopped going by calories allowed on my diary when I add my workout time and go by the 1200 per day until I get my weight off.0
-
As others have said, it's trial and error. I eat back 100% of mine so my lifts don't suffer. Did not affect weight loss nor my maintenance.
Not eating any back made my workouts total crap.0 -
I eat mine back every time and still losing weight at a good speed. MFP is just an estimate, you have to end up tweaking your numbers anyways. As long as you are consistent with your numbers and ranges it will all even out.0
-
I use my own personally made ones which are pretty accurate most days i only burn 150-180 calories within 45 minutes... only a few days ill eat my exercise calories back_ .. yea and mfp exercise calculations be way off i rarely use them0
-
I have my exercise figured into my total calorie count and do use anything that get's plugged into MFP for exercise.0
-
First, MFPs estimates are high for pretty much everything. Yes, even running and walking. Even considering that MFP is reporting (apparently) gross and not net burns for exercise.
How do you know that? Is there some standard? MPF's estimates have been dead on for me - certainly within 10%.
There's a published paper where they measured calorie burn for runners and for walking and came up with a standard calculation. It was summarized in an old Runner's World article runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning, but the paper does exist and the formula they reported is directly out of the paper. I checked.
Net calorie burn per mile, running: .63 x your weight in lbs.
Net calorie burn per mile, walking: .3 x your weight in lbs.
Obviously, like any standard there's going to be variances and it doesn't take changes in elevation into account. MFP puts me 20% higher than the calculation. When I'm running 10+ miles, that error wipes out my deficit. I'm short and don't have much to lose.
It's all just estimates, and what might be very close for some people could be very wrong for others. People need to quit trying to be accurate and worry more about being reasonable and consistent, then accept that there is probably going to be some trial and error.
So much this. I don't know why people get so hung up on accuracy, when consistency is really what is going to provide you the best, most reliable, long term results.
FWIW - I always found both the MFP exercise burns as well as the estimates I get from my FitBit to be accurate enough to lead to predictable results. I eat back all the cals, was able to lose weight with this method and am now successfully maintaining.
0 -
I always ate all of mine back, at least when I was heavier. I know it over estimates for many but I think the 50-100 calories I burned from strength training but didn't log made up for an estimate that may have been too high.0
-
I just checked and when I use the "running 6 mph" choice for 30 minutes (3 miles) in MFP, I get 340. When I use the calculator above (150x.63x3) I get 283.5. That's only 67 calories difference. I'm not sure how accurate/inaccurate either of those numbers are but, to me at least, that difference is pretty minor and doesn't concern me.
Agreed. And the thing that everyone seems to forget is that you still have 23 non exercise hours to account for where mistakes get made in both activity and consumption accounting.0 -
i enter my calories manually [create new exercise every day and log what i did and calories]. i use my polar heart rate monitor.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions