Eating back exercise calories clarification needed
Replies
-
Ready2Rock206 wrote: »If MFP gave you the 1900 number then it means you should eat that PLUS exercise calories. I would be cautious though - 800 is a lot of calories - how did you come up with that number? If it is from MFP it is probably extremely over estimated. This is why most people say to eat 1/2 or some other portion of the exercise calories.
Through UA Record and then verified at the gym I go to. I spend at least 2 hours per workout. Treadmill and then total body workout.0 -
I am going to tag my question on here since it is related, I think. I have been on the same calorie goal for 2 years. I never followed what MFP suggested, but what was given to me by a weight loss program. I have two questions, is it unwise to now go up in calories to what mfp suggests? My second question is how do I know what my net calories eaten are?
Whether or not you should change your calorie goal depends on
(1) whether or not you're making progress towards your goal
(2) how sustainable your current calorie goal is.
If you log all the calories you eat and all the calories your burn through exercise, MFP will tell you what your net intake is. It's right on the from/home page of MFP... Goal = Food - Exercise = Net0 -
MFP gives you different calorie goals depending on what you tell it. The rate of loss (0.5 lb/week or 2 lb/week) and activity level (sedentary or highly active?) will give very different advice. If you're own target and the one MFP suggests are different, you're not telling MFP what your program had in mind. If your program suggests less than MFP, you can eat more and lose more slowly, as long as it's still less than what it would take for you to maintain.I am going to tag my question on here since it is related, I think. I have been on the same calorie goal for 2 years. I never followed what MFP suggested, but what was given to me by a weight loss program. I have two questions, is it unwise to now go up in calories to what mfp suggests? My second question is how do I know what my net calories eaten are?
Net calories = food eaten - exercise calories burned. So if you enter everything you eat, and you enter all your exercise, it shows you net calories on the home page.
0 -
And OP, if you're killin' it in the gym for 2 hours, you probably do need to eat some of those calories back if performance is important to you. Too low will definitely show in your workouts.1
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I repeat a valid question, what did you do and how long did you do it and what is your weight doing it that you claim 800 calories burned?
I have 2 different cardio machines in my home. One requires that I give it my weight before I start using it, and includes a chest-strap heart rate monitor. I highly trust what it says I burn when I use it. The other machine is indifferent to my weight and I know that it cannot accurately or even almost accurately tell the truth about what I burn. I've also recently taken up shooting hoops in my driveway. I have no idea how to log that. I've recently also taken up an exercise called "battle ropes". That has become popular in recent years, but on-line compendia of exercises don't include it. Again, any claim of calorie burn in that is speculative.
Through UA Record and then verified at the gym I go to. I spend at least 2 hours per workout. Treadmill and then total body workout.0 -
annacole94 wrote: »I eat back my exercise calories, but I make sure the calorie burn estimates are plausible. The only way you'd burn 800 calories is if you went for a 5+ mile run. Generally, my walking + yoga + kettlebells get me an extra 200-400 cal/day.
That's not entirely accurate as far as to what you have to do to burn 800 calories. It depends a lot on what you weigh, height, how long you workout etc...0 -
tbh then if you spend 2 hours at the gym 800 is kinda low I normally spend 2.5-3 hours at the gym and depending on how hard I push I normally log between 1500-1900 ( I know most machines are never that accurate so only eat back 20-30%) so I would have thought 800 is not that hard in 2 hours0
-
I burned over 1000 calories yesterday hauling my 185-pound, 5'3" backside for an 8-mile run, according to my chest-mounted HR monitor and Garmin math. That doesn't help answer the OP's question either.
If you've burned off, say, 800 calories and you don't eat them back, that's extra deficit you've created for yourself and that's all well and good - if you feel OK. Many people find that they need to eat back at least a portion of those calories to not feel exhausted every time they exercise. As has been mentioned, how you calculated your caloric requirements and goals will play into that.
The most important thing you can do with MFP is to be honest with it. The includes your activity level in calculating, accurate food logging, and reasonable exercise assessments.0 -
annacole94 wrote: »I eat back my exercise calories, but I make sure the calorie burn estimates are plausible. The only way you'd burn 800 calories is if you went for a 5+ mile run. Generally, my walking + yoga + kettlebells get me an extra 200-400 cal/day.
That's not entirely accurate as far as to what you have to do to burn 800 calories. It depends a lot on what you weigh, height, how long you workout etc...
Yeah, I hear you. Understand, we get the occasional person claiming to burn 800 calories in a one hour yoga class. You're not that person. Eat back some of what you burn, ideally before and after your workout to support it.0 -
If MFP says you need 1900 cals per day, then you exercise and burn 500 cals, MFP will adjust for that and then say you need 2400 cals (your original 1900 + the 500 exercise cals).
The "debate" is whether or not you should eat back those 500 cals... so do you eat 2400 for the day, 1900, or somewhere in between.
The way MFP is designed to be used, you should be eating back those calories (so 2400 total, if we continue using this example). Not everyone uses MFP that way, instead they use their TDEE. In that case, they wouldn't eat back those 500 calories.
To further muddy the waters, there is a large portion of the population that find estimates for the number of cals burned during exercise to be highly inflated, and so they suggest only eating back a portion of those 500 cals.
I don't want to bog down this post by getting into the differences/pros/cons of the MFP approach vs TDEE, but if you want to go there, we can... just ask.
That's kinda the cliff notes to all this. Ask if you want more details or clarifications on any of it.
OK, don't want to sound like an idiot but what is TDEE?
TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
Basically, it's all the calories you burn throughout the day doing everything you do, from breathing to cleaning the house to exercising.
So is this TDEE the most accurate way to track calories burnt?0 -
If MFP says you need 1900 cals per day, then you exercise and burn 500 cals, MFP will adjust for that and then say you need 2400 cals (your original 1900 + the 500 exercise cals).
The "debate" is whether or not you should eat back those 500 cals... so do you eat 2400 for the day, 1900, or somewhere in between.
The way MFP is designed to be used, you should be eating back those calories (so 2400 total, if we continue using this example). Not everyone uses MFP that way, instead they use their TDEE. In that case, they wouldn't eat back those 500 calories.
To further muddy the waters, there is a large portion of the population that find estimates for the number of cals burned during exercise to be highly inflated, and so they suggest only eating back a portion of those 500 cals.
I don't want to bog down this post by getting into the differences/pros/cons of the MFP approach vs TDEE, but if you want to go there, we can... just ask.
That's kinda the cliff notes to all this. Ask if you want more details or clarifications on any of it.
OK, don't want to sound like an idiot but what is TDEE?
TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
Basically, it's all the calories you burn throughout the day doing everything you do, from breathing to cleaning the house to exercising.
So is this TDEE the most accurate way to track calories burnt?
It's not a way to track calories burnt -- it's a way to plan to lose (or gain or maintain) weight given one's activity.
For it to work, you'd still need a relatively accurate estimation of how many calories you're burning.
TDEE is just another way of saying "all the calories I burnt today."0 -
If MFP says you need 1900 cals per day, then you exercise and burn 500 cals, MFP will adjust for that and then say you need 2400 cals (your original 1900 + the 500 exercise cals).
The "debate" is whether or not you should eat back those 500 cals... so do you eat 2400 for the day, 1900, or somewhere in between.
The way MFP is designed to be used, you should be eating back those calories (so 2400 total, if we continue using this example). Not everyone uses MFP that way, instead they use their TDEE. In that case, they wouldn't eat back those 500 calories.
To further muddy the waters, there is a large portion of the population that find estimates for the number of cals burned during exercise to be highly inflated, and so they suggest only eating back a portion of those 500 cals.
I don't want to bog down this post by getting into the differences/pros/cons of the MFP approach vs TDEE, but if you want to go there, we can... just ask.
That's kinda the cliff notes to all this. Ask if you want more details or clarifications on any of it.
OK, don't want to sound like an idiot but what is TDEE?
TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
Basically, it's all the calories you burn throughout the day doing everything you do, from breathing to cleaning the house to exercising.
So is this TDEE the most accurate way to track calories burnt?
No, it's probably less accurate as you're just averaging things out to the same activity level every day. It's simpler, though, as you get the same calorie target daily rather than it fluctuating as you log workouts. The only accuracy that matters in the end is the movement on the scale.0 -
If MFP says you need 1900 cals per day, then you exercise and burn 500 cals, MFP will adjust for that and then say you need 2400 cals (your original 1900 + the 500 exercise cals).
The "debate" is whether or not you should eat back those 500 cals... so do you eat 2400 for the day, 1900, or somewhere in between.
The way MFP is designed to be used, you should be eating back those calories (so 2400 total, if we continue using this example). Not everyone uses MFP that way, instead they use their TDEE. In that case, they wouldn't eat back those 500 calories.
To further muddy the waters, there is a large portion of the population that find estimates for the number of cals burned during exercise to be highly inflated, and so they suggest only eating back a portion of those 500 cals.
I don't want to bog down this post by getting into the differences/pros/cons of the MFP approach vs TDEE, but if you want to go there, we can... just ask.
That's kinda the cliff notes to all this. Ask if you want more details or clarifications on any of it.
OK, don't want to sound like an idiot but what is TDEE?
TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
Basically, it's all the calories you burn throughout the day doing everything you do, from breathing to cleaning the house to exercising.
So is this TDEE the most accurate way to track calories burnt?
There is no most accurate way. There is only the way that works best for you. Neither are inherently better than the other.0 -
I burned over 1000 calories yesterday hauling my 185-pound, 5'3" backside for an 8-mile run, according to my chest-mounted HR monitor and Garmin math. That doesn't help answer the OP's question either.
If you've burned off, say, 800 calories and you don't eat them back, that's extra deficit you've created for yourself and that's all well and good - if you feel OK. Many people find that they need to eat back at least a portion of those calories to not feel exhausted every time they exercise. As has been mentioned, how you calculated your caloric requirements and goals will play into that.
The most important thing you can do with MFP is to be honest with it. The includes your activity level in calculating, accurate food logging, and reasonable exercise assessments.
That's NOT always well and good. I'm over 50, I want to lose body fat NOT existing lean muscle. If I'm allowed 1300 calories before exercise (old & not very tall)....and I burn an additional 800 calories (not accounted for) then 1300-800 = 500 calories for my total fuel for all my basic bodily functions (heart, lungs, kidneys). Is this enough? Nope, no way. Yes, I lose "weight" faster.....but it's not just fat I'm losing. I'm going to be burning thru a fair amount of lean muscle too.
Keeping my original deficit of 1300 NET calories is how MFP is designed.
2 -
I burned over 1000 calories yesterday hauling my 185-pound, 5'3" backside for an 8-mile run, according to my chest-mounted HR monitor and Garmin math. That doesn't help answer the OP's question either.
If you've burned off, say, 800 calories and you don't eat them back, that's extra deficit you've created for yourself and that's all well and good - if you feel OK. Many people find that they need to eat back at least a portion of those calories to not feel exhausted every time they exercise. As has been mentioned, how you calculated your caloric requirements and goals will play into that.
The most important thing you can do with MFP is to be honest with it. The includes your activity level in calculating, accurate food logging, and reasonable exercise assessments.
That's NOT always well and good. I'm over 50, I want to lose body fat NOT existing lean muscle. If I'm allowed 1300 calories before exercise (old & not very tall)....and I burn an additional 800 calories (not accounted for) then 1300-800 = 500 calories for my total fuel for all my basic bodily functions (heart, lungs, kidneys). Is this enough? Nope, no way. Yes, I lose "weight" faster.....but it's not just fat I'm losing. I'm going to be burning thru a fair amount of lean muscle too.
Keeping my original deficit of 1300 NET calories is how MFP is designed.
Think of it this way. If someone would to ask if it's fine to lose 3-4 lbs per week, all through a calorie deficit, the resounding shouts of "NO" would deafen people. And it's not much different to have a 2 lb per week deficit and then try to increase it through exercise. It isn't good, can lead to health issues and something you need to be careful of. You might get away with it if you are really big, but is not recommended.2 -
That's NOT always well and good. I'm over 50, I want to lose body fat NOT existing lean muscle. If I'm allowed 1300 calories before exercise (old & not very tall)....and I burn an additional 800 calories (not accounted for) then 1300-800 = 500 calories for my total fuel for all my basic bodily functions (heart, lungs, kidneys). Is this enough? Nope, no way. Yes, I lose "weight" faster.....but it's not just fat I'm losing. I'm going to be burning thru a fair amount of lean muscle too.
Thanks, TeaBea, that's a fair point. I'm assuming (always a silly thing to do
) that the OP is not creating that kind of a deficit every single day, and is typically going to be eating back at least a portion of those exercise calories. I'm personally also carrying enough extra weight where there's plenty for my body to tap for energy without needing to cannibalize muscle eating at that kind of deficit from time to time, so I don't worry about the days when my net calories may be very low. Obviously individual mileage may vary on that, and I am not advocating for a sustained long-term deficit in unhealthy ranges.
1 -
I have to run 8 miles to burn 800 calories, but I'm little. If you're bigger and your workouts are intense, it's reasonable to think it can be done.
This story is a little off topic, but relates to the whole overestimation thing:
I happened to be on the treadmill at the gym next to an acquaintance the other day. She's been struggling to lose the weight for awhile and now I think I know why. She said she had to work off some pizza they were having that night. She turned on the treadmill and plugged in her weight, then let the treadmill run at a brisk pace on an incline while she stood on the sides adjusting all her crap, messing with her earplugs, taking selfies, talking on the phone, etc. for a full 6 minutes before she even stepped on the belt. The machine was counting calories for her the entire time. She adjusted the pace and incline down to an easier level as soon as she stepped on. Then, every couple of minutes she would step off again to adjust her ponytail and take drinks, check her phone, etc. for a minute or so, all while letting the machine continue to run and count calories. I'd say she was actively moving only about 2/3 of the time, and yet she took credit for the entire time she was standing on the sides doing nothing. I bet this happens a lot. This experience made me wonder how often people overestimate their exercise burns...3 -
I am new to this forum and see a lot of words and expressions that I do not completely understand. When you guys talk about eating back your exercise calories does that mean your daily needs plus exercise calories? Say I need 1900 calories a day, and after an exercise I have burned say 800 calories. Does this mean that I still should eat the 1900?
Take the three minutes to watch this video, it will explain it better than any post here from anybody else can:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10503681/exercise-calories-do-i-eat-these-a-video-explanation0 -
That's NOT always well and good. I'm over 50, I want to lose body fat NOT existing lean muscle. If I'm allowed 1300 calories before exercise (old & not very tall)....and I burn an additional 800 calories (not accounted for) then 1300-800 = 500 calories for my total fuel for all my basic bodily functions (heart, lungs, kidneys). Is this enough? Nope, no way. Yes, I lose "weight" faster.....but it's not just fat I'm losing. I'm going to be burning thru a fair amount of lean muscle too.
Thanks, TeaBea, that's a fair point. I'm assuming (always a silly thing to do ) that the OP is not creating that kind of a deficit every single day, and is typically going to be eating back at least a portion of those exercise calories. I'm personally also carrying enough extra weight where there's plenty for my body to tap for energy without needing to cannibalize muscle eating at that kind of deficit from time to time, so I don't worry about the days when my net calories may be very low. Obviously individual mileage may vary on that, and I am not advocating for a sustained long-term deficit in unhealthy ranges.
I very rarely eat the recommended calories daily exercise or not. The reason I had gained weight in the first place was sedentary lifestyle and junk food and fast food. I tipped the scale at 250 one day and it flipped a switch in my head. I got down to 224 just buy cutting out fast food and my sugar intake by half. I have since lost more by exercise and eating even healthier. I am currently down to 207 with a goal of 190-199 with a toned body. I may need to look at eating more calories but I would literally have to force myself to eat more. So far I haven't had a problem with energy and always feel great after a workout. I went from 224 down to 207 in about 6-7 weeks. If I need more calories for health reasons then someone lead me to some info to support that please. I am trying to get better not hurt my body and health.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions