Exercise = earned calories?
Options
Replies
-
JerSchmare wrote: »
Others are woo'd by the statement and think it's legit.
I don't think you should take the Woo button as people agreeing, I think it is the opposite.
7 -
Think about it. If the program you're using to figure out how to lose weight adds back in extra calories because you've burned more that it estimated at the beginning of the day, why would you ignore them? Why would a weight loss program give you information that would purposely undermine your weight loss goals? That makes no sense at all.
You might consider reading up on how CICO works and what MFP does to help you reach your calorie goals.8 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »jordandills wrote: »You don't have to eat them back if you don't want to, it will just increase your deficit and rate of loss. If you're hungry after a workout or want to replenish some, I'd recommend eating 1/3-1/2 of the calories back. MFP tends to overestimate calories burned in exercise.
True...but often, that is not a good thing, particularly if you're actually interested in fitness and improving fitness.
Or maintaining your weight loss over the long term once you meet your goal.2 -
haleybrnjilovic wrote: »I will gladly eat those extra calories! I've mostly been doing a brisk walk/slow jog as my exercise for the past week, so I'm hopeful that the calories burned are fairly accurate.
They're not even close to accurate. Walking, for example, is typically overestimated by 100% or more.
Exactly how inaccurate is highly dependent on individual and workout. To be safe, start by eating back 30% of them, and monitor what happens.
Alternatively start eating 100% back and only adjust if required.
Really don't agree with using the word "safe" in the context of eating less.
Do agree with "Exactly how inaccurate is highly dependent on individual and workout." which is why I dislike the frequently seen advice to eat back a certain percentage.
2 -
I ignore it for two reasons:
a) I'm not a dog. I don't "earn" calories like treats.
b) MFP's calculations are frequently inaccurate at best. I can guarantee a 30-minute 5K does not burn 400 calories.
You're right, as a 230 lb man that run gets me closer to 600 calories than 400.. although it's more like 36 minutes. and ~550 calories3 -
I ignore it for two reasons:
a) I'm not a dog. I don't "earn" calories like treats.
b) MFP's calculations are frequently inaccurate at best. I can guarantee a 30-minute 5K does not burn 400 calories.
a) Tell that to a 4'11 sedentary female who would have to cut daily intake to something ridiculous like 800-1000 if she didn't eat any exercise calories back.
b) Yes it absolutely does.4 -
-
nosebag1212 wrote: »I ignore it for two reasons:
a) I'm not a dog. I don't "earn" calories like treats.
b) MFP's calculations are frequently inaccurate at best. I can guarantee a 30-minute 5K does not burn 400 calories.
a) Tell that to a 4'11 sedentary female who would have to cut daily intake to something ridiculous like 800-1000 if she didn't eat any exercise calories back.
b) Yes it absolutely does.
As a 4'11" woman I support this. My activity varies daily and my activity is set to sedentary but because of activity I need an extra 200 to 800 calories a day and if I don't eat those calories I feel weak and can't preform activities properly.1 -
I started by ignoring my exercise calories. After a few months I started eating a few of my exercise calories. Then I started eating most of my exercise calories. Then I started exercising more after overeating. I keep losing weight in any mode because I stay in a calorie deficit most of the time.
(I've only bought a box of Klondike bars once. My wife ate all of it in one day.)8 -
No we aren't.
The calorie goal is xxxx + exercise calories, it's not just xxxx unless someone does no exercise.
You are proposing cutting that down. Eating less than the tool is suggesting.
I'm suggesting going from high to low - you are suggesting going from low to high.
You must have seen loads of threads, like I have, where people choose an inappropriately fast rate of loss, then undercut their base calorie goal and then decline to eat back exercise calories. And 'surprisingly' they feel awful or just fail and abandon their weight loss.
Slower rate of loss is rarely unsafe, the morbidly obese with pressing and urgent need to lose weight would be the exception.9 -
I am totally a dog and work hard for treats! I enjoy eating back some of my exercise calories, they taste gooooood
9 -
nosebag1212 wrote: »I ignore it for two reasons:
a) I'm not a dog. I don't "earn" calories like treats.
b) MFP's calculations are frequently inaccurate at best. I can guarantee a 30-minute 5K does not burn 400 calories.
a) Tell that to a 4'11 sedentary female who would have to cut daily intake to something ridiculous like 800-1000 if she didn't eat any exercise calories back.
b) Yes it absolutely does.
Yep. Not eating them back is definitely not a viable long term option for us. (Although in our case, we actually wouldn't burn remotely near 400 calories on a 5K unless very overweight.. closer to 240 cal if near ideal weight. The OP, being male, would probably burn in the 400 calorie range though).2 -
Rebecca0224 wrote: »nosebag1212 wrote: »I ignore it for two reasons:
a) I'm not a dog. I don't "earn" calories like treats.
b) MFP's calculations are frequently inaccurate at best. I can guarantee a 30-minute 5K does not burn 400 calories.
a) Tell that to a 4'11 sedentary female who would have to cut daily intake to something ridiculous like 800-1000 if she didn't eat any exercise calories back.
b) Yes it absolutely does.
As a 4'11" woman I support this. My activity varies daily and my activity is set to sedentary but because of activity I need an extra 200 to 800 calories a day and if I don't eat those calories I feel weak and can't preform activities properly.
I'm the same... I'm a 5ft 2" female who has 1200 calories per day... I've only not eaten back exercise calories a few times. If I don't have them I'm grumpy and sluggish
A diet shouldn't feel like a punishment and although those calories are not a 'treat' as such... I get them because I worked hard for them! 2 -
Gotta disagree with the majority here. I'm not sure it's a healthy relationship for me to have with food if I associate it with reward. That if I've been "good" I can have some food.
To me food is both an essential, normal part of life and also a joy. Treating it as something to reward myself with seems wrong somehow.
But I'm happy to accept that the majority may have a different view.1 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Gotta disagree with the majority here. I'm not sure it's a healthy relationship for me to have with food if I associate it with reward. That if I've been "good" I can have some food.
To me food is both an essential, normal part of life and also a joy. Treating it as something to reward myself with seems wrong somehow.
But I'm happy to accept that the majority may have a different view.
I appreciate your honesty and modesty here. If you have particular issues with food, that's a legitimate concern.
Instead of looking at it as a reward, though, have you thought of it as part of having a healthy relationship with food? Arbitrarily sticking to a preset amount of calories, independent of how much you work or exercise, isn't healthy either. Exercise calories are part of your body's needs. It's not a reward - it's an authentic requirement.
Maybe it doesn't make a lot of difference if you do small amounts of exercise. But what if you are doing a lot of exercise? I frequently burn 1000 kcal per day - if I didn't eat that back I would be starving myself.
Edited: I accidentally a word7 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Gotta disagree with the majority here. I'm not sure it's a healthy relationship for me to have with food if I associate it with reward. That if I've been "good" I can have some food.
To me food is both an essential, normal part of life and also a joy. Treating it as something to reward myself with seems wrong somehow.
But I'm happy to accept that the majority may have a different view.
I think most people are making the point that it's not a 'reward', it's fuel that your body needs to keep going. Refilling your gas tank isn't 'rewarding' your car, it's giving it what it needs to keep going to get to the destination.
I appreciated the smart *kitten* responses, too
8 -
GrumpyHeadmistress wrote: »Gotta disagree with the majority here. I'm not sure it's a healthy relationship for me to have with food if I associate it with reward. That if I've been "good" I can have some food.
To me food is both an essential, normal part of life and also a joy. Treating it as something to reward myself with seems wrong somehow.
But I'm happy to accept that the majority may have a different view.
I don't view exercise as a vehicle through which I can reward myself with food for having done it. For me, exercise is just another tool in my toolbox that can be used to manage caloric intake.
For example:
I want a Klondike Bar. It's evening, and my calories for the day do not recommend me having one. I, therefore, have several options:
1) Don't have it.
2) Have it and know that in doing so I'll have gone over my calories for that particular day, which is not necessarily a big deal unless this happens every day. I log it and move on.
3) Have it and then make adjustments in either my intake (CI) or my output (CO) the next day to compensate.
I don't think I've ever had a treat and then thought, "Oh nos! It's 10 p.m., I just had a Klondike Bar and now I have to get on the treadmill for an hour before bed!" Nor have I ever wanted a Klondike Bar and said to myself, "Nope, no bar for you until to burn off those calories first!"
My life and my relationship with food just doesn't work well that way.
8 -
nefudaboss wrote: »I had 80 lbs to lose. I didn't eat anything back. It would just taken me 5 years to get slim instead of 2 years. Id say if you weighing your food and everything is accurate then eat back half the calories if your deficit is to low ( worked out to much) buttttt if you like me and you know that you ate more calories then you inputted (food inaccuracies) then dont eat anything back to balance it out
Even if you only lost half a pound per week, 80 pounds would only take three years, not five.
80 pounds in 2 years (.77 pounds per week) is totally doable while eating back exercise calories.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions