Beware "eating" your exercise calories!!
Options
Replies
-
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.
PREACH!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.
Yes, if you're doing a long distance race or something like it, by all means, replenish! I've run two marathons myself and GAINED weight during them because you simply need the refueling calories. And, as we all know, it's not a one size fits all endeavor. It's best to experiment and go with what works for you. I should also have mentioned that while I do not eat back exercise calories, I do enjoy 1 cheat day per week (yes DAY not MEAL). I do go a little overboard and bingey that day. I don't think I'm eating back every exercise calorie (that would be cray), but I do probably eat a percentage of it. I don't track that day, so I don't know.
0 -
It's much safer if you're trying to lose weight - to underestimate workout burns and over estimate food burns.
If you're gaining- underestimate food- and over estimate burns.
If you're just training to perform- it's much less of an issue.
I ultimately switched to TDEE- much happier. Much less guessing and much less working out to pay for food situations.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.
but that is how mfp is set up3dogsrunning wrote: »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?
I set up my profile with my age, height, weight, goal ( maintain weight), and activity level (I put active). I don't log my exercise because I do a lot of circuit and hiit training and I don't see how I can correctly input it. The suggested calorie intake for me is like 2230, but I manually brought that down to 1900 based on how satiated I feel. I used to input an exercise activity here and there, but I noticed my calorie allotment for that day would then jump up. I normally don't eat back those calories (except, as I mentioned in my last post, I do have 1 day where I don't track and cheat). So am I misunderstanding? My understanding is that MFP is giving me a higher calorie limit b/c I said I had an "active" lifestyle, but then when I input exercise it increases the calories I'm allowed that day. Maybe I don't get it! Lol.0 -
It's always good to check different sources. They're all estimates. I think I read that the VO2 max test is the most accurate, but most of us won't have access to that type of equipment. Every body is different, as are the minds that operate those bodies. You have to do what works within the confines of your own body type and personality.
Personally, I like working with numbers. It motivates me. So I check multiple sources and try to pick a conservative estimate. I know that the differences probably don't amount to much. In the example given by the OP, a 400 calorie variance could result in a little over a tenth of a pound in a week. If someone is monitoring their weight, such a small difference shouldn't create too much difficulty.
In case anybody is interested, I made a calculator based on the Compendium of Physical Activities (https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories). This was research done in part by ASU and the National Cancer Institute. I'm not saying this is any more accurate than any of the other methods, but at least its theories and methods are documented. It is available on a public google spreadsheet at the link below.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiRztSbbujdldDRmWUJuN29RRDI4UVlxbXp4dWdzUkE#gid=0
PS - If you do check out the calculator, please try to follow the instructions. The spreadsheet is easily corruptible.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.
but that is how mfp is set up3dogsrunning wrote: »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?
I set up my profile with my age, height, weight, goal ( maintain weight), and activity level (I put active). I don't log my exercise because I do a lot of circuit and hiit training and I don't see how I can correctly input it. The suggested calorie intake for me is like 2230, but I manually brought that down to 1900 based on how satiated I feel. I used to input an exercise activity here and there, but I noticed my calorie allotment for that day would then jump up. I normally don't eat back those calories (except, as I mentioned in my last post, I do have 1 day where I don't track and cheat). So am I misunderstanding? My understanding is that MFP is giving me a higher calorie limit b/c I said I had an "active" lifestyle, but then when I input exercise it increases the calories I'm allowed that day. Maybe I don't get it! Lol.
Yes you are misunderstanding. The lifestyle input is not meant to encompass exercise. It is for non-exercise activity.0 -
This is why I hardly ever log my workouts, and almost never eat the calories back.... I think the numbers are a bit off..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.
but that is how mfp is set up3dogsrunning wrote: »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?
I set up my profile with my age, height, weight, goal ( maintain weight), and activity level (I put active). I don't log my exercise because I do a lot of circuit and hiit training and I don't see how I can correctly input it. The suggested calorie intake for me is like 2230, but I manually brought that down to 1900 based on how satiated I feel. I used to input an exercise activity here and there, but I noticed my calorie allotment for that day would then jump up. I normally don't eat back those calories (except, as I mentioned in my last post, I do have 1 day where I don't track and cheat). So am I misunderstanding? My understanding is that MFP is giving me a higher calorie limit b/c I said I had an "active" lifestyle, but then when I input exercise it increases the calories I'm allowed that day. Maybe I don't get it! Lol.
Yes you are misunderstanding. The lifestyle input is not meant to encompass exercise. It is for non-exercise activity.
^This. And, if you have a day where you're "cheating" and not tracking, then you probably are eating back your exercise calories just all on one day of the week.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.
That is interesting because the number of calories my Polar watch gives me almost exactly corresponds with that Runners World formula. But thats weird isn't it, because if I sprinted 10 miles I would burn more calories than if I ran only just faster than a walk. But, I guess, people like me who weigh 175lbs can't generally sprint for 10 miles.
I'm trying not to eat back my exercise calories. I don't see how else I can reach my target weight, it just seems impossible. The scales barely move from one week to the next!
0 -
OK thanks for clarifications all. For me, there's gotta be that sweet freedom day to make it all worth it.
0 -
Palmeralex wrote: »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.
That is interesting because the number of calories my Polar watch gives me almost exactly corresponds with that Runners World formula. But thats weird isn't it, because if I sprinted 10 miles I would burn more calories than if I ran only just faster than a walk. But, I guess, people like me who weigh 175lbs can't generally sprint for 10 miles.
I'm trying not to eat back my exercise calories. I don't see how else I can reach my target weight, it just seems impossible. The scales barely move from one week to the next!
If you're not losing at the rate you expect then reevaluate what you're doing. Your diary has many ambiguous entries such as a cup of rice and one serving of lamb. You could easily be eating more than you think. Some folks do well without weighing their food but when you're having issues, it's a great thing to do if only for a few weeks to see what you're really eating.0 -
and generally, people recommend only eating 75-50% the calories back
After browsing through the forums for a while, I see people saying that, and I think that's very sensible - but why doesn't MFP set it up like that in the first place? Not all users spend time searching the forums for how to use the site!0 -
When I've used the MFP goal, rather than TDEE, I've always eaten all of my exercise calories and have lost weight at, or faster than, the rate I chose in my goals. I also choose lightly active rather than sedentary even though my day job is an 8-5 sit in front of a computer all day job. I even use *gasp* the strength training entry and eat all of those calories.
Again, it's all an estimate. Start with the stock numbers, observe the results after a few weeks, and change from there.
Same here, and I use a FitBit and eat back my FitBit calories. I figure there has to be somebody who's average.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.
No, I'm saying who knows what MFP based their numbers on, at least I know how the other numbers were determined - through experimentally testing the oxygen consumed by a decent number of both men and women. Nothing easily portable accurately accounts for things like population variances and differences in terrain. I only mention it so no one thinks that those calculations are necessarily the end-all-be-all either.
Accuracy, or at least not erring on the high side, becomes more important when your deficit is small or if you exercise a lot. That 20% difference? Not such a big deal if you run short distances and/or have a decent deficit to absorb it. What's an extra 60 or so cals, right? Bigger deal when you run long distances like I was (and am working back into). It meant an extra 150-300 cals per run, and I run 5 days a week. Now I'm looking at training for a marathon, so you can about double those numbers for the last couple of months. Unacceptable.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.
No, I'm saying who knows what MFP based their numbers on, at least I know how the other numbers were determined - through experimentally testing the oxygen consumed by a decent number of both men and women. Nothing easily portable accurately accounts for things like population variances and differences in terrain. I only mention it so no one thinks that those calculations are necessarily the end-all-be-all either.
Accuracy, or at least not erring on the high side, becomes more important when your deficit is small or if you exercise a lot. That 20% difference? Not such a big deal if you run short distances and/or have a decent deficit to absorb it. What's an extra 60 or so cals, right? Bigger deal when you run long distances like I was (and am working back into). It meant an extra 150-300 cals per run, and I run 5 days a week. Now I'm looking at training for a marathon, so you can about double those numbers for the last couple of months. Unacceptable.
Just answering the bolded part. MFP uses the standard MET formula for calories burned.0 -
No, I'm saying who knows what MFP based their numbers on
http://www.juststand.org/portals/3/literature/compendium-of-physical-activities.pdf0 -
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.
No, I'm saying who knows what MFP based their numbers on, at least I know how the other numbers were determined - through experimentally testing the oxygen consumed by a decent number of both men and women. Nothing easily portable accurately accounts for things like population variances and differences in terrain. I only mention it so no one thinks that those calculations are necessarily the end-all-be-all either.
Accuracy, or at least not erring on the high side, becomes more important when your deficit is small or if you exercise a lot. That 20% difference? Not such a big deal if you run short distances and/or have a decent deficit to absorb it. What's an extra 60 or so cals, right? Bigger deal when you run long distances like I was (and am working back into). It meant an extra 150-300 cals per run, and I run 5 days a week. Now I'm looking at training for a marathon, so you can about double those numbers for the last couple of months. Unacceptable.
Just answering the bolded part. MFP uses the standard MET formula for calories burned.
Is that based on samples of men only? I read here once that women might do well to be a little suss of those numbers, any basis to that?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.
No, I'm saying who knows what MFP based their numbers on, at least I know how the other numbers were determined - through experimentally testing the oxygen consumed by a decent number of both men and women. Nothing easily portable accurately accounts for things like population variances and differences in terrain. I only mention it so no one thinks that those calculations are necessarily the end-all-be-all either.
Accuracy, or at least not erring on the high side, becomes more important when your deficit is small or if you exercise a lot. That 20% difference? Not such a big deal if you run short distances and/or have a decent deficit to absorb it. What's an extra 60 or so cals, right? Bigger deal when you run long distances like I was (and am working back into). It meant an extra 150-300 cals per run, and I run 5 days a week. Now I'm looking at training for a marathon, so you can about double those numbers for the last couple of months. Unacceptable.
Yeah for sure, also if you physically *can't* create a huge deficit through exercise. Like I've read that the numbers for the elliptical can be off by 40% - that's a lot!! Esp when your target is a loss of like 200-300 calories.0 -
makemybodysing wrote: »and generally, people recommend only eating 75-50% the calories back
After browsing through the forums for a while, I see people saying that, and I think that's very sensible - but why doesn't MFP set it up like that in the first place? Not all users spend time searching the forums for how to use the site!
they base it off of this I believe
http://www.juststand.org/portals/3/literature/compendium-of-physical-activities.pdf
0 -
Right. And as with any testing method, the closer any individual person is to the test's "average person", and the more closely their activity mimics the activity being tested, the closer the numbers will be for that individual. It doesn't make that estimate any more or less accurate as a whole, it just makes it more accurate for a specific type of person doing a specific type of workout.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.
No, I'm saying who knows what MFP based their numbers on, at least I know how the other numbers were determined - through experimentally testing the oxygen consumed by a decent number of both men and women. Nothing easily portable accurately accounts for things like population variances and differences in terrain. I only mention it so no one thinks that those calculations are necessarily the end-all-be-all either.
It's also not such a big deal if you have a similar margin for error when estimating calories consumed. Or when estimating BMR cals.Accuracy, or at least not erring on the high side, becomes more important when your deficit is small or if you exercise a lot. That 20% difference? Not such a big deal if you run short distances and/or have a decent deficit to absorb it. What's an extra 60 or so cals, right? Bigger deal when you run long distances like I was (and am working back into). It meant an extra 150-300 cals per run, and I run 5 days a week. Now I'm looking at training for a marathon, so you can about double those numbers for the last couple of months. Unacceptable.
And I'm still curious how you know the formula posted by the paper is more accurate than any other method. What is accuracy? How is that measured? For all of us normal people, accurate is when your expected results match your actual results, and there are a zillion factors that can influence that.
Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight (though I do feel kind of argumentative today, which is probably why I keep coming back to this thread). Looking at the bigger picture, it sounds like you know what you're talking about. Maybe it's a pet peeve of mine, but I just hate the idea that people run around trying to be accurate, and when things don't work out the way they think they should, they blame the process. What they need to know from the start is that the foundation is inherently fuzzy because EVERYTHING is based on estimates that could be fairly close or wildly off.
For as much as I want the math to line up all nice and neat, it's rarely that simple.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions