Confused about calorie adjustment after getting a fitness tracker.
Sunny_Bunny_
Posts: 7,140 Member
I had been using my iPhone as my step tracker and any calories burned from steps would always give extra calories to eat which I typically wouldn't but I could still see what I earned each day and I liked that.
I got a great deal on a Jawbone Up 24 fitness band and upon syncing it I was no longer seeing any calorie burn from steps at all. It would show 0. So I enabled the negative calorie adjustment setting thinking it would go back to function the same as before but it actually takes away the burned calories from my goal which is already a deficit, and I want to count on having the same amount of calories every day but also know what the calorie burn is.
This seems flawed somehow. Why would exercise take calories away from your set goal? That doesn't make sense to me.
Here's what it looks like.
I got a great deal on a Jawbone Up 24 fitness band and upon syncing it I was no longer seeing any calorie burn from steps at all. It would show 0. So I enabled the negative calorie adjustment setting thinking it would go back to function the same as before but it actually takes away the burned calories from my goal which is already a deficit, and I want to count on having the same amount of calories every day but also know what the calorie burn is.
This seems flawed somehow. Why would exercise take calories away from your set goal? That doesn't make sense to me.
Here's what it looks like.
0
Replies
-
I have a Fitbit. It does the negative calorie thing to me as well, but Fitbit keeps tracks of calories all day long; they increase as it gets closer to midnight and if I am more active, so I might not see a deduction until late that evening if I haven't taken many steps. Does the Jawbone not do this?
Also, in the MFP app under settings, make sure your step counter is set to Jawbone. Mine seemed to work better after I did that.
0 -
chaoticdreams wrote: »I have a Fitbit. It does the negative calorie thing to me as well, but Fitbit keeps tracks of calories all day long; they increase as it gets closer to midnight and if I am more active, so I might not see a deduction until late that evening if I haven't taken many steps. Does the Jawbone not do this?
Also, in the MFP app under settings, make sure your step counter is set to Jawbone. Mine seemed to work better after I did that.
This is what Jawbone shows me. It's getting this info from MFP.
I just can't figure out why it's deducting exercise calories as if they are calories I have eaten.0 -
I have a fitbit also, and in the morning it shows -150ish calories but as the day progresses and I go for a walk in the afternoon the number changes to a +
I used to have a Jawbone UP but got rid of it as I could never get it to work properly with MFP even with months of trying EVERYTHING. Good luck.0 -
Oh boy. Well, I can't beat the price! At $19 when it still sells for about $50 or more on Amazon, as long as this is the only major hiccup, I think I can live with it.
I guess the best thing for me to do is leave all calorie adjustments off. I don't eat back those calories anyway.0 -
My Fitbit seems to work properly with MFP, so this made me curious. After considering the variables, the one thing that crossed my mind was that my MFP activity level is set at the lowest level. I wonder if it subtracts calories if you aren't hitting what MFP "thinks" your steps should be for the activity level you set on MFP?0
-
jayne12469 wrote: »My Fitbit seems to work properly with MFP, so this made me curious. After considering the variables, the one thing that crossed my mind was that my MFP activity level is set at the lowest level. I wonder if it subtracts calories if you aren't hitting what MFP "thinks" your steps should be for the activity level you set on MFP?
Is there a "coma" level? Lol
I have it set to sedentary.
I am totally confused. I may have to send the question in to MFP and see what they say.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Is there a "coma" level? Lol
I have it set to sedentary.
I am totally confused. I may have to send the question in to MFP and see what they say.
I thought I was the only one who was looking for that "coma" level...LOL!0 -
How many steps had the activity tracker said you had taken at that point? Any less than about 1300 and MFP shows a negative number for me (using a fitbit and both fitbit and MFP set to sedentary).
I'm not sure what the threshold is for the brand you have, maybe quickly jog 500 steps on the spot then see what the number says on MFP for eexercise calories?
The negative amount is normal if you haven't moved much. There are more complex calculations that go on with activity trackers, I think the step trackers in phones just say "hey you moved, go eat something". The trackers we wear talk to MFP and seem to have expectations based on what each think you should have already done, and what they will predict you will do for the rest of the day.
0 -
So I went for a mike walk which gave an 88 calorie burn. The 88 calories I "earned" we're just deducted from the negative calories this is now showing.
This is so different from what I am used to. I just don't understand it.
0 -
That is right. The negative adjustment comes from the fitness tracker saying you haven't burnt as much energy as what MFP says you should have (kinda, I'm not good at explaining stuff).
I work in kilometers so miles are foreign for me, but sounds like everything is working correctly. Is there some setting with your tracker where you can choose from sedentary, custom based on past movement or some other activity level?
It can be a bit of a rude shock that your new watch says you're far lazier than you imagined, at least that is how I felt when I got my fitbit.0 -
The "negative calories" will be there until you have enough steps to meet your activity level you have on MFP. It will subtract more of you log exercise, because it counts the exercise calories instead of the steps calories, if that makes sense.
You can disable the "negative calories" in the settings somewhere.
I use them because my mobility is limited, some days I'm on bedrest. It automatically adjusts my calorie goal to account for the inactivity, so my usual 1600 goal will drop to 1200 or so. It helps me stay on track with weight loss even when I can't exercise at all.0 -
One thing that helps is not logging activities that are also counted as steps, or logging them on MFP as only 1 calorie.
On my Fitbit, if I log an activity at the same time as it picks up steps, it disregards the step count during that time. That adds to the negative calories.0 -
That is right. The negative adjustment comes from the fitness tracker saying you haven't burnt as much energy as what MFP says you should have (kinda, I'm not good at explaining stuff).
I work in kilometers so miles are foreign for me, but sounds like everything is working correctly. Is there some setting with your tracker where you can choose from sedentary, custom based on past movement or some other activity level?
It can be a bit of a rude shock that your new watch says you're far lazier than you imagined, at least that is how I felt when I got my fitbit.
Ok. This made it make sense. And I like this better than the old way of "earning" more calories even though I didn't eat them anyway.
I was very inactive today. However, if this is what a sedentary activity level is, then they really need to have the option to choose coma! Because, I know lots and lots of people that walk waaaaay less than I do! Heck, I walked half this much just a month ago!The "negative calories" will be there until you have enough steps to meet your activity level you have on MFP. It will subtract more of you log exercise, because it counts the exercise calories instead of the steps calories, if that makes sense.
You can disable the "negative calories" in the settings somewhere.
I use them because my mobility is limited, some days I'm on bedrest. It automatically adjusts my calorie goal to account for the inactivity, so my usual 1600 goal will drop to 1200 or so. It helps me stay on track with weight loss even when I can't exercise at all.
This is making sense now. I think I will leave it on now that I understand it.
It's not adjusting my calorie goal but I think it's because I have it manually set lower than typical so it doesn't need to lower it for me.One thing that helps is not logging activities that are also counted as steps, or logging them on MFP as only 1 calorie.
On my Fitbit, if I log an activity at the same time as it picks up steps, it disregards the step count during that time. That adds to the negative calories.
I use Map My Fitness to track my walks and it is synced with the Jawbone and it appears to have adjusted the calories so that it doesn't give extra credit for the same steps. So that's good.
It does appear now that all is working correctly.
Thanks so much for clearing it all up for me.0 -
How many steps did you manage in total? I think sedentary can mean different things to different people (and devices). My grandma has a fitbit, she manages about 500-1000 steps at the most (has rheumatoid arthritis), to her 1500 would be an exhausting day. For me a bad day would be under 10,000 steps. My best was just over 30,000.
I'm set to sedentary with fitbit and MFP and get a whopping 1200kcal base to eat, I only need to do about 1,300 steps before the negative adjustment goes away. I do that that getting up, toileting and getting breakfast for everyone before 6am and helping my other half get ready for work.
When I first got my fitbit I was pretty tired at 8,000 steps, and over 12,000 left my legs throbbing!
I work in kilojoules but as a rough conversion, todays activity has earned about 653kcal, which is about 14,000 steps. I'm short but heavy so I suppose that earns more, I don't know. It's about 3pm here and I am hoping to reach 22,000 by bedtime.
I don't eat all the adjustments back, too nervous to!
This link is MFP's way of trying to answer your questions, I just found it when looking for something else: http://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/1084232-what-is-the-calorie-adjustment-in-my-exercise-diary?article_id=1084232-what-is-the-calorie-adjustment-in-my-exercise-diary0 -
I have in 6300 and still have a negative adjustment. There doesn't seem to be anything in Jawbone Up that asks for activity level. Shouldn't it figure that out on its own?0
-
I have a fitbit, which I started using in June 2013. I bought it because I had no idea what my total daily energy expended (TDEE=daily burn) was, which you need in order to subtract the deficit cals (-500 or -250, say) to calculate how many to eat per day to lose weight. So at first I ate back all my exercise calories and didn't lose quickly. I thought I was sedentary but soon fitbit showed I am moderately active.
Finally, after six months, I checked the average of my daily burn on the fitbit -- it was 1,850 cals (which is very close to what the keto calculator had estimated, but I didn't know that before). So I subtracted 500 from that, and set my MFP max eating calories to 1350, and set MFP to ignore fitbit steps. I seldom log exercises like mat pilates or weights (no steps!). I lost a bit more that way.
After a few more months, I upped my daily cals limit by setting a narrower deficit of 250. I am still maintaining on this, not really losing unless I really up my steps and at the same time eat less.
tl;dr: Easy way: Figure out your daily burn, subtract a deficit, and stick with that calorie limit. Turn off the feedback to MFP from your tracker (but use it to count steps and cals burned). YMMV!0 -
I think MFP gibes you credit for activity calories at the start of the day. It gives you so many for sedentary and if you don't react it, it subtracts
Fit Bit seems to give you nothing and make you earn every calorie as the day progresses
So you start out with a negative to get you to your activity level that MFP gave you credit for in advance
The calorie advance MFP gives you, Fit Bit sees that as a loan you have to pay back!!0 -
I guess I don't fully understand it after all. Maybe not the way this seems to be working anyway.
Here's how the looks at start.
The goal is manually set and the calories are taken away as I go up in steps.
I ended the day yesterday with 6330 steps and still had a negative adjustment showing.
I have MFP set to sedentary and there does not appear to be any such option for the Jawbone App. But isn't it the trackers job to decide how active a person is anyway?
In the tracker app it gives me a TDEE that does change based on activity and suggests a calorie goal but it's not aggressive enough for me. It doesn't seem to be customizable. Even my MFP goal is less than a 20% deficit, but Jawbone is giving me a couple hundred more. I wish I could manually set it in Jawbone.0 -
That is bizarre indeed! That many steps should have given you more calories to eat for sure. I would never end on a negative amount with that many steps. MFP has my goal at 1200kcal a day.
I don't know anything about jawbone but with fitbit there is a reasonable amount of information and I can choose from several different deficits.
The calories should be going up as you take steps.
So weird :-/
On a computer, what does it say if you go exercise - exercise diary - and click on the i in the blue circle thingamabob next to your trackers calorie adjustment?
You would expect to see it giving you some credit, like this: (this is from last week, I was gloating to my husband about how many calories I burnt, sorry!)
0 -
First, I don't have an activity tracker like Fitbit etc. So don't know any specifics of YOUR tracker model and relationship with MFP.
BUT. All calculators, including activity trackers use algorithms that assume everyone does some kind of movement during a day of normal living. I think the sedentary on MFP has a built in 200 kcal or so on top of BMR. It could explain your non-logical numbers. Try search on MFP for the jawbone or google it. Probably someone has encountered the same question. It also explains that if someone eats «1200» thinking this is the minimum, they might not lose weight if are bedridden
Just a caution about calorie numbers. ALL the online calculators, trackers, HR etc, are based on averages and are GUESSTIMATES. Even the nutitional values of foods (processed and unprocessed alike) can have a 10% margin of error from manufacturer. Given that the body is an open system functioning on hormonal pathways that regulate metabolism, there's simply not accurate enough tools yet to determine calorie burns. If your individual BMR deviates from standard, the numbers are off from the get-go.
So do you see the problem of believing CICO is an accurate science?
- The calorie burns are estimates
- The nutritional values of food are not reflecting what you actually eat
- The body handles the nutrients differently, based on how well your body functions, genetics, transcription factors, gut microbiome, lifestyle factors (epigenetics).
I strongly advise to not take the numbers too seriously. They're all ballparking. Meaning, we don't KNOW with precision. Even advanced methods like measuring RQ, metabolic chambers with DEXA, do not account for individual differences in handling nutrients.
Counting calories is still a tool to try achieve deficit, albeit a very imprecise one. Don't stress if the numbers are off a little bit. Too many potential sources of errors to worry over, IMO.
The only calc, that I know of, that's manually adjustable to «coma» or very, very sedentary levels, is the one made by our fellow 5:2 group leader on MFP. It's fully customizable for calorie cycling when fasting too.
www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
Good luck
Edit: inserted passage in italics. Corrected spellings and minor meanings.0 -
Foamroller wrote: »First, I don't have an activity tracker like Fitbit etc. So don't know any specifics of YOUR tracker model and relationship with MFP.
BUT. All calculators, including activity trackers use algorithms that assume everyone does some kind of movement during a day of normal living. I think the sedentary on MFP has a built in 200 kcal or so on top of BMR. It could explain your non-logical numbers. Try search on MFP for the jawbone or google it. Probably someone has encountered the same question. It also explains that if someone eats «1200» thinking this is the minimum, they might not lose weight if are bedridden
Just a caution about calorie numbers. ALL the online calculators, trackers, HR etc, are based on averages and are GUESSTIMATES. Even the nutitional values of foods (processed and unprocessed alike) can have a 10% margin of error from manufacturer. Given that the body is an open system functioning on hormonal pathways that regulate metabolism, there's simply not accurate enough tools yet to determine calorie burns. If your individual BMR deviates from standard, the numbers are off from the get-go.
So do you see the problem of believing CICO is an accurate science?
- The calorie burns are estimates
- The nutritional values of food are not reflecting what you actually eat
- The body handles the nutrients differently, based on how well your body functions, genetics, transcription factors, gut microbiome, lifestyle factors (epigenetics).
I strongly advise to not take the numbers too seriously. They're all ballparking. Meaning, we don't KNOW with precision. Even advanced methods like measuring RQ, metabolic chambers with DEXA, do not account for individual differences in handling nutrients.
Counting calories is still a tool to try achieve deficit, albeit a very imprecise one. Don't stress if the numbers are off a little bit. Too many potential sources of errors to worry over, IMO.
The only calc, that I know of, that's manually adjustable to «coma» or very, very sedentary levels, is the one made by our fellow 5:2 group leader on MFP. It's fully customizable for calorie cycling when fasting too.
www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
Good luck
Edit: inserted passage in italics. Corrected spellings and minor meanings.
Thank you. Very complete information. I do understand it's all guess work but I am a junkie for at least understanding what things are trying to do. Lol. This thing is confusing me.
@minties82 I'm going to look into the exercise settings when I'm back from running kids to school.0 -
I didn't know we could pull up that calories burned menu. Yesterday was a little busy for me, I moved a lot of books and furniture.
I'm just shocked that MFP gives me nearly 2,600 calories per day to start with. That's nice of them (and about right).
0 -
Well this seems to clear everything up. Including whether or not I should allow Map My Walk to report to MFP as well as Jawbone. It seems, hopefully I understand it, who knows, that I am not given too much credit, beyond the expected guesswork inaccuracies, for the exercise calories.
I also have MMW reporting to Jawbone and it seems to react appropriately to the calories it records on the Up App. So I think everything is working together well.0 -
Foamroller wrote: »First, I don't have an activity tracker like Fitbit etc. So don't know any specifics of YOUR tracker model and relationship with MFP.
BUT. All calculators, including activity trackers use algorithms that assume everyone does some kind of movement during a day of normal living. I think the sedentary on MFP has a built in 200 kcal or so on top of BMR. It could explain your non-logical numbers. Try search on MFP for the jawbone or google it. Probably someone has encountered the same question. It also explains that if someone eats «1200» thinking this is the minimum, they might not lose weight if are bedridden
Just a caution about calorie numbers. ALL the online calculators, trackers, HR etc, are based on averages and are GUESSTIMATES. Even the nutitional values of foods (processed and unprocessed alike) can have a 10% margin of error from manufacturer. Given that the body is an open system functioning on hormonal pathways that regulate metabolism, there's simply not accurate enough tools yet to determine calorie burns. If your individual BMR deviates from standard, the numbers are off from the get-go.
So do you see the problem of believing CICO is an accurate science?
- The calorie burns are estimates
- The nutritional values of food are not reflecting what you actually eat
- The body handles the nutrients differently, based on how well your body functions, genetics, transcription factors, gut microbiome, lifestyle factors (epigenetics).
I strongly advise to not take the numbers too seriously. They're all ballparking. Meaning, we don't KNOW with precision. Even advanced methods like measuring RQ, metabolic chambers with DEXA, do not account for individual differences in handling nutrients.
Counting calories is still a tool to try achieve deficit, albeit a very imprecise one. Don't stress if the numbers are off a little bit. Too many potential sources of errors to worry over, IMO.
The only calc, that I know of, that's manually adjustable to «coma» or very, very sedentary levels, is the one made by our fellow 5:2 group leader on MFP. It's fully customizable for calorie cycling when fasting too.
www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
Good luck
Edit: inserted passage in italics. Corrected spellings and minor meanings.
And why these days I only have so much faith in my calorie counting being accurate. I was always going, "how the heck do they know this for sure?" They don't. I can make educated guesses too LOL!
Sunnybunny - I loved MapMyWalk and was using it to start with, but stopped when I realized it wasn't meshing well with my Fitbit. I no longer get my workout posting to my feed, but I can live with that. I don't think anyone truly cared how many calories I burned or not LOL.
0 -
chaoticdreams wrote: »Foamroller wrote: »First, I don't have an activity tracker like Fitbit etc. So don't know any specifics of YOUR tracker model and relationship with MFP.
BUT. All calculators, including activity trackers use algorithms that assume everyone does some kind of movement during a day of normal living. I think the sedentary on MFP has a built in 200 kcal or so on top of BMR. It could explain your non-logical numbers. Try search on MFP for the jawbone or google it. Probably someone has encountered the same question. It also explains that if someone eats «1200» thinking this is the minimum, they might not lose weight if are bedridden
Just a caution about calorie numbers. ALL the online calculators, trackers, HR etc, are based on averages and are GUESSTIMATES. Even the nutitional values of foods (processed and unprocessed alike) can have a 10% margin of error from manufacturer. Given that the body is an open system functioning on hormonal pathways that regulate metabolism, there's simply not accurate enough tools yet to determine calorie burns. If your individual BMR deviates from standard, the numbers are off from the get-go.
So do you see the problem of believing CICO is an accurate science?
- The calorie burns are estimates
- The nutritional values of food are not reflecting what you actually eat
- The body handles the nutrients differently, based on how well your body functions, genetics, transcription factors, gut microbiome, lifestyle factors (epigenetics).
I strongly advise to not take the numbers too seriously. They're all ballparking. Meaning, we don't KNOW with precision. Even advanced methods like measuring RQ, metabolic chambers with DEXA, do not account for individual differences in handling nutrients.
Counting calories is still a tool to try achieve deficit, albeit a very imprecise one. Don't stress if the numbers are off a little bit. Too many potential sources of errors to worry over, IMO.
The only calc, that I know of, that's manually adjustable to «coma» or very, very sedentary levels, is the one made by our fellow 5:2 group leader on MFP. It's fully customizable for calorie cycling when fasting too.
www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
Good luck
Edit: inserted passage in italics. Corrected spellings and minor meanings.
And why these days I only have so much faith in my calorie counting being accurate. I was always going, "how the heck do they know this for sure?" They don't. I can make educated guesses too LOL!
Sunnybunny - I loved MapMyWalk and was using it to start with, but stopped when I realized it wasn't meshing well with my Fitbit. I no longer get my workout posting to my feed, but I can live with that. I don't think anyone truly cared how many calories I burned or not LOL.
Calories not too much... The exercise types now that's cool.
0 -
chaoticdreams wrote: »Foamroller wrote: »First, I don't have an activity tracker like Fitbit etc. So don't know any specifics of YOUR tracker model and relationship with MFP.
BUT. All calculators, including activity trackers use algorithms that assume everyone does some kind of movement during a day of normal living. I think the sedentary on MFP has a built in 200 kcal or so on top of BMR. It could explain your non-logical numbers. Try search on MFP for the jawbone or google it. Probably someone has encountered the same question. It also explains that if someone eats «1200» thinking this is the minimum, they might not lose weight if are bedridden
Just a caution about calorie numbers. ALL the online calculators, trackers, HR etc, are based on averages and are GUESSTIMATES. Even the nutitional values of foods (processed and unprocessed alike) can have a 10% margin of error from manufacturer. Given that the body is an open system functioning on hormonal pathways that regulate metabolism, there's simply not accurate enough tools yet to determine calorie burns. If your individual BMR deviates from standard, the numbers are off from the get-go.
So do you see the problem of believing CICO is an accurate science?
- The calorie burns are estimates
- The nutritional values of food are not reflecting what you actually eat
- The body handles the nutrients differently, based on how well your body functions, genetics, transcription factors, gut microbiome, lifestyle factors (epigenetics).
I strongly advise to not take the numbers too seriously. They're all ballparking. Meaning, we don't KNOW with precision. Even advanced methods like measuring RQ, metabolic chambers with DEXA, do not account for individual differences in handling nutrients.
Counting calories is still a tool to try achieve deficit, albeit a very imprecise one. Don't stress if the numbers are off a little bit. Too many potential sources of errors to worry over, IMO.
The only calc, that I know of, that's manually adjustable to «coma» or very, very sedentary levels, is the one made by our fellow 5:2 group leader on MFP. It's fully customizable for calorie cycling when fasting too.
www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
Good luck
Edit: inserted passage in italics. Corrected spellings and minor meanings.
And why these days I only have so much faith in my calorie counting being accurate. I was always going, "how the heck do they know this for sure?" They don't. I can make educated guesses too LOL!
Sunnybunny - I loved MapMyWalk and was using it to start with, but stopped when I realized it wasn't meshing well with my Fitbit. I no longer get my workout posting to my feed, but I can live with that. I don't think anyone truly cared how many calories I burned or not LOL.
Using that is seriously the only way my negative adjustment becomes positive. Even with 7000 steps and nothing reported from MMW, it would appear I didn't even move enough to be considered sedentary.0 -
Are you quite tiny? You look very slim from your profile picture. I'm trying to think of anything that could be making your jawbone think that you don't need many calories when you move...I'm 4'11" but 168lbs so pretty heavy for my height. I'm wondering how bad things would be if i were petite, I could probably get away with weighing 90lbs.
I think it's annoying to go and spend money on a device to see how well you are doing, only for it to think you don't even meet up to sedentary standards! I would be quite irritated. 7000 steps isn't sedentary.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Foamroller wrote: »First, I don't have an activity tracker like Fitbit etc. So don't know any specifics of YOUR tracker model and relationship with MFP.
BUT. All calculators, including activity trackers use algorithms that assume everyone does some kind of movement during a day of normal living. I think the sedentary on MFP has a built in 200 kcal or so on top of BMR. It could explain your non-logical numbers. Try search on MFP for the jawbone or google it. Probably someone has encountered the same question. It also explains that if someone eats «1200» thinking this is the minimum, they might not lose weight if are bedridden
Just a caution about calorie numbers. ALL the online calculators, trackers, HR etc, are based on averages and are GUESSTIMATES. Even the nutitional values of foods (processed and unprocessed alike) can have a 10% margin of error from manufacturer. Given that the body is an open system functioning on hormonal pathways that regulate metabolism, there's simply not accurate enough tools yet to determine calorie burns. If your individual BMR deviates from standard, the numbers are off from the get-go.
So do you see the problem of believing CICO is an accurate science?
- The calorie burns are estimates
- The nutritional values of food are not reflecting what you actually eat
- The body handles the nutrients differently, based on how well your body functions, genetics, transcription factors, gut microbiome, lifestyle factors (epigenetics).
I strongly advise to not take the numbers too seriously. They're all ballparking. Meaning, we don't KNOW with precision. Even advanced methods like measuring RQ, metabolic chambers with DEXA, do not account for individual differences in handling nutrients.
Counting calories is still a tool to try achieve deficit, albeit a very imprecise one. Don't stress if the numbers are off a little bit. Too many potential sources of errors to worry over, IMO.
The only calc, that I know of, that's manually adjustable to «coma» or very, very sedentary levels, is the one made by our fellow 5:2 group leader on MFP. It's fully customizable for calorie cycling when fasting too.
www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
Good luck
Edit: inserted passage in italics. Corrected spellings and minor meanings.
Thank you. Very complete information. I do understand it's all guess work but I am a junkie for at least understanding what things are trying to do. Lol. This thing is confusing me.
@minties82 I'm going to look into the exercise settings when I'm back from running kids to school.
One of the issues is understanding how MFP functions. cals =TDEE - EAT (E=exercise, the intentional kind)for MFP. So MFP works on BMR + NEAT + TEF. So for me, BMR is 1900 and my calories to maintain my weight are 2520. 2520 - 1900 =TEF + NEAT(NE=non exercise) are about 620. And TEF is higher for folks who consume carbs, higher Proteins, and Fiber. TEF(thermic effect of food) is lower for someone consuming the majority of their MACROS in fat.
In terms of approximating and food consumption the more you consume from whole foods the more accurate the calorie information. So knowing how the tool works, and what the approximations are can provide you with the knowledge needed to have a greater long term success then someone who doesn't. Hope this helps.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
One of the issues is understanding how MFP functions. cals =TDEE - EAT (E=exercise, the intentional kind)for MFP. So MFP works on BMR + NEAT + TEF. So for me, BMR is 1900 and my calories to maintain my weight are 2520. 2520 - 1900 =TEF + NEAT(NE=non exercise) are about 620. And TEF is higher for folks who consume carbs, higher Proteins, and Fiber. TEF(thermic effect of food) is lower for someone consuming the majority of their MACROS in fat.
In terms of approximating and food consumption the more you consume from whole foods the more accurate the calorie information. So knowing how the tool works, and what the approximations are can provide you with the knowledge needed to have a greater long term success then someone who doesn't. Hope this helps.
cals =TDEE - EAT (E=exercise, the intentional kind)for MFP. So MFP works on BMR + NEAT + TEF.
I don't get this.
TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). Which E= exercise? Is that what you're saying?
TDEE - Eat = calories for MFP? You lost me.
Tell me like I'm 5.0 -
TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure
I am not sure what EAT is supposed to be. TDEE should cover all your calories burned from any means.0
This discussion has been closed.