Eating back calories and Fitbit

2»

Replies

  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    jessicalynch817 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    jessicalynch817 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    jessicalynch817 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    jessicalynch817 wrote: »
    Thanks so much Wino! So maybe I should change my setting to lightly active then?

    The 6-7000 steps you get during the work day, how many more do you get, what's your usual total number of steps? What does FitBit say your total calories burned is?

    That is my total number of steps. As of right now I am not doing any exercise. I'm just trying to get my calories and eating right then I am gradually going to add in walking. At the end of most days I have about 7,000+ steps and around 300-400 calories burned. I also noticed on days that let's say I run around the playground with the kids, but take the same amount or less steps I burn more calories. I noticed someone else said that too. I have a Fitbit Alta if that makes any difference. I mainly just set mfp to sedentary because I figured it would give me the least amount of calories and if I stayed under that amount WITH the "added" Fitbit calories I would lose a lot quicker. So for example today Fitbit said I burned 350 calories. I start out with 1,330 calories. In total I ate around 1,200 calories today. So would I really have 480 calories left? Or should I just stay at that 1,330?

    Well and again, what you are seeing, the 350 calories, isn't what FitBit says you burned from your steps. It's the difference between what MFP thought you should burn, in total, and what FitBit says you actually burned. MFP has your goal at 1330, with a 2 lbs/week loss goal, right? That means MFP expects you to burn 2330 calories based on your stats and a sedentary activity level. FitBit is telling MFP you actually burned 2680 cals today, in total, or 350 cals more than it thought. So that's your "adjustment" to get back to a target deficit based on your inputs. By eating less than that, you have created an even bigger deficit for yourself, approximately 1480 cals. That's a pretty steep deficit, assuming your logging is accurate, and more than what is recommended. It's not necessarily better to lose faster, there are negative side effects.

    How long have you been doing this, and what rate are you actually burning at?

    I have been at this about a month and lost 14 pounds. Maybe I'll set it back to lightly active and see how I do at next months weigh in. I know it's not good to try to lose so fast. It's just hard because I wanna see results quick. Thanks again for all your advise!

    14 lbs in a month is really fast. Some of it was likely initially water weight, but still, more than 2 lbs/week is not advised. Adverse effects include loss of lean body mass, hair loss, brittlebnails, sallow skin, issues with your cycle, etc.

    Back in your original post you said you felt guilty eating back those calories. Changing your activity setting isn't going to help you with that, you need to address those feelings of guilt, they aren't healthy, and can often set up a cycle of restrict-binge...

    You're right. This is so difficult. If I change my activity level to lightly active it gives me 1610 calories vs 1330 at sedentary. I think if I do that maybe I'll feel fuller if I eat closer to 1600. Speaking of cycle, do you believe/think women need more calories during that week? I read that they do, just wanted another persons perspective.


    I think starting with the higher cals from the higher activity level makes sense, it may help you with those feelings of guilt and if I recall, you are trying to lose ~100 lbs, right? It's important to not immediately cut to the lowest level of cals possible, because then as you do lose weight, and potentially hit stalls, your calorie needs go down as your weight goes down, but you don't have any room to cut cals further. You have the negative calorie adjustments enabled, right?

    I don't think women necessarily need more cals during their cycle but some women have cravings that they feel they would like to satisfy and so I know some people eat at maintenance cal level during that week in order to have more cals to satisfy those cravings.
  • GoldBikiniGoals
    GoldBikiniGoals Posts: 47 Member
    RunRutheeRun wrote: »
    Ref our cycle /TOM No, we don't need more food during that week it's just cravings we fight against. Mind over matter works for me thank goodness.

    While "mind over matter" may work for you and you are likely to crave sweet/salty things around that time, your body does actually have an increased burn from the time you finish ovulation up until your TOM starts which tends to be the "hungriest" time of the month for most women. Some studies claim that it's up to 15% more calories, many more claim it's roughly 5-7%. There's plenty of studies out there, but here's a quick excerpt from one found through google scholar:

    "In the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle it appears that women's energy intake and energy expenditure are increased and they experience more frequent cravings for foods, particularly those high in carbohydrate and fat, than during the follicular phase. This suggests that the potential of the underlying physiology related to each phase of the menstrual cycle may be worth considering as an element in strategies to optimize weight loss." -- International Journal of Obesity. Impact of the menstrual cycle on determinants of energy balance: a putative role in weight loss attempts. L Davidsen, B Vistisen, and A Astrup.

    I think for most women, it tends to be fairly negligible in the sense that you're not going to magically lose more weight by knowing this information, but it certainly makes me feel a little better about the additional 150 cals or so I tend to eat during that time. It's never slowed my loss but it's certainly improved my mental and emotional health.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Maxematics
    Maxematics Posts: 2,287 Member
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    I only rely on results. So, I would eat them for a while, and see if you're getting results. If you do, keep it up. Remember though, it takes 3 to 4 weeks before you will know if results are working. Don't change things everyday. I'd argue, stick with doing whatever fitbit says for one month. If you are getting your goals, you know it's working. If not, change something.

    For me, I gained weight using Fitbit connected to MFP. I have had very bad experiences with activity trackers, so my general consensus on them is they are crap. But, that's just me.

    I agree that fitness trackers are not for everyone but I have to ask, did you weigh all of your food on a food scale when using a Fitbit?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • starryphoenix
    starryphoenix Posts: 381 Member
    I usually eat half of them back. So far I've been okay doing this.
  • jessicalynch817
    jessicalynch817 Posts: 34 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    jessicalynch817 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    jessicalynch817 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    jessicalynch817 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    jessicalynch817 wrote: »
    Thanks so much Wino! So maybe I should change my setting to lightly active then?

    The 6-7000 steps you get during the work day, how many more do you get, what's your usual total number of steps? What does FitBit say your total calories burned is?

    That is my total number of steps. As of right now I am not doing any exercise. I'm just trying to get my calories and eating right then I am gradually going to add in walking. At the end of most days I have about 7,000+ steps and around 300-400 calories burned. I also noticed on days that let's say I run around the playground with the kids, but take the same amount or less steps I burn more calories. I noticed someone else said that too. I have a Fitbit Alta if that makes any difference. I mainly just set mfp to sedentary because I figured it would give me the least amount of calories and if I stayed under that amount WITH the "added" Fitbit calories I would lose a lot quicker. So for example today Fitbit said I burned 350 calories. I start out with 1,330 calories. In total I ate around 1,200 calories today. So would I really have 480 calories left? Or should I just stay at that 1,330?

    Well and again, what you are seeing, the 350 calories, isn't what FitBit says you burned from your steps. It's the difference between what MFP thought you should burn, in total, and what FitBit says you actually burned. MFP has your goal at 1330, with a 2 lbs/week loss goal, right? That means MFP expects you to burn 2330 calories based on your stats and a sedentary activity level. FitBit is telling MFP you actually burned 2680 cals today, in total, or 350 cals more than it thought. So that's your "adjustment" to get back to a target deficit based on your inputs. By eating less than that, you have created an even bigger deficit for yourself, approximately 1480 cals. That's a pretty steep deficit, assuming your logging is accurate, and more than what is recommended. It's not necessarily better to lose faster, there are negative side effects.

    How long have you been doing this, and what rate are you actually burning at?

    I have been at this about a month and lost 14 pounds. Maybe I'll set it back to lightly active and see how I do at next months weigh in. I know it's not good to try to lose so fast. It's just hard because I wanna see results quick. Thanks again for all your advise!

    14 lbs in a month is really fast. Some of it was likely initially water weight, but still, more than 2 lbs/week is not advised. Adverse effects include loss of lean body mass, hair loss, brittlebnails, sallow skin, issues with your cycle, etc.

    Back in your original post you said you felt guilty eating back those calories. Changing your activity setting isn't going to help you with that, you need to address those feelings of guilt, they aren't healthy, and can often set up a cycle of restrict-binge...

    You're right. This is so difficult. If I change my activity level to lightly active it gives me 1610 calories vs 1330 at sedentary. I think if I do that maybe I'll feel fuller if I eat closer to 1600. Speaking of cycle, do you believe/think women need more calories during that week? I read that they do, just wanted another persons perspective.


    I think starting with the higher cals from the higher activity level makes sense, it may help you with those feelings of guilt and if I recall, you are trying to lose ~100 lbs, right? It's important to not immediately cut to the lowest level of cals possible, because then as you do lose weight, and potentially hit stalls, your calorie needs go down as your weight goes down, but you don't have any room to cut cals further. You have the negative calorie adjustments enabled, right?

    I don't think women necessarily need more cals during their cycle but some women have cravings that they feel they would like to satisfy and so I know some people eat at maintenance cal level during that week in order to have more cals to satisfy those cravings.

    Yep. Trying to lose 100 pounds. and yes I do have negative calories turned on. Again, thanks so much for your help!
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    Maxematics wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    I only rely on results. So, I would eat them for a while, and see if you're getting results. If you do, keep it up. Remember though, it takes 3 to 4 weeks before you will know if results are working. Don't change things everyday. I'd argue, stick with doing whatever fitbit says for one month. If you are getting your goals, you know it's working. If not, change something.

    For me, I gained weight using Fitbit connected to MFP. I have had very bad experiences with activity trackers, so my general consensus on them is they are crap. But, that's just me.

    I agree that fitness trackers are not for everyone but I have to ask, did you weigh all of your food on a food scale when using a Fitbit?

    I've been doing this far longer than you. Please don't go down that road with me. Yes, I weigh and measure, god, that is so demeaning.

    "Demeaning"? Seriously dude? :*
  • jessicalynch817
    jessicalynch817 Posts: 34 Member
    fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    Maxematics wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    I only rely on results. So, I would eat them for a while, and see if you're getting results. If you do, keep it up. Remember though, it takes 3 to 4 weeks before you will know if results are working. Don't change things everyday. I'd argue, stick with doing whatever fitbit says for one month. If you are getting your goals, you know it's working. If not, change something.

    For me, I gained weight using Fitbit connected to MFP. I have had very bad experiences with activity trackers, so my general consensus on them is they are crap. But, that's just me.

    I agree that fitness trackers are not for everyone but I have to ask, did you weigh all of your food on a food scale when using a Fitbit?

    I've been doing this far longer than you. Please don't go down that road with me. Yes, I weigh and measure, god, that is so demeaning.

    "Demeaning"? Seriously dude? :*

    Yeah.. that was a little over the top lol.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,300 Member
    edited April 2017
    Maxematics wrote: »
    Fitness trackers seem to be on the mark for some, but can over/underestimate for others. It shouldn't ever be anything too drastic though. I use Trendweight and a spreadsheet that was posted on the boards to assess the margin of error for my Fitbit. I don't remember the link offhand but it's been posted many times by @PAV8888. It's helped immensely thus far.

    Glad to hear it's helped @Maxematics

    As you mentioned in your post there are multiple components at play:
    --the accuracy of caloric intake logging
    --the accuracy of the tracking device for the activities of the user
    --whether the user is an average or outlier snowflake.

    What is the likelihood that an outlier snowflake finds themselves on MFP?
    THREE standard deviations from the mean is only 0.3% of the population.
    Which still amounts to over 1,000,000 people in just the US and Canada.
    Admittedly, the vast majority, including myself, are part of the other 99.7% :sunglasses:

    Latest version of the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14k_zGWeklpl05lNqSWN_SK1XzuwnmVHtUfW8Eao5kIE/edit?usp=sharing
  • hoganpm0
    hoganpm0 Posts: 3 Member
    I wish they would let you not have it add calories based on activity like they let you not add Negative calories if you want.
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,562 Member
    hoganpm0 wrote: »
    I wish they would let you not have it add calories based on activity like they let you not add Negative calories if you want.

    Since you're a Premium member this is an option for you, to disable all exercise/tracker calories from being added to your goal.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    hoganpm0 wrote: »
    I wish they would let you not have it add calories based on activity like they let you not add Negative calories if you want.

    Just unsync it from mfp if you're not interested in eating back your exercise calories.

    Not that i recommend doing that...

This discussion has been closed.

Categories