Do you eat exercise cals ?

Options
24

Replies

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    I really do think that people confuse different ways to set goals.

    I've lost weight twice in my life. The first time (back in 2003), I didn't really count calories, but I estimated the calories I had been eating, figured out a way to cut out about 500 cal, and then wrote down what I ate to keep myself honest. I then worked on getting my exercise up to about an average of 500 cal/day (I ran and biked and swam a lot, trained for some running races, and then some tris, and I walk a lot in a normal day since I rarely drive anywhere). I lost about 2 lb per week (beyond when that was likely a good idea, but I didn't know better).

    This time, early on I found MFP, and asked for a goal for 2 lbs. I got 1200, which seemed shocking low (I was confident I hadn't eaten that low before, and though I was older it still seemed like a huge difference). After changing the exercise settings a bunch of times I realized it wasn't including exercise. Initially I didn't do a lot of exercise (I got my walking miles up and did some stationary biking and swimming, but nothing very strenuous and no more than about 30 min 3-4x per week). But as I got back into shape I again started doing exercise that burned serious calories, and I don't think anyone -- no dietitian or reputable trainer -- would think it was a great idea for someone to regularly eat 1200 and run 5 miles regularly, or bike 20, or do a long run of 10 miles on a weekend or what not, so of course I ate my exercise cals back. Depending on the exercise I might cut the cals or round down (running I ate about 100%).

    Soon after I started exercising a lot and consistently, I decided to add the cals to my cal goal and do a TDEE method that was more similar to my old plan than MFP's approach. But there's a big difference between eating around 1600 cal (later 1800 for a while), with a higher day on the weekend, and eating 1200 cal, and whether I was specifically logging it back or not the latter approach was including exercise.

    Of course, I knew my logging was not way below what I was actually eating, so I can see the approach of extra cals to make up for that. I don't think any experts should assume someone will log badly in advance, as many of us do not.
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,677 Member
    Options
    I exercise a lot, because I enjoy it. If I don't eat back the calories, I get really hungry and have less energy. I am also a lot more likely to binge. Since most of the exercises I log are easy to compute (walking, running) I eat 100% of those calories. Other exercises are less reliable (i.e. yoga, calisthenics, stationary bike) so I eat about 3/4 of those calories. I've been maintaining my weight for several years.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,955 Member
    edited May 2019
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    I don't eat any of my exercise calories. The estimates can be off and when I do eat my exercise calories I find myself going over or stressing about it, so I just don't eat them. I have them turned off, so I don't even see them. I try not to eat all of my calories. I try to leave ~200-300, I figure my accuracy can't be spot on when logging, so these allow me to account for that. I will say, I don't stress about leaving calories though, If I'm having a hungry day I may eat up to my calorie limit. I've found the best thing for me is to set it and then basically forget it until I reach my short term goals and reset my calories and macros.

    Sure estimate can be wrong. There are ways to validate them though. But you know you burn SOME calories, right? So choosing zero is the one number that is definitively wrong.

    Yes, I'm well versed in CICO. I've met with trainers, nutritionists, and dietitians, and they all recommended not eating the exercise calories. Yes, I have a Fitbit that estimates my calories burned. I just use my exercise calories as a sort of padding towards my deficit. I have a training plan from the personal trainer, I've lost 43 pounds in 4 months, losing at a decent pace, without binge-ing, or feeling deprived.

    So your trainer and dietitian told you to use the MFP goal but not use it as MFP intends you to?

    I'll add that 43lbs in 4 months is quite an aggressive rate of loss and would be undereating for the majority of people, so what you're saying is kind of supporting the argument that you should eat back exercise calories. Since you seem to be working with a team of professionals I'll assume it is fine for you, but most people aren't and should not be losing anywhere near as fast.

    Congrats on your progress BTW :smile:

    Thank you! :smiley: No they recommended MFP as a quick and easy way to log my food, but I don't use the goal it sets. I use calculations which takes into account the Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation to calculate my BMR, then I calculate my deficit and macros using the equation/guidelines they gave me for the macros. I have the premium version of MFP so I can override its goals and put in my custom ones. (I'm a dorky accountant, so I have spreadsheets that now do all these equations and math for me haha). The calculators are available online and I found free web guides to setting up the macros that actually explained why we set them up that way, vs. continuing to pay someone to set them up for me.

    It's only 2.6 pounds a week, so it's not that aggressive. We set it up that I should lose .65-1% of body weight per week, as long as I stay within that range, I'm good. If after 3-4 weeks my progress isn't where it should be, either losing too much or too little, I make tiny adjustments. We're focusing on fat loss, while minimizing muscle loss, so my workouts are a good mix of strength training and cardio.

    I'm not saying that not eating them is the only way to go. I think weight loss, while at its core is CICO, is very individualized; every person has to find what works for them. My mom doesn't count calories, she does Keto and has lost a good amount of weight. Some people mentioned here they ate them and lost, some didn't and lost. I think at the end of the day you have to remember that none of us gained this weight quickly, we won't lose it that quickly and we have to find what works for us individually so this can truly be a lifestyle change, not another failed "diet." So take the time to experiment on eating them or not eating them. Take 2-4 weeks to see how your body responds and do what works best for you!

    See, the bolded is the key though. You ARE eating your exercise calories - they are already included by those calculators. They use TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) which includes your expected intentional exercise. We are saying that if you use the MFP calculation (which is NEAT, not TDEE, and does not include exercise yet) you should eat back your exercise calories.

    If person A has a TDEE of 2000 cals and burns 200 cals per day at the gym, and wants to lose 1 lb per week, a TDEE calculator will give them a calorie goal of 1500 calories, MFP will give them a calorie goal of 1300 cals. MFP expects them to log their exercise (200 cals) whenthey do it and eat those calories back.

    I'm guessing based on what you're saying that you are currently 250+lbs, but many people simply don't have that much weight to lose. For the majority of dieters, especially female dieters, consistently maintaining a 1,000+ deficit is risking under-eating. A female TDEE of greater than 2300 cals is just not that common.

    Mifflin St Jeor *is* the calculator MFP uses, just to clarify.

    I think @movgrl1 will be changing how she calculates once she gets closer to her goal. ALL the calculators are off at the margins of Obese and Underweight. So I'm willing to bet my Little Debbies that she'll be eating exercise calories once she gets within 20-30 pounds of a healthy BMI.

    I under ate for a while too. All was well, till it wasn't. It worked great while I had a lot of body fat to use as fuel, but I crashed eventually and had to be more reasonable.

    We almost all learn the hard way, but I'm guessing as she gets closer that 1% of body weight loss per week will get harder and harder if she doesn't eat those exercise cals.


  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    edited May 2019
    Options
    cmriverside wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    I don't eat any of my exercise calories. The estimates can be off and when I do eat my exercise calories I find myself going over or stressing about it, so I just don't eat them. I have them turned off, so I don't even see them. I try not to eat all of my calories. I try to leave ~200-300, I figure my accuracy can't be spot on when logging, so these allow me to account for that. I will say, I don't stress about leaving calories though, If I'm having a hungry day I may eat up to my calorie limit. I've found the best thing for me is to set it and then basically forget it until I reach my short term goals and reset my calories and macros.

    Sure estimate can be wrong. There are ways to validate them though. But you know you burn SOME calories, right? So choosing zero is the one number that is definitively wrong.

    Yes, I'm well versed in CICO. I've met with trainers, nutritionists, and dietitians, and they all recommended not eating the exercise calories. Yes, I have a Fitbit that estimates my calories burned. I just use my exercise calories as a sort of padding towards my deficit. I have a training plan from the personal trainer, I've lost 43 pounds in 4 months, losing at a decent pace, without binge-ing, or feeling deprived.

    So your trainer and dietitian told you to use the MFP goal but not use it as MFP intends you to?

    I'll add that 43lbs in 4 months is quite an aggressive rate of loss and would be undereating for the majority of people, so what you're saying is kind of supporting the argument that you should eat back exercise calories. Since you seem to be working with a team of professionals I'll assume it is fine for you, but most people aren't and should not be losing anywhere near as fast.

    Congrats on your progress BTW :smile:

    Thank you! :smiley: No they recommended MFP as a quick and easy way to log my food, but I don't use the goal it sets. I use calculations which takes into account the Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation to calculate my BMR, then I calculate my deficit and macros using the equation/guidelines they gave me for the macros. I have the premium version of MFP so I can override its goals and put in my custom ones. (I'm a dorky accountant, so I have spreadsheets that now do all these equations and math for me haha). The calculators are available online and I found free web guides to setting up the macros that actually explained why we set them up that way, vs. continuing to pay someone to set them up for me.

    It's only 2.6 pounds a week, so it's not that aggressive. We set it up that I should lose .65-1% of body weight per week, as long as I stay within that range, I'm good. If after 3-4 weeks my progress isn't where it should be, either losing too much or too little, I make tiny adjustments. We're focusing on fat loss, while minimizing muscle loss, so my workouts are a good mix of strength training and cardio.

    I'm not saying that not eating them is the only way to go. I think weight loss, while at its core is CICO, is very individualized; every person has to find what works for them. My mom doesn't count calories, she does Keto and has lost a good amount of weight. Some people mentioned here they ate them and lost, some didn't and lost. I think at the end of the day you have to remember that none of us gained this weight quickly, we won't lose it that quickly and we have to find what works for us individually so this can truly be a lifestyle change, not another failed "diet." So take the time to experiment on eating them or not eating them. Take 2-4 weeks to see how your body responds and do what works best for you!

    See, the bolded is the key though. You ARE eating your exercise calories - they are already included by those calculators. They use TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) which includes your expected intentional exercise. We are saying that if you use the MFP calculation (which is NEAT, not TDEE, and does not include exercise yet) you should eat back your exercise calories.

    If person A has a TDEE of 2000 cals and burns 200 cals per day at the gym, and wants to lose 1 lb per week, a TDEE calculator will give them a calorie goal of 1500 calories, MFP will give them a calorie goal of 1300 cals. MFP expects them to log their exercise (200 cals) whenthey do it and eat those calories back.

    I'm guessing based on what you're saying that you are currently 250+lbs, but many people simply don't have that much weight to lose. For the majority of dieters, especially female dieters, consistently maintaining a 1,000+ deficit is risking under-eating. A female TDEE of greater than 2300 cals is just not that common.

    Mifflin St Jeor is the calculator MFP uses, just to clarify.

    I think @movgrl1 will be changing how she calculates once she gets closer to here goal. ALL the calculators are off at the margins of Obese and Underweight. So I'm willing to bet my Little Debbies that she'll be eating exercise calories once she gets within 20-30 pounds of a healthy BMI.

    I under ate for a while too. All was well, till it wasn't.

    We almost all learn the hard way.


    Ah, is that one the BMR calculator, not TDEE? Shoot. I get them confused. Sorry @movgrl1

    OK, so the first paragraph of my post might not apply depending on the math you did after you got your BMR :lol:

    But the rest still applies. And I agree, when you have a lot to lose it's easier to put the pedal to the metal and still eat a good balanced diet. It's when you approach a healthy weight and your TDEE starts to drift down that those exercise calories are the difference between tolerable and mass destruction! And honestly, most of the posters who ask this question are women with a modest amount of weight to lose, who can't afford to leave 250 cals on the table.
  • staticsplit
    staticsplit Posts: 538 Member
    Options
    I usually eat 50ish percent of them unless I'm really hungry, like today. I ate 2700 calories, burned 800ish through exercise supposedly, and had 160g of protein--this is a fair amount more than usual but my body seemed to want it and I don't feel overly full. If I wasn't quite so hangry today I'd probably have aimed for about 2200-2300. Yesterday I didn't exercise and ate 1800 or so pretty easily.

    (my goal is maintenance/recomp)
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,876 Member
    Options
    Commander_Keen wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Commander_Keen wrote: »
    It really depends on, how much your eating (How reliable ) and how much you are burning ( again How reliable)
    The bigger the deficit, the quicker the weight loss .

    Please stop promoting overly aggressive weight loss techniques. There are many adverse effects to rapid weight loss if a person doesn’t have a lot of weight to lose.

    Can you correctly identify the exact timing of when the adverse effect start to occur?
    Your also suggesting that the OP does not know when to stop.
    Not only that, but the advice affects doesn't occur because of lack of food, ( well death and organ failure) but hair and nails comes from lack of nutrients.

    You need energy (calories) to grow hair and nails and other basic functions. It would stand to reason that when calories are insufficient, the body will slow down or cease altogether basic functions to conserve energy...it's not just a lock of nutrients.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    edited May 2019
    Options
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    Sitting mine up using the goals MFP suggested it put me at an absurdly low calorie calculation, but overestimated my exercise calories, so if I ate them it took me out of my deficit, and led to weight gain. MFP, while awesome, overestimates the calories burned during strength training sessions. So for me personally, eating them was not the way to go and in the beginning of working with professionals I was told to quit eating my exercise calories. That was step number one for using MFP. They like the user friendly nature of MFP, but despise the calculations, then we starting tweaking the calculations and getting to a good calorie goal and plan for me.

    I think it's sweet you all worry about me being overly aggressive in losing or under eating, but that's not the case. You're right @kimny72, a 150 pound female losing 2.6 pounds a week would be aggressive. However, losing .65-1% of your body weight isn't aggressive, if you weigh 150 you'll aim to lose between .97-1.5 pound(s) a week. My eating style is a good balance of fruits, veggies, lean proteins, and other foods I enjoy. My style of eating is "preferable, enjoyable, convenient, and sustainable" as laid out by nutritionists/trainers. I can tell y'all are sweet and caring people, but I can attest I'm not under eating. And @cmriverside I'm not doing anything with my Little Debbies, because I enjoy still eating those, albeit in a more moderate and healthy portion now :wink:

    I don't have any argument with what you're doing right now, thank you for hanging in here and giving more detail :smile: . Unfortunately, we get a lot of posters here who really are under-eating and exercising and getting their weight loss info from FB ads and just causing themselves all sorts of problems. So some of us (okay, at least me) tend to craft our answers to keep them in mind.

    I wonder if OP is still reading :lol:
  • movgrl1
    movgrl1 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    Sitting mine up using the goals MFP suggested it put me at an absurdly low calorie calculation, but overestimated my exercise calories, so if I ate them it took me out of my deficit, and led to weight gain. MFP, while awesome, overestimates the calories burned during strength training sessions. So for me personally, eating them was not the way to go and in the beginning of working with professionals I was told to quit eating my exercise calories. That was step number one for using MFP. They like the user friendly nature of MFP, but despise the calculations, then we starting tweaking the calculations and getting to a good calorie goal and plan for me.

    I think it's sweet you all worry about me being overly aggressive in losing or under eating, but that's not the case. You're right @kimny72, a 150 pound female losing 2.6 pounds a week would be aggressive. However, losing .65-1% of your body weight isn't aggressive, if you weigh 150 you'll aim to lose between .97-1.5 pound(s) a week. My eating style is a good balance of fruits, veggies, lean proteins, and other foods I enjoy. My style of eating is "preferable, enjoyable, convenient, and sustainable" as laid out by nutritionists/trainers. I can tell y'all are sweet and caring people, but I can attest I'm not under eating. And @cmriverside I'm not doing anything with my Little Debbies, because I enjoy still eating those, albeit in a more moderate and healthy portion now :wink:

    I don't have any argument with what you're doing right now, thank you for hanging in here and giving more detail :smile: . Unfortunately, we get a lot of posters here who really are under-eating and exercising and getting their weight loss info from FB ads and just causing themselves all sorts of problems. So some of us (okay, at least me) tend to craft our answers to keep them in mind.

    I wonder if OP is still reading :lol:

    Absolutely! I appreciate you having a civil discussion. Oh, FB and IG are the bane of my existence, so much false and harmful info! I'm new to the community side of MFP, so I wasn't aware of that about the posters. I'll be more mindful of that going forward, thank you. I went through my phases of under eating and going about losing weight the wrong way, thinking the faster the better - that's nothing but a good way to develop an eating disorder unfortunately.

    :lol: I hope OP is. If nothing else the fact that we're all losing is good proof of how you need to individualize different aspects of losing weight to make it enjoyable and sustainable. Like taking into account hormones and other things for long term (and healthy) success. Personally, if eating exercise calories, not eating them, shoot if singing the Barney theme song before they eat helps someone become healthier - I'm all for it and will gladly cheer them on! :smile: Find what works for you OP and don't beat yourself up if you make a misstep, or feel like you have to be in a rush to get there. I know it's hard, but just remember this isn't about getting smaller, it's about getting healthier!
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited May 2019
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    I don't eat any of my exercise calories. The estimates can be off and when I do eat my exercise calories I find myself going over or stressing about it, so I just don't eat them. I have them turned off, so I don't even see them. I try not to eat all of my calories. I try to leave ~200-300, I figure my accuracy can't be spot on when logging, so these allow me to account for that. I will say, I don't stress about leaving calories though, If I'm having a hungry day I may eat up to my calorie limit. I've found the best thing for me is to set it and then basically forget it until I reach my short term goals and reset my calories and macros.

    Sure estimate can be wrong. There are ways to validate them though. But you know you burn SOME calories, right? So choosing zero is the one number that is definitively wrong.

    Yes, I'm well versed in CICO. I've met with trainers, nutritionists, and dietitians, and they all recommended not eating the exercise calories. Yes, I have a Fitbit that estimates my calories burned. I just use my exercise calories as a sort of padding towards my deficit. I have a training plan from the personal trainer, I've lost 43 pounds in 4 months, losing at a decent pace, without binge-ing, or feeling deprived.

    So your trainer and dietitian told you to use the MFP goal but not use it as MFP intends you to?

    I'll add that 43lbs in 4 months is quite an aggressive rate of loss and would be undereating for the majority of people, so what you're saying is kind of supporting the argument that you should eat back exercise calories. Since you seem to be working with a team of professionals I'll assume it is fine for you, but most people aren't and should not be losing anywhere near as fast.

    Congrats on your progress BTW :smile:

    Thank you! :smiley: No they recommended MFP as a quick and easy way to log my food, but I don't use the goal it sets. I use calculations which takes into account the Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation to calculate my BMR, then I calculate my deficit and macros using the equation/guidelines they gave me for the macros. I have the premium version of MFP so I can override its goals and put in my custom ones. (I'm a dorky accountant, so I have spreadsheets that now do all these equations and math for me haha). The calculators are available online and I found free web guides to setting up the macros that actually explained why we set them up that way, vs. continuing to pay someone to set them up for me.

    It's only 2.6 pounds a week, so it's not that aggressive. We set it up that I should lose .65-1% of body weight per week, as long as I stay within that range, I'm good. If after 3-4 weeks my progress isn't where it should be, either losing too much or too little, I make tiny adjustments. We're focusing on fat loss, while minimizing muscle loss, so my workouts are a good mix of strength training and cardio.

    I'm not saying that not eating them is the only way to go. I think weight loss, while at its core is CICO, is very individualized; every person has to find what works for them. My mom doesn't count calories, she does Keto and has lost a good amount of weight. Some people mentioned here they ate them and lost, some didn't and lost. I think at the end of the day you have to remember that none of us gained this weight quickly, we won't lose it that quickly and we have to find what works for us individually so this can truly be a lifestyle change, not another failed "diet." So take the time to experiment on eating them or not eating them. Take 2-4 weeks to see how your body responds and do what works best for you!

    See, the bolded is the key though. You ARE eating your exercise calories - they are already included by those calculators. They use TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) which includes your expected intentional exercise. We are saying that if you use the MFP calculation (which is NEAT, not TDEE, and does not include exercise yet) you should eat back your exercise calories.

    If person A has a TDEE of 2000 cals and burns 200 cals per day at the gym, and wants to lose 1 lb per week, a TDEE calculator will give them a calorie goal of 1500 calories, MFP will give them a calorie goal of 1300 cals. MFP expects them to log their exercise (200 cals) whenthey do it and eat those calories back.

    I'm guessing based on what you're saying that you are currently 250+lbs, but many people simply don't have that much weight to lose. For the majority of dieters, especially female dieters, consistently maintaining a 1,000+ deficit is risking under-eating. A female TDEE of greater than 2300 cals is just not that common.

    Mifflin St Jeor is the calculator MFP uses, just to clarify.

    I think @movgrl1 will be changing how she calculates once she gets closer to here goal. ALL the calculators are off at the margins of Obese and Underweight. So I'm willing to bet my Little Debbies that she'll be eating exercise calories once she gets within 20-30 pounds of a healthy BMI.

    I under ate for a while too. All was well, till it wasn't.

    We almost all learn the hard way.


    Ah, is that one the BMR calculator, not TDEE? Shoot. I get them confused. Sorry @movgrl1

    It's both. It's typically combined with an activity multiplier (often made easier on internet sites by asking about number of days and intensity of exercise).

    A couple of examples: http://www.leighpeele.com/mifflin-st-jeor-calculator and https://jscalc.io/calc/EfwfPAiiqKMB3yH5
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    movgrl1 wrote: »
    Sitting mine up using the goals MFP suggested it put me at an absurdly low calorie calculation, but overestimated my exercise calories, so if I ate them it took me out of my deficit, and led to weight gain.

    What this indicates is that you ARE using a TDEE calculation, which is the only reason MFP would be way too low. And as kimny said, that means you are eating back exercise calories, just up front.
    MFP, while awesome, overestimates the calories burned during strength training sessions.

    Depending on which entry you choose, that's true. I find that how much it overestimates depends on the exercises and, of course, which entries are chosen. For example, a lot of them include some judgment about how hard you are working, and often someone who is new perceives more intensity than the calories would reflect. The ones that are based on more objective factors (weight, distance, time) always seemed to me to be more accurate, although they can be off too for various reasons.
    I think it's sweet you all worry about me being overly aggressive in losing or under eating, but that's not the case. You're right @kimny72, a 150 pound female losing 2.6 pounds a week would be aggressive. However, losing .65-1% of your body weight isn't aggressive, if you weigh 150 you'll aim to lose between .97-1.5 pound(s) a week.

    This sounds like it works fine for you, but my concern is the message that not eating exercise cals it better IF a person is using the MFP system (as would more often than not be the case) and at, say, 1200 cals seeking 2 lb/week. Or that 2.6 is the result of not using exercise cals, which I can see someone getting encouraged to do when they are much closer to their goal weight. That's why when saying experts say to ignore MFP's guidelines (max of 1-2 per week) and the way it works (exercise is added after the fact and eaten back), it's important to be clear that this is using an exercise goal different from (and higher than) the MFP one.

    Similarly, as I noted above, when I switched to TDEE method I didn't log exercise calories, since they were already in my goal.

Categories