Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
exercise calories on or off?
lizzielynnn
Posts: 3 Member
in Debate Club
On or off?
Why or why not?
More likely to lose more weight if it's off or no? Or does having it on make you workout so you can eat more? Is that good or bad?
Just trying to get a discussion going to see different opinions
Why or why not?
More likely to lose more weight if it's off or no? Or does having it on make you workout so you can eat more? Is that good or bad?
Just trying to get a discussion going to see different opinions
2
Replies
-
MFP gave you a calorie deficit with ZERO exercise factored in. The program is designed for you to eat them back. But these numbers are estimates. Start by eating back 50% and tweaking this number up or down as weight loss progresses.
Workouts take fuel. Food is fuel.
Eating back calories is very important for some. Closer to goal we are more at risk for lean muscle loss. I strength train to help preserve existing lean muscle mass.....not fueling the workouts can defeat this.
Eating back calories is very important when you already have an aggressive weekly weight loss goal (1200 calories and not petite or elderly).....or you exercise a lot.6 -
It's not really a debate...it's the way this particular tool is designed, and fueling your fitness is very important.
Other tools and calculators include exercise in your activity level and thus account for the calories you need to perform that in your overall targets...MFP does not...you account for exercise after the fact by logging it and getting those calories to "eat back".
You just have to understand what tool you're using.
Here's the simple math...if I wanted to lose 1 Lb per week MFP would give me a target of 1900 calories meaning my estimated maintenance calories WITHOUT any exercise would be 2400. Now lets say I go on my morning ride and burn 600 calories...I can now eat 1900+600=2,500 calories and still lose that same 1 Lb per week...because my maintenance number would also move from 2400 calories to 2400+600=3000 calories and 3000-2500=500 calorie deficit still.7 -
lizzielynnn wrote: »More likely to lose more weight if it's off or no?
Yes for some people, no for others. I say no.
Exercise burns calories. This is legitimate and real. It's like how driving your car burns gas, and after you drive you have to put more gas in your car. That's just how physics works.
When you sign up for MFP it asks you what your current and goal weights are, and how quickly you want to get to your goal. Based on what you said, it tells you how many calories to eat BEFORE factoring your exercise in. If you use MFP correctly you're eating exercise calories back. But that's a digression, let's get back to the point. If you want to lose 1 pound per week, that gives you a 500 kCal/day deficit. If you go and burn another 500 kCal by running a 5K, your deficit is much higher, you're losing weight much faster than you wanted to, and that may have health risks and will almost certainly affect your ability to perform in the exercise you like, and to recover from it.
It also makes you hungrier, because hunger is your body's way of telling you you need more calories. What happens when people are too hungry for too long? They binge eat, and go over their calories. Consistency over the long term is more likely to succeed, and is healthier.
This is a pretty common misconception and I don't understand why (except that lots of apps including this one tend to over-estimate how much people burn by exercising). Would you never eat your dinner calories to lose weight faster?1 -
MFP uses the NEAT method, and as such exercise calories are supposed to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns to be inflated and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back.
See also:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/search?adv=&search=exercise+calories&title=&author=&cat=all&tags=&discussion_d=1&comment_c=1&group_group=1&within=1+day&date=
2 -
I only eat exercise calories back if I'm hungry. I don't burn that much during exercise anyway so just class it as a larger deficit.4
-
On - I eat all my exercise calories back whatever my weight goal is at the time.
Why - because I understand how both MFP and TDEE methods work. Because exercise is a normal and legitimate energy need, just like all the other energy needs of your body. Not accounting for exercise makes no more sense than not accounting for your RMR or your lifestyle.
More likely to lose more weight if it's off or no? - Yes I would lose more weight than I want to lose or lose at a more rapid rate than is sensible or healthy.
Or does having it on make you workout so you can eat more? - I workout because I enjoy it and because it's good for me. Losing weight at a sensible rate is certainly easier with a higher calorie goal. Feels far less restrictive.
Is that good or bad? - What proportion of people would you estimate should do less exercise?
3 -
I like seeing my exercise calories even if I don't eat them. It's like having a reward at the end of the night knowing that I COULD eat more calories and stay within goal but I'm not.7
-
Mine is on for cardio but I don't add for weight training. I do this because MFP uses the NEAT method so it's part of the design and for whatever reason the numbers seem to work pretty well for me even if I cheat some (which means of course that my TDEE is in excess of what the NEAT and calorie burn estimates for me and that could possibly due to the fact that I don't add a calorie burn for weight training). I want to lose weight at the rate I choose, not faster, in order to preserve as much muscle mass and strength as I can. And, I like the mental break of cheating a little at times.1
-
I ate mine while losing and eat them while maintaining.
If I didn't I would probably be a skinny-fat, shrivelled up, teeny-tiny old woman with weak bones, no muscle, and only have the energy to sit on the couch watching TV all day.
To me that is not a life, it is an existence.
I need my calories from exercise so my exercise does not take energy from my day to day activities.
I find MFP's NEAT works well when my exercise is sporadic, off site TDEE when I am following a set routine.
I am small, and old enough that 1200 cals plus my exercise calories, about 150-200 per hr, meant that the last few pounds were lost at 1lbs every 6 weeks. Slow, heck yes, but I reached my goal strong, fit, healthy, and with a lifestyle I could sustain.
Cheers, h.
10 -
I've read that it is an 80/20 ratio. 80% what you eat and 20% exercise.0
-
IF using TDEE, exercise off. If following MFP's NEAT, its on!
A person can certainly choose not to eat back exercise calories using MFP. To create the best outcome for energy balance, eating some of them is a wise choice. If you train then this becomes more important other than just weight loss.1 -
lizzielynnn wrote: »On or off?
Why or why not?
On. I want to be strong and healthy, not just skinny. I do NEAT method (my activities depend on weather, and weather is unpredictable).
If it's off, when you're doing NEAT, and you exercise hard, it's going to be tougher to stay strong and feel great . . . maybe impossible.
At my age, 60, and female, it's bleepin' hard to regain lost muscle, so I didn't want to lose more than the absolute minimum of muscle, while losing weight. So I need to work out, fuel my workouts, and keep my deficit reasonable.More likely to lose more weight if it's off or no?
Varies.
Some people, if they get to a quite-high deficit, may also have trouble staying the long-term course (i.e., they quit) or may binge and wipe out that deficit.
Also, a higher deficit may create a higher risk of undesirable adaptive thermogenesis in the long run, making it harder to lose weight or keep weight off.
If one doesn't drop into those pitfalls, turning exercise calories off could result in faster weight loss (not 'more' weight loss, though - it's not like there's a time limit for weight loss to occur).Or does having it on make you workout so you can eat more? Is that good or bad?
I was working out long before I started losing weight - a decade or so. I was the pretty-fit fat person some people find so unimaginable.
What 'makes' me work out is that I enjoy what I do; it builds strength and energy that enhances my daily life; it improves my mood; it keeps me healthier; and, as a li'l ol' lady, it improves my odds of staying out of assisted living for as long as possible.
That said, it's a nice fringe benefit that working out lets me eat more, or that I can readily work out a little extra to keep my weight more stable while doing some special-occasion eating. Food is tasty and enjoyable!6 -
IMO, people who refuse to account for their exercise calories and under eat, are usually the same people who complain about not losing any weight or not losing it fast enough. They also don't likely understand how MFP actually works and should inquire.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
For me, I have decided to stop logging exercise and it makes me feel better about the time I spend logging calories. It makes me feel more balanced and therefor easier to stick with it. I think there are multiple right ways and it is all about finding what works for you1
-
I totally think that having exercise calories off is the way to go. I used to have mine on and eat back some of what i birned but that just made me gain so i turned it off and now im only five or six pounds from my goal weight1
-
MichelleLaree13 wrote: »For me, I have decided to stop logging exercise and it makes me feel better about the time I spend logging calories. It makes me feel more balanced and therefor easier to stick with it. I think there are multiple right ways and it is all about finding what works for you
How is paying attention to food and ignoring exercise more balanced?6 -
I don't really understand *how* people are able to disregard exercise calories.
If I went on one of my 40 mile bike rides without eating at least a few hundred extra calories -- I would have to be peeled off the road somewhere around the 20 mile mark.7 -
I don't really understand *how* people are able to disregard exercise calories.
If I went on one of my 40 mile bike rides without eating at least a few hundred extra calories -- I would have to be peeled off the road somewhere around the 20 mile mark.
I'd say a lot of them suffer with hanger and less than optimal energy.5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I don't really understand *how* people are able to disregard exercise calories.
If I went on one of my 40 mile bike rides without eating at least a few hundred extra calories -- I would have to be peeled off the road somewhere around the 20 mile mark.
I'd say a lot of them suffer with hanger and less than optimal energy.
I'd say a few of them are doing 15 minutes on the elliptical or treadmill while watching the TV, not @zamphir66's 40-mile bike ride.
Don't get me wrong, 15 minutes on the treadmill is a Good Thing . . . but not eating those calories is probably not going to have massive bad consequences, unless they're already at a pretty steep deficit. Lotta folks in these parts are new to exercise, too, and working their way in gradually.
(I'd still argue they should eat back the calories.
). 6 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I don't really understand *how* people are able to disregard exercise calories.
If I went on one of my 40 mile bike rides without eating at least a few hundred extra calories -- I would have to be peeled off the road somewhere around the 20 mile mark.
I'd say a lot of them suffer with hanger and less than optimal energy.
I'd say a few of them are doing 15 minutes on the elliptical or treadmill while watching the TV, not @zamphir66's 40-mile bike ride.
Don't get me wrong, 15 minutes on the treadmill is a Good Thing . . . but not eating those calories is probably not going to have massive bad consequences, unless they're already at a pretty steep deficit. Lotta folks in these parts are new to exercise, too, and working their way in gradually.
(I'd still argue they should eat back the calories. ).
True true. Good point, as usual
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions