Burning the Calories you Eat..?!?
SkimpyMrsCarter
Posts: 105 Member
Hi guys, do you feel that the calories you eat can be equally burned off by the amount of calories you burn while exercising??
2
Replies
-
No. You burn way more calories just by living and going about your day than you do exercising (unless you run a marathon or something). That's why MFP sets you up to lose weight without exercise and when you do work out, you're expected to eat the calories back.16
-
It doesn't work that way unfortunately. Also It would be very hard for me to burn 2100 calories in exercise every day (my current maintain), unless I were an athlete. Things come to mind like recovery issues; over training, injury, etc.2
-
-
SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
I'm guessing RoxieDawn meant a whole day when she spoke of 2100 calories, not just one meal.
5 -
You can burn off some calories sure but it's more efficient to just reduce your intake.2
-
SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
Not one meal, but how do I wish.
This is a whole days calories I burn in 24 hours including my exercise. 0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
I'm guessing RoxieDawn meant a whole day when she spoke of 2100 calories, not just one meal.
[/quoe
When you burn calories through exercise is it the same as the calories you eat is what i am asking.0 -
SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
Not one meal, but how do I wish. This is a whole days calories I burn in 24 hours including my exercise.
Ok that's good0 -
-
I traveled 11.8 miles on hike one-way. It took about 2,000-3,000 calories. I was eating chicken and gorp and a whole lot of water. And my companion wouldn't eat or drink anything! (Was kind altitude sickness) I convinced him to eat chicken and water, to fuel his assent toward the peak...but it wasn't easy.
You got to fuel that hike.3 -
Are you asking if, for example, 100 calories eaten = 100 calories burned through exercise? If so, then yes, calories are measuring same amount whether they're eaten or burned.4
-
Chunkahlunkah wrote: »Are you asking if, for example, 100 calories eaten = 100 calories burned through exercise? If so, then yes, calories are measuring same amount whether they're eaten or burned.
Yes thats exactly what i am asking, thanks so much for your advice. Thanks☺2 -
SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
When you burn calories through exercise is it the same as the calories you eat is what i am asking.lynn_glenmont wrote: »SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
I'm guessing RoxieDawn meant a whole day when she spoke of 2100 calories, not just one meal.
Yes, they're the same in the sense that they represent the same amount of energy. Like if you deposit $20 in a checking account, or withdraw $20 at the ATM -- the dollars are the same. But in both cases, one is adding and one is subtracting, if that makes sense.
**Edited to fix the quotes that have gotten messed up in this thread.3 -
No problem!
Be aware, though, that tools which measure calories burned are notorious for inflating the number. So if you're on a treadmill or whatever at the gym and it says you burned 500 calories, you likely burned less than that (maybe even only half). So to be on the safe side, you don't usually want to take that number too literally.7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
When you burn calories through exercise is it the same as the calories you eat is what i am asking.lynn_glenmont wrote: »SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
I'm guessing RoxieDawn meant a whole day when she spoke of 2100 calories, not just one meal.
Yes, they're the same in the sense that they represent the same amount of energy. Like if you deposit $20 in a checking account, or withdraw $20 at the ATM -- the dollars are the same. But in both cases, one is adding and one is subtracting, if that makes sense.
**Edited to fix the quotes that have gotten messed up in this thread.
Ok Thanks so much☺0 -
Just to be clear, because this COULD be one of the common enough misconceptions I see on MFP, and nobody has addressed the possibility...
It is a very bad idea to plan to exercise away a calorie for each calorie that you eat or drink.
At the end of the day you WANT to eat more calories than you exercise away. This is because your body burns calories all day long and not only when you exercise.
As such, even when you eat at a deficit to lose weight, you still have to provide enough calories to your body to ensure normal functions and to ensure you're not having adverse effects from too great of a deficit.
The bare minimum net calories that you should consume is 1200 for a female and 1500 for a male.
While there do exist some exceptions to the "rule", if you're not some combination of shorter than average, older than average, less able to move around than average, or suffering from one of a few medical ailments... you're not one of the exceptions.
Therefore you would have to ensure that after you "burn" away a whole bunch of calories you still have at least 1200/1500 calories than you did NOT burn away (for most people it would be more than 1200/1500 calories that they do not burn away, but baby steps
) 13 -
I am deliberately trying not to eat back exercise cals - I don't usually get much!
10 -
I remember reading one study that showed if you took 2 groups one that reduced their calorie intake by 700 and another that ate the same but burned 700 calories by exercise. The second group lost more weight and kept it off for longer, either way you are creating a deficit but the exercise route will have additional advantages.2
-
Pastaprincess1978 wrote: »I am deliberately trying not to eat back exercise cals - I don't usually get much!
Why? MFP is designed to give you a calorie target based on activity that doesn’t include exercise. If you do, you are meant to be eating those back, at least a portion, to keep your NET calories at the level suggested by MFP so that you lose at the desired rate.
Creating a larger deficit is not always advantageous, it can cause fatigue, loss of lean body mass, hair loss, brittle nails - and in general may not be sustainable. You may not be exercising much now and so that may not be a significant deficit but many people have a goal to increase their activity and exercise for overall fitness and fueling that activity is important.8 -
OP did you get the answer you were looking for with regards to calorie intake and calorie burn? I’m concerned that the original question suggests you may be confused about how the fundamental energy balance of calories in calories out (abbreviated CICO) works.
As others have said, and pardon if I’m being redundant now - you burn a total amount of calories each and every day from being alive, your general activity like moving around your house and workplace, and then purposeful exercise. All of those added together are called your TDEE or total daily energy expenditure. The amount of cals you burn from just being alive represents the biggest part of that equation, then the daily activity and for most people, the exercise burn is the smallest part.
To lose weight you need to have a calorie deficit from that TDEE, if you want to lose 1 lb/week that’s a 500 cal deficit. You don’t need to burn off the amount of food you take in through exercise - you just need to find a way, through either calorie reduction going in, or increased exercise burn - to have the equation of CO-CI = 500. MFP does most of the work for you on set up and figuring out how many calories you need. You just have to do the work to figure out what foods you want to eat, log them accurately, and then determine if you’re going to exercise and track that accordingly.
Hope that helps - good luck.3 -
Chunkahlunkah wrote: »No problem!
Be aware, though, that tools which measure calories burned are notorious for inflating the number. So if you're on a treadmill or whatever at the gym and it says you burned 500 calories, you likely burned less than that (maybe even only half). So to be on the safe side, you don't usually want to take that number too literally.
Hey @SkimpyMrsCarter I googled accuracy of calorie burn estimate for cardio equipment, and I saw an estimate that it can be off by 10-15%. I wanted to update bc that's significantly better than being off by up to 50%!
A quick google isn't much research though
so if anyone has more info about how to generally regard the burn estimate, I'd appreciate hearing it. 1 -
If you know the distance you ran or walked on the treadmill, and your weight, then double check using the normal formulas.
Run weight * distance (MI) *.63
Walk weight * distance (MI) *.30
The treadmill I run on at the comes pretty damn close to the above, so I don't know if it senses my weight or not. I go by my Garmin watch, which is also close. So 3 things give me about 400 cals for 5K2 -
Thanks @Tacklewasher!0
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »If you know the distance you ran or walked on the treadmill, and your weight, then double check using the normal formulas.
Run weight * distance (MI) *.63
Walk weight * distance (MI) *.30
The treadmill I run on at the comes pretty damn close to the above, so I don't know if it senses my weight or not. I go by my Garmin watch, which is also close. So 3 things give me about 400 cals for 5K
@Tacklewasher the formulas you use appear to attempt to calculate net calories burned.
The figure reported by most treadmills is gross calories burned which includes your calories for breathing and being alive.
The formulas you quote are blatantly incomplete in that they do not account for the speed of the activity, the terrain, and or adjust for any load you may be carrying.
They may serve as a gross sanity check but I would not rely on them for accuracy.
If you really would like a second opinion you may want to try something like:
https://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs2 -
Chunkahlunkah wrote: »Chunkahlunkah wrote: »No problem!
Be aware, though, that tools which measure calories burned are notorious for inflating the number. So if you're on a treadmill or whatever at the gym and it says you burned 500 calories, you likely burned less than that (maybe even only half). So to be on the safe side, you don't usually want to take that number too literally.
Hey @SkimpyMrsCarter I googled accuracy of calorie burn estimate for cardio equipment, and I saw an estimate that it can be off by 10-15%. I wanted to update bc that's significantly better than being off by up to 50%!
A quick google isn't much research though so if anyone has more info about how to generally regard the burn estimate, I'd appreciate hearing it.
Using a polar heart rate monitor, the calculations on the treadmill come close but are off a little for me. They are closer when I actually input all info ( age, weight etc ) and it can read my heart rate however most of the time just general calculations they are off as you said by about 10%2 -
oh, i did not know they measured gross. (being alive) ie, including the calories burned even if you weren't running. I input my weight 5 to 7 pounds less than my real weight, then i also knock off the total count at the end of the session.....ie, if the machine says i burned 455, i will assume that is closer to 400. im hoping that by doing both those things...it brings me a bit closer to reality. you have to know the machines at your gym also...they are not calibrated. 2 elliptical/ identical and side by side....one always gives me a higher count than the other.
2 -
chasetwins wrote: »Using a polar heart rate monitor, the calculations on the treadmill come close but are off a little for me. They are closer when I actually input all info ( age, weight etc ) and it can read my heart rate however most of the time just general calculations they are off as you said by about 10%
I'm glad you shared that bc I've been wondering how the equipment readings would compare with a heart rate monitor. I'm encouraged that it's not off all that much! About 10% isn't bad. I'd been thinking it was worse than that.
Good link, @PAV8888 , thanks!
2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »If you know the distance you ran or walked on the treadmill, and your weight, then double check using the normal formulas.
Run weight * distance (MI) *.63
Walk weight * distance (MI) *.30
The treadmill I run on at the comes pretty damn close to the above, so I don't know if it senses my weight or not. I go by my Garmin watch, which is also close. So 3 things give me about 400 cals for 5K
@Tacklewasher the formulas you use appear to attempt to calculate net calories burned.
The figure reported by most treadmills is gross calories burned which includes your calories for breathing and being alive.
The formulas you quote are blatantly incomplete in that they do not account for the speed of the activity, the terrain, and or adjust for any load you may be carrying.
They may serve as a gross sanity check but I would not rely on them for accuracy.
If you really would like a second opinion you may want to try something like:
https://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Speed has no impact on the amount of calories burned but you are right the gradient would do.
1 -
One thing that has me confused with HRMs is how they can be used to determine calories burned. A 6ft man weighing 180 pounds walking at 3 miles per hour is likely to have a much lower heart rate than a 5ft woman that is 180 pounds walking at the same speed but in theory they will burn the same calories.
I realise the example is very generic and that in real life the woman could be far fitter than the man and so the situation could be reversed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions