Please help me understand this.

jenniferanderson3888
jenniferanderson3888 Posts: 53 Member
edited December 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
I just started working out 3 days a week cardio to start. I was so starving within an hour and pretty much looking forward to the next meal. It really reved me up. So what I don’t understand is if I’m eating back my exercise calories. What is the point of working out? I’m not being negative this is just a question. I wanted to not eat exercise calories but that is impossible. Will the hunger level drop as I become used to exercise?

Replies

  • Teabythesea_
    Teabythesea_ Posts: 559 Member
    The calorie goal MFP gives you already has a deficit built in without exercise.Theoretically, even with zero exercise, eating what MFP tells you to will still result in a loss. You don't want your deficit to be too aggressive and you need to properly fuel your activity so that's why you should eat back your exercise calories.
  • MikePTY
    MikePTY Posts: 3,814 Member
    I workout so I can eat more :smile:. A lot depends on your individual goals, but a lot of time, the goal calories without exercise can be pretty low, and sometimes hard to hit or require a lot of sacrifice. Exercise gives you more calories, and allows you to eat more of what you enjoy while still hitting your goal.

    Fitness and other health benefits are also a big part of the benefits. But working out has most definitely assisted my weight loss because it allows me to eat a lot more of the things I like than if I didn't do it, while still meeting my goals.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?

    And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?

    Just my personal experience: when I compare the estimate on my Fitbit (which I know from experience is accurate for me) to the estimate from, say, a treadmill, the treadmill is more but it has never been anything close to doubled.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?

    And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?

    I just think it's easier math and better than them not eating back any, which it seems to me so many people are tempted to do. I usually try to say "at least half" (of course I didn't do that here), but I'm just hoping they won't ignore them entirely. Probably not the best answer to your question though :tongue:
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?

    And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?

    Just my personal experience: when I compare the estimate on my Fitbit (which I know from experience is accurate for me) to the estimate from, say, a treadmill, the treadmill is more but it has never been anything close to doubled.

    Same for me. I've put effort into making my estimates are accurate/reasonable and although some estimates in the database are badly inflated, many are closer to gross not net, but I've never seen one I thought was doubled.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?

    And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?

    I just think it's easier math and better than them not eating back any, which it seems to me so many people are tempted to do. I usually try to say "at least half" (of course I didn't do that here), but I'm just hoping they won't ignore them entirely. Probably not the best answer to your question though :tongue:

    Agree some are better than nothing.

    Personally I agree with janejellyroll about people putting a little effort into making their estimates reasonable is a far better option than guessing.
    For many exercises that's neither complicated or involves any investment apart from a little time.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    I just started working out 3 days a week cardio to start. I was so starving within an hour and pretty much looking forward to the next meal. It really reved me up. So what I don’t understand is if I’m eating back my exercise calories. What is the point of working out? I’m not being negative this is just a question. I wanted to not eat exercise calories but that is impossible. Will the hunger level drop as I become used to exercise?

    MFP gives you a calorie target based on your stats and activity level WITHOUT exercise to lose weight. As such, exercise is unaccounted for activity...common sense would say that it should be accounted for. When you log it and get additional calories to "eat back" that is how you are accounting for that activity.

    Not accounting for that activity has the potential to make your calorie deficit excessively large as it relates to healthy and safe weight loss. This will also largely depend on what you're doing. If I go walk a couple of miles, I'm not going to be overly concerned as the calorie expenditure isn't particularly significant and that activity isn't putting much stress on my body. If I go ride 30 miles on a Saturday afternoon, that is a completely different story as I am going to burn somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 calories give or take.

    Given the bike scenario above, MFP gives me a before exercise calorie target of 1900 calories to lose 1 Lb per week...if I went and road my 30 miles and didn't account for that with more food, my net calorie intake would be 900 calories which would be the same thing as just eating 900 calories and not exercising which no grown man has any business doing from a health standpoint.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?

    And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?

    Years ago when I started here, people used to suggest eating 75% of their exercise calories. Then it became 50-75% and now that's been shortened to just 50%. I find the progression interesting.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?

    And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?

    Just my personal experience: when I compare the estimate on my Fitbit (which I know from experience is accurate for me) to the estimate from, say, a treadmill, the treadmill is more but it has never been anything close to doubled.

    Same for me. I've put effort into making my estimates are accurate/reasonable and although some estimates in the database are badly inflated, many are closer to gross not net, but I've never seen one I thought was doubled.

    For what it's worth, the (Lifecycle) elliptical machine I used for a while really did just about double my estimated calorie burn. That thing would readily tell you you were burning 20 kcal/min.

    That's the only one I've see that was like that, though.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?

    And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?

    Years ago when I started here, people used to suggest eating 75% of their exercise calories. Then it became 50-75% and now that's been shortened to just 50%. I find the progression interesting.

    Maybe it's in relation in declining understanding of mathematics in the general population? ;)

    (Sorry that was my old person's grumble for the day...…)

    Well half is a lot easier to calculate...
  • amyepdx
    amyepdx Posts: 750 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?

    And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?

    Just my personal experience: when I compare the estimate on my Fitbit (which I know from experience is accurate for me) to the estimate from, say, a treadmill, the treadmill is more but it has never been anything close to doubled.

    The treadmill readout will give you the TOTAL calories you burned during the time.
    The Fitbit adjustment is the difference between what you would have burned without exercise (which is included in your NEAT) and the total exercise calories.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,148 Member
    Why does no one ever say calorie balance determines weight loss, but exercise is for fun?

    'Cause it is. If it isn't, keep trying stuff until you find something that is, because that's where the magic is. The fun exercise activity will eventually get you doing others, to be better at the fun one.

    Yeah, yeah, exercise is good for fitness, exercise is good for health, exercise is good for strength; strength, fitness, and health make daily life easier and improve odds of a long, satisfying, independent life. Good stuff, highly worthwhile.

    But blah, blah, blah. Fun is what gets this lazy, hedonic li'l ol' lady off the couch.

    Find the fun, eat to fuel the fun, plus to attain/maintain a healthy weight, and all will be well.

    Fun!!

    OP: IME, hunger is common in the first week or two: An adaptation period.

    If it persists longer, experiment with what you eat, and when you eat, to figure out what satiates you personally. Satiation is very individual. Some things that satiate different people, either one or a combination: More protein, more fat, more volume (like a big bunch of low-cal high fiber veg, but there are other options), different eating schedules (one-two-three six meals a day, snacks or not, all day grazing, others), specific foods (some I've seen (or felt) are oatmeal, baked potatoes, whole grains, . . . .).

    Don't try to eat "only healthy foods". Try to eat in an overall healthy way, getting good nutrition, plus some treats for joy, so you don't feel restricted or deprived.

    Review your food diary on better or worse craving days; try to figure out what made the difference (food, sleep, stress, boredom, social triggers, emotions, habit, exercise, other). Use that knowledge to tweak your strategies. You can figure it out.

    Best wishes!
This discussion has been closed.