"eating" the calories burned with exercise...
MyrnaSolganick
Posts: 60 Member
Do you "eat" the calories you burn with exercise? if so, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of exercise?
3
Replies
-
Your MFP calorie goal has a deficit built in. You are not intended to create a larger calorie deficit through exercise. MFP intends you to eat all exercise calories assuming they are calculated correctly. Exercise is for health and fitness, not for a larger calorie deficit. This is not an opinion question; it is how MFP is designed.28
-
Yes.
To use myself as an example, I am a runner training regularly for a long distance event in July.
I want to get quicker, stronger, more able to do long distances on my feet. To do that I need my muscles to re-build after training and get stronger. That's how training works.
To do that my body needs to be fuelled properly. If I didn't eat them back, I would feel awful and get weaker.
That would defeat the purpose of the exercise.
If you are not training for an event the same principles still apply, exercise requires more energy and therefore more energy needs to be taken in.20 -
I eat mine and have been happily and steadily losing weight since July.12
-
It definitely doesn't defeat the purpose of exercise to eat the calories back. Exercise does two things for you which just dieting with a calorie deficit doesn't:
- As you can see from another recent thread about resting heart rate, a lot of people get truly dramatic improvements in various fitness markers (pulse, blood pressure, etc) through even modest amounts of regular exercise. If you're overweight/obese, losing weight through dieting alone will also improve your fitness, but not as much as dieting AND exercising.
- More food: Let's say you're on a 1500 calorie per day diet. That can seem like a very reasonable # at first but get quite hard to comply with later on, when the initial adrenaline rush of starting a diet wears off and you start to feel hungry and crave-y again. But let's say you do 300 calories worth of cardio per day. So instead you get 1800 calories of food, which is orders of magnitude easier to comply with than 1500. You have the exact same calorie deficit (and rate of fat loss) but in a way that you can sustain over time without getting frustrated and quitting.
There are some on MFP who insist that 2nd point is invalid -- that if you do 300 cals of cardio and eat 300 cals more food, you are not less hungry in general, because all you've done is create a need for additional food through exercise, which you then fulfill by eating more food - a wash. But at least to me it seems more than obvious that doing an easy 300 calories worth of cardio does not make you ravenously more hungry, and meanwhile, the difference in satiety, day to day calorie limit compliance, and longer term diet sustainability, between eating 1500 and 1800 calories is ridiculously huge. So, in my view, which is not the view of everyone on MFP to be sure, even when you eat 100 % of your exercise calories back, it is helping your diet, not just your fitness. Specifically, it decreases the likelihood that you will get diet fatigue from food deprivation and then just quit.
Also, some people find that exercise helps them get "centered" in a diet/health frame of mind that makes it easier to diet. I'm definitely in that camp. When I work out, I find it easy to diet, don't get very hungry, and feel motivated. Any day I don't work out, I start nibbling, grazing, and not feeling 100 % plugged in to my diet project. So there's that.
That all said, people who do a consistent amount of exercise on most days can skip the whole adding calories for exercise and eating them back step, and just use TDEEcalculator.net to get an overall caloric quota that includes the exercise, which MFP does not. This is what I did, after starting with MFP's Goal number. I find TDEE a simpler way to diet, and also, it doesn't encourage excessive exercising to "earn" more food, which I admit had become a bit of an issue for me before I switched over to the TDEE method. Now, it's no longer an issue. In the end, the numbers add up to the same - for me, it's either 1800 calories + exercise which is going to be around 300, or 2100 and the exercise is already included. Same outcome. All depends on whether you do a consistent amount of calorie burn each day.20 - As you can see from another recent thread about resting heart rate, a lot of people get truly dramatic improvements in various fitness markers (pulse, blood pressure, etc) through even modest amounts of regular exercise. If you're overweight/obese, losing weight through dieting alone will also improve your fitness, but not as much as dieting AND exercising.
-
It's OK to eat your exercise calories, but one thing to keep in mind is that MFP seems to over-estimate exercise calories. I'd also work on shifting your mindset from "exercise is to burn calories to eat more" to "exercise is for my lifelong health and to feel better." I think the key is to do what feels good for your body/mind and take your success and run with it, as long as you're happy with the weight you're losing, whether that's always eating your calories, never eating them, or (as I suspect is most common) eating them when you feel like you need them.8
-
Your MFP calorie goal has a deficit built in. You are not intended to create a larger calorie deficit through exercise. MFP intends you to eat all exercise calories assuming they are calculated correctly. Exercise is for health and fitness, not for a larger calorie deficit. This is not an opinion question; it is how MFP is designed.
To expand on this:
Unlike other sites which use TDEE calculators, MFP uses the NEAT method (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis), and as such this system is designed for exercise calories to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns given by MFP to be inflated for them and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back. Others, however, are able to lose weight while eating 100% of their exercise calories.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p111 -
I run to strengthen my heart and because I enjoy it, less so in winter and more so when I race.
I do weight bearing exercise to strengthen my bones and muscles and because I enjoy it.
I eat to fuel my life and it is something I also enjoy.
If 1 and 2 allow me to do more of 3 then I can only see wins all round.12 -
It would only defeat the purpose if you already account for them in your deficit using the TDEE method, which gives you a higher calorie goal than MFP (like calculating the calories assuming you exercise 5 times a week, for example).
With the MFP method, the calories are calculated assuming you don't do any kind of exercise, and if you do any, you get to eat back those calories to get the right amount of fuel.
Take a look at this video for a mode detailed explanation:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10503681/exercise-calories-do-i-eat-these-a-video-explanation4 -
With that mindset OP does it mean when or if you get to goal weight you will stop exercising if the only purpose you can see is to burn calories?9
-
I am the OP and I would like to clarify. I am 68 and am working on taking off at least 30 lbs. I am a shorty - 5' - so according to my goals, 1200 calories is what I need to be eating. Most days this is not too difficult. I just bought a recumbent bike to assist me with my fitness goals - which indeed are NOT just to lose weight but to strengthen my body. MFP, however, says that at this rate I will lose 2 lbs a month. That kinda sucks. 20+ years ago, on WW, I lost that much a week. Sheesh. So, anything to speed up the weight loss is good.3
-
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »So, anything to speed up the weight loss is good.
Is there any reason why it needs to be speeded up? I thought the slower we lose weight, the longer it stays off. Or is that a myth?8 -
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »I am the OP and I would like to clarify. I am 68 and am working on taking off at least 30 lbs. I am a shorty - 5' - so according to my goals, 1200 calories is what I need to be eating. Most days this is not too difficult. I just bought a recumbent bike to assist me with my fitness goals - which indeed are NOT just to lose weight but to strengthen my body. MFP, however, says that at this rate I will lose 2 lbs a month. That kinda sucks. 20+ years ago, on WW, I lost that much a week. Sheesh. So, anything to speed up the weight loss is good.
If you only have 30 pounds to lose AND a 0.5 lb/week rate of loss puts you at 1200, then you should NOT be attempting to speed up weight loss. Your stats do not support a larger deficit. Be patient and consistent; lose weight safely.16 -
Bodytransform wrote: »MyrnaSolganick wrote: »So, anything to speed up the weight loss is good.
Is there any reason why it needs to be speeded up? I thought the slower we lose weight, the longer it stays off. Or is that a myth?
That is a myth. Weight stays off if you have a good maintenance plan that balances your calories in and calories out.
However, overly fast weight loss is unsafe for other reasons.7 -
I’m 66 and at our age ‘anything to speed up the weight loss’ is not a good idea
At our age the likelihood of losing bone and muscle as well as not getting enough nutrition is more detrimental to our long term health.
You really don’t want to be the person that fell and can’t get up just because you wanted to lose weight faster.
I too had 30 lbs to lose and at 5’1 had 1200 calories to lose 1-0.5 lbs a week, less the closer I got to goal, it took a year and because I ate back my exercise calories, ~200 for each hour x 5 a week, found it no hardship.
It is good that you are doing the bike, but do try to work in some upper body exercises and strength training. (Hasfit for introductory weights or Nerdfitness for bodyweight are good to start with)
Look to the future, my mum is 92 and still fully independent. I’m looking at living another 27yr (hopefully) and I want them to be as active and independent as possible so I am taking good care of my health now.
Cheers, h.17 -
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »I am the OP and I would like to clarify. I am 68 and am working on taking off at least 30 lbs. I am a shorty - 5' - so according to my goals, 1200 calories is what I need to be eating. Most days this is not too difficult. I just bought a recumbent bike to assist me with my fitness goals - which indeed are NOT just to lose weight but to strengthen my body. MFP, however, says that at this rate I will lose 2 lbs a month. That kinda sucks. 20+ years ago, on WW, I lost that much a week. Sheesh. So, anything to speed up the weight loss is good.
Why didn't you say so! You are totally set, then. Just prop up a tablet with Netflix and HBO and watch the fat melt off. I lost 8 pounds while watching Rome on my recumbent, probably 20 during Tudors, and 10 so far with Better Call Saul. Thinking of going back to Breaking Bad or Sons of Anarchy or other mega-multi-season extravaganza for the big push to goal weight.
Nothing is easier in life than grinding off the pounds on a recumbent bike. I could literally do it in my sleep, and I think I have a few times lol It's the diet version of taking candy from a baby.5 -
Thank you all so much. Yes I know weight training is important. At the moment, I am rehabbing a shoulder so my physical therapist does not want me doing weight training. I see him this week and will revisit that issue. And yes that TV is on all the while I am on my bike...Igfrie, what was your biking schedule? how long and how often?
Still, MFP says I will lose .4 lb a week by eating 1200 calories and doing 20 min of biking 4-5 x's a week. That is awfully s-l-o-w. In my early 40's I would often lose that much per week. Certainly not that little. I understand that I am older and slower, but SHEESH! at this rate, I will still not have the 30 lbs off in a year...only 20. Any thoughts or suggestions?2 -
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »I am the OP and I would like to clarify. I am 68 and am working on taking off at least 30 lbs. I am a shorty - 5' - so according to my goals, 1200 calories is what I need to be eating. Most days this is not too difficult. I just bought a recumbent bike to assist me with my fitness goals - which indeed are NOT just to lose weight but to strengthen my body. MFP, however, says that at this rate I will lose 2 lbs a month. That kinda sucks. 20+ years ago, on WW, I lost that much a week. Sheesh. So, anything to speed up the weight loss is good.
Why didn't you say so! You are totally set, then. Just prop up a tablet with Netflix and HBO and watch the fat melt off. I lost 8 pounds while watching Rome on my recumbent, probably 20 during Tudors, and 10 so far with Better Call Saul. Thinking of going back to Breaking Bad or Sons of Anarchy or other mega-multi-season extravaganza for the big push to goal weight.
Nothing is easier in life than grinding off the pounds on a recumbent bike. I could literally do it in my sleep, and I think I have a few times lol It's the diet version of taking candy from a baby.MyrnaSolganick wrote: »Thank you all so much. Yes I know weight training is important. At the moment, I am rehabbing a shoulder so my physical therapist does not want me doing weight training. I see him this week and will revisit that issue. And yes that TV is on all the while I am on my bike...Igfrie, what was your biking schedule? how long and how often?
Still, MFP says I will lose .4 lb a week by eating 1200 calories and doing 20 min of biking 4-5 x's a week. That is awfully s-l-o-w. In my early 40's I would often lose that much per week. Certainly not that little. I understand that I am older and slower, but SHEESH! at this rate, I will still not have the 30 lbs off in a year...only 20. Any thoughts or suggestions?
Regardless of how much biking she does, OP needs to eat back those exercise calories. She should not be using exercise to create a larger deficit. OP really should not be attempting to lose weight any faster.7 -
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »Thank you all so much. Yes I know weight training is important. At the moment, I am rehabbing a shoulder so my physical therapist does not want me doing weight training. I see him this week and will revisit that issue. And yes that TV is on all the while I am on my bike...Igfrie, what was your biking schedule? how long and how often?
Still, MFP says I will lose .4 lb a week by eating 1200 calories and doing 20 min of biking 4-5 x's a week. That is awfully s-l-o-w. In my early 40's I would often lose that much per week. Certainly not that little. I understand that I am older and slower, but SHEESH! at this rate, I will still not have the 30 lbs off in a year...only 20. Any thoughts or suggestions?
I use the recumbent every day, started in May. Usually 45 minutes but sometimes an hour; I count it as 300 calories. First thing in the morning, always. Climb out of bed, get on machine, then start day.
I don't want to imply that I use (or ever used) the recumbent to "lose weight" in the sense of not eating the calories back so as to burn off additional fat through workouts alone. I think doing that kind of thing is a mistake; I always ate my calories back. I meant only that I've had good success propping up a tablet and watching TV to pass the time so that I wouldn't get bored and therefore not keep up the daily workouts.
I really love my recumbent bike & think it's a great choice for exercise equipment.
5 -
It definitely doesn't defeat the purpose of exercise to eat the calories back. Exercise does two things for you which just dieting with a calorie deficit doesn't:
- As you can see from another recent thread about resting heart rate, a lot of people get truly dramatic improvements in various fitness markers (pulse, blood pressure, etc) through even modest amounts of regular exercise. If you're overweight/obese, losing weight through dieting alone will also improve your fitness, but not as much as dieting AND exercising.
- More food: Let's say you're on a 1500 calorie per day diet. That can seem like a very reasonable # at first but get quite hard to comply with later on, when the initial adrenaline rush of starting a diet wears off and you start to feel hungry and crave-y again. But let's say you do 300 calories worth of cardio per day. So instead you get 1800 calories of food, which is orders of magnitude easier to comply with than 1500. You have the exact same calorie deficit (and rate of fat loss) but in a way that you can sustain over time without getting frustrated and quitting.
There are some on MFP who insist that 2nd point is invalid -- that if you do 300 cals of cardio and eat 300 cals more food, you are not less hungry in general, because all you've done is create a need for additional food through exercise, which you then fulfill by eating more food - a wash. But at least to me it seems more than obvious that doing an easy 300 calories worth of cardio does not make you ravenously more hungry, and meanwhile, the difference in satiety, day to day calorie limit compliance, and longer term diet sustainability, between eating 1500 and 1800 calories is ridiculously huge. So, in my view, which is not the view of everyone on MFP to be sure, even when you eat 100 % of your exercise calories back, it is helping your diet, not just your fitness. Specifically, it decreases the likelihood that you will get diet fatigue from food deprivation and then just quit.
Also, some people find that exercise helps them get "centered" in a diet/health frame of mind that makes it easier to diet. I'm definitely in that camp. When I work out, I find it easy to diet, don't get very hungry, and feel motivated. Any day I don't work out, I start nibbling, grazing, and not feeling 100 % plugged in to my diet project. So there's that.
That all said, people who do a consistent amount of exercise on most days can skip the whole adding calories for exercise and eating them back step, and just use TDEEcalculator.net to get an overall caloric quota that includes the exercise, which MFP does not. This is what I did, after starting with MFP's Goal number. I find TDEE a simpler way to diet, and also, it doesn't encourage excessive exercising to "earn" more food, which I admit had become a bit of an issue for me before I switched over to the TDEE method. Now, it's no longer an issue. In the end, the numbers add up to the same - for me, it's either 1800 calories + exercise which is going to be around 300, or 2100 and the exercise is already included. Same outcome. All depends on whether you do a consistent amount of calorie burn each day.
To quote a person I like, "Our ancestors had a name for exercise. Life!" OP, as far as eating back calories, I have no idea, but on activity, I say, "yes." I personally think it goes beyond calories burned. I think humans do better on a higher energy flux. We move more, we eat more. When you lose weight, your overall metabolism drops. You weigh less and there is some adaptive thermogenesis. So, you have options. 1. eats X number of calories a day less to maintain weight loss. 2. Exercise more to help "bridge" the energy gap. Eating less is hard, so activity makes sense to me. There is some research that shows people who burned 2500 cals a week vs 1000 cals a week in activity maintained their loses better. If we look inside weight loss maintainers, many have a PAL of 1.7-1.8 vs average American of 1.6. The 1.7-8 PAL equates to between 12-14k steps a day. If we look at modern hunter gatherers, they have a similar PAL and are lean in general. Some people may over compensate for calories burned during activity, but many don't. 12k steps may sound daunting, but look into ways of adding them to daily life. aka. NEAT increases. I would also tell you to add resistance training to your routine. As I am guessing a post menopausal woman, resistance training can help maintain lean mass and strengthen bones. Best of luck OP!5 - As you can see from another recent thread about resting heart rate, a lot of people get truly dramatic improvements in various fitness markers (pulse, blood pressure, etc) through even modest amounts of regular exercise. If you're overweight/obese, losing weight through dieting alone will also improve your fitness, but not as much as dieting AND exercising.
-
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »Thank you all so much. Yes I know weight training is important. At the moment, I am rehabbing a shoulder so my physical therapist does not want me doing weight training. I see him this week and will revisit that issue. And yes that TV is on all the while I am on my bike...Igfrie, what was your biking schedule? how long and how often?
Still, MFP says I will lose .4 lb a week by eating 1200 calories and doing 20 min of biking 4-5 x's a week. That is awfully s-l-o-w. In my early 40's I would often lose that much per week. Certainly not that little. I understand that I am older and slower, but SHEESH! at this rate, I will still not have the 30 lbs off in a year...only 20. Any thoughts or suggestions?
When you lose weight, you will lose some fat and some muscle (which includes muscles like your heart and all the muscles that help you function as a human-and are exceedingly difficult for women to build - especially as we get older). This means you want to keep every possible muscle cell you have. All of them.
Your body has a maximum amount of fat that it can actually burn in a day. It’s not a lot. Attempting to lose at a rate faster than that means your body will burn other things (muscles, organs, etc) to make up the difference.
Your body requires a certain level of macro and micronutrients for adequate nutrition to fuel your organs and life functions. It is exceedingly difficult to get all of those nutrients on only 1200 calories-and not possible to do with less than that.
Never mind the fact that underrating and over-exercising tends to lead to burnout, fatigue, general malaise, less overall activity and binges.
So...no. There’s not a way to speed this up that will be healthy or worth it.
I am also at 1200 calories PLUS exercise to lose less than 1 pound a week. I value my heart, organs, muscles and functioning body, so I am not looking to speed things up. I am stronger and fitter than I’ve ever been, and I’m also not redoing weight loss that didn’t stick long term.
9 -
Pardon my ignorance but what is TDEE?1
-
psychod787 wrote: »To quote a person I like, "Our ancestors had a name for exercise. Life!" OP, as far as eating back calories, I have no idea, but on activity, I say, "yes." I personally think it goes beyond calories burned. I think humans do better on a higher energy flux. We move more, we eat more. When you lose weight, your overall metabolism drops. You weigh less and there is some adaptive thermogenesis. So, you have options. 1. eats X number of calories a day less to maintain weight loss. 2. Exercise more to help "bridge" the energy gap. Eating less is hard, so activity makes sense to me. There is some research that shows people who burned 2500 cals a week vs 1000 cals a week in activity maintained their loses better. If we look inside weight loss maintainers, many have a PAL of 1.7-1.8 vs average American of 1.6. The 1.7-8 PAL equates to between 12-14k steps a day. If we look at modern hunter gatherers, they have a similar PAL and are lean in general. Some people may over compensate for calories burned during activity, but many don't. 12k steps may sound daunting, but look into ways of adding them to daily life. aka. NEAT increases. I would also tell you to add resistance training to your routine. As I am guessing a post menopausal woman, resistance training can help maintain lean mass and strengthen bones. Best of luck OP!
Harumph! You didn't quote me but I will quote you, especially since mfp ate my earlier post which was very much along the same lines as yours.
The mfp calories to lose .4 pounds a week do not include the exercise that mfp asked about, and that the OP said that they were planning to do.
Dropping the same percentage out of a larger total calorie pie means a larger loss with similar stress on the body as dropping the same percentage of a smaller pie.
Whether the original WW drop rate proved sustainable and maintainable for the OP, only they know.
For many a short and intense weight loss effort accomplished by applying extraordinary effort and following methods not intended to be continued with long term tends to result in a weight gain rebound after a few months of unsuccessful maintenance.
5 -
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »Pardon my ignorance but what is TDEE?
TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
RMR+TEF of food+activity
psychod787 wrote: »To quote a person I like, "Our ancestors had a name for exercise. Life!" OP, as far as eating back calories, I have no idea, but on activity, I say, "yes." I personally think it goes beyond calories burned. I think humans do better on a higher energy flux. We move more, we eat more. When you lose weight, your overall metabolism drops. You weigh less and there is some adaptive thermogenesis. So, you have options. 1. eats X number of calories a day less to maintain weight loss. 2. Exercise more to help "bridge" the energy gap. Eating less is hard, so activity makes sense to me. There is some research that shows people who burned 2500 cals a week vs 1000 cals a week in activity maintained their loses better. If we look inside weight loss maintainers, many have a PAL of 1.7-1.8 vs average American of 1.6. The 1.7-8 PAL equates to between 12-14k steps a day. If we look at modern hunter gatherers, they have a similar PAL and are lean in general. Some people may over compensate for calories burned during activity, but many don't. 12k steps may sound daunting, but look into ways of adding them to daily life. aka. NEAT increases. I would also tell you to add resistance training to your routine. As I am guessing a post menopausal woman, resistance training can help maintain lean mass and strengthen bones. Best of luck OP!
Harumph! You didn't quote me but I will quote you, especially since mfp ate my earlier post which was very much along the same lines as yours.
The mfp calories to lose .4 pounds a week do not include the exercise that mfp asked about, and that the OP said that they were planning to do.
Dropping the same percentage out of a larger total calorie pie means a larger loss with similar stress on the body as dropping the same percentage of a smaller pie.
Whether the original WW drop rate proved sustainable and maintainable for the OP, only they know.
For many a short and intense weight loss effort accomplished by applying extraordinary effort and following methods not intended to be continued with long term tends to result in a weight gain rebound after a few months of unsuccessful maintenance.
Still a hero of mine Alec.
2 -
MyrnaSolganick wrote: »Do you "eat" the calories you burn with exercise? if so, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of exercise?
I skied for more than 2 hours today, up and down a lot of hills. Garmin says I burned about 1,200 kCal. Yummy dinner tonight! The point of the exercise was to have fun, and I don't see how a really nice dinner will defeat that purpose? I mean even if I have Indian with rice and a cream sauce, I still charged down a bunch of hills.9 -
I kept the weight off that I lost on WW for many years. But I was in my early 40's, (way before menopause) and I was somewhat obsessed with working out. Cant do that now! have musculoskeletal issues. I get that I was helped by not only the cardio but the body sculpting classes...and I am no longer in my 40's. Still, it seems a pitifully slow rate at which to drop a score of pounds. I started WW in late January, and by June, I was 30 lbs lighter. I dont want to make this a WW bash session but I tried to go back many times and the points drove me crazy. I would lose and gain, lose and gain. Finally I concluded that a. I could lose and gain, lose and gain just fine on my own, without paying good $$ and spending Saturday AM's at meetings b. I also concluded that maybe WW just does not work for everyone (and they sure dont keep that data, do they?) Anyhow, I guess it is what it is. Its either lose the weight very slowly - or stay heavy.3
-
I have used MFP for years, and in the past, when I set up my goal weight, my calories were given to reach that weight and I could eat back the calories burned and still get the weight I wanted to pop up when I completed my diary and got the MFP "prediction" weight after 5 weeks. Now, I've noticed that if I eat back my calories burned, the weight that MFP predicts I would be in 5 weeks of eating that way is higher than my goal weight. It doesn't seem to be adjusting for calories burned. Is there a new setting I need to activate/deactivate to get this back?0
-
hotstrawberry wrote: »I have used MFP for years, and in the past, when I set up my goal weight, my calories were given to reach that weight and I could eat back the calories burned and still get the weight I wanted to pop up when I completed my diary and got the MFP "prediction" weight after 5 weeks. Now, I've noticed that if I eat back my calories burned, the weight that MFP predicts I would be in 5 weeks of eating that way is higher than my goal weight. It doesn't seem to be adjusting for calories burned. Is there a new setting I need to activate/deactivate to get this back?
That's because the weight prediction thing you get when you complete your diary is utter nonsense. It's a meaningless gimmick that you should ignore accordingly. In fact there's really no reason whatsoever to 'complete' your diary each day as it really doesn't do anything except pop up with that useless message and add a note to your feed saying you clicked the button.3 -
hotstrawberry wrote: »I have used MFP for years, and in the past, when I set up my goal weight, my calories were given to reach that weight and I could eat back the calories burned and still get the weight I wanted to pop up when I completed my diary and got the MFP "prediction" weight after 5 weeks. Now, I've noticed that if I eat back my calories burned, the weight that MFP predicts I would be in 5 weeks of eating that way is higher than my goal weight. It doesn't seem to be adjusting for calories burned. Is there a new setting I need to activate/deactivate to get this back?
Is your base calorie level 1200? If so, it’s possible that having a 1200 calorie “NET” (1200 plus eating your exercise calories) is not going to yield enough of a deficit to lose whatever amount of weight you want to lose per week.
For example-I burn 1600 calories a day without exercise. I’m set to lose 1 pound a week. That requires a 500 calorie deficit per day. So 1600-500 is 1100. Mfp will never set a base level below 1200. So while I set up my profile to lose 1 pound a week, at best, I will lose .8 (400 calorie deficit per day). So if I net 1200 (and you shouldn’t be “netting” less than that), my “in 5 weeks” calculation will show 4-ish pounds rather than 5-ish less than today.
If I told mfp I wanted to lose 2 pounds a week, I would need a base calorie allowance of 600. Again-mfp will never go below 1200. So if I net 1200, my “in 5 weeks” will still show 4-ish pounds vs 10-ish.
That doesn’t mean eat less and/or don’t eat your exercise calories. That means that 1200+ exercise calories is the lowest you can safely go (not necessarily where you even should be) and that’s just the fastest you’ll be able to lose.
If you’re looking for your “in 5 weeks” prediction to show your goal weight, you are very close to your goal. And you might just be trying to lose faster than is recommended (or safe).
3 -
I don’t think the calories burned is correct for one thing. It’s hard to track weight lifting so I think it’s calculating my strength training calories burned too low. According to MFP if I want to lose 5 lbs at a rate of .5 lbs per week I need 1640 calories per day. Even accounting for the low calories burned and only eating back those, it calculates I will be at 128 in 5 weeks0
-
hotstrawberry wrote: »I don’t think the calories burned is correct for one thing. It’s hard to track weight lifting so I think it’s calculating my strength training calories burned too low. According to MFP if I want to lose 5 lbs at a rate of .5 lbs per week I need 1640 calories per day. Even accounting for the low calories burned and only eating back those, it calculates I will be at 128 in 5 weeks
The accuracy of the exercise calories won’t factor into the “in 5 weeks” prediction. That really just takes your net calories for the day and assumes every day will have the same net calories.
With a 1640 goal, you won’t be hitting the 1200 issue. If you net 1640 (so your diary says 0 calories remaining), your prediction shows 128? And your current weight is less than 130.5-ish (a little less maybe because the predictor will account for future loss within those 5 weeks).
Just to be clear-the accuracy of exercise calories is important for your results. You want them to be as close as possible. Your very real body is doing very real “calculations” based on what is actually happening.
But whether or not they are correct doesn’t factor into the prediction - as that is just a calculator based on whatever your diary says is your net calories (and your diary could be wrong, missing a bunch of stuff-or you might want a prediction if you did or didn’t eat a brownie or if you did another workout or whatever).
And weight lifting doesn’t typically burn a lot of calories (assuming you’re doing a traditional lift/rest workout). A lot of smaller women burn around 150 calories an hour. Give or take. What is mfp giving you?1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions