"eating" the calories burned with exercise...

Options
2

Replies

  • MyrnaSolganick
    MyrnaSolganick Posts: 60 Member
    Options
    Pardon my ignorance but what is TDEE?
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    Options
    MyrnaSolganick wrote: »
    Pardon my ignorance but what is TDEE?

    TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
    RMR+TEF of food+activity
    ;)
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    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. <3
  • MyrnaSolganick
    MyrnaSolganick Posts: 60 Member
    Options
    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.
  • hotstrawberry
    hotstrawberry Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    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?
  • Danp
    Danp Posts: 1,561 Member
    edited January 2020
    Options
    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.
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,224 Member
    Options
    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).

  • hotstrawberry
    hotstrawberry Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    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
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,224 Member
    Options
    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?
  • hotstrawberry
    hotstrawberry Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    I’m at 129 now. I did a back workout today, 46 minutes and it said 135 cals burned. When I go running for 30 minutes it’ll say less than 300 burned and I know that can’t be right. My heart rate indicates my intensity is high. For today I actually have 62 cals left and my 5 week weight prediction is 127. I realize it’s just an app and there are many factors but I want to fully understand the results it gives.
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,224 Member
    Options
    hotstrawberry wrote: »
    I’m at 129 now. I did a back workout today, 46 minutes and it said 135 cals burned. When I go running for 30 minutes it’ll say less than 300 burned and I know that can’t be right. My heart rate indicates my intensity is high. For today I actually have 62 cals left and my 5 week weight prediction is 127. I realize it’s just an app and there are many factors but I want to fully understand the results it gives.

    You’re exactly 129? Not 129.3 or something? And that’s the weight mfp has for you today? And it is giving you exactly 127?

    At your weight, you’ll burn about 80 calories per mile that you run (regardless of how fast). I don’t know how many miles you’re covering in 30 minutes, but less than 300 calories seems about right? Unless you’re running very fast.

    And sadly, the 135 also seems pretty close (assuming you’re doing a standard weightlifting workout).
  • hotstrawberry
    hotstrawberry Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    Oh well, I guess I'm just destined to hold onto these last 5 pounds or starve myself. I don't feel like I dog it when I workout, I do put in effort, but it doesn't seem like I'm really working very hard if these numbers are correct. Thank you for your replies.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,649 Member
    Options
    You are doing excellent. And you seem to have good adherence. What you need to do is lose the idea that the prediction means anything. And lose the timelines. In fact, if you are seeing your weight move while gliding into maintenance you're not gliding! 0.5lb a week weight loss, because of water weight variations is probably not visible to the naked eye i.e. without using a weight trend application.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,178 Member
    Options
    hotstrawberry wrote: »
    Oh well, I guess I'm just destined to hold onto these last 5 pounds or starve myself. I don't feel like I dog it when I workout, I do put in effort, but it doesn't seem like I'm really working very hard if these numbers are correct. Thank you for your replies.

    You know that old saw about weight management being "80% diet, 20% exercise" or the other one about how you "can't outrun your fork"? Well, neither of those is precisely or universally true, but you're discovering why people say stuff like that.

    Exercise burns fewer calories than most people imagine, especially once you're at a lighter bodyweight . . . even if you're working really, really intensely. And working extremely intensely, by definition, means a person can't keep at it very long, so the calorie burn is still limited. Sad, it is. ;)

    Just work at trying to lose the 5 pounds slowly, which would be the sensible thing at your weight (or my weight, which isn't that much more).

    I'm old and a little slow. I can hit a weight-adjusted 700 calories per hour pace on a rowing machine, which is an OK-ish pace for my demographics . . . but I can't keep it up for a solid hour. ;) I can eat 700 calories in 15 minutes without even working at it.

    You're working hard. It's good. Mostly, it's for fun and fitness, I hope . . . because the calorie benefits are (sadly) inherently fairly modest.

    Best wishes!
  • hotstrawberry
    hotstrawberry Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    Thank you @AnnPT77. It’s a work in progress as they say. Forward momentum and discipline is all I can do
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    MyrnaSolganick wrote: »
    Do you "eat" the calories you burn with exercise? if so, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of exercise?

    The purpose of exercise is physical fitness and overall health and well being. Part of what MFP is teaching here as a health and wellness site is how to properly fuel your body for your activity which will be pretty crucial in maintenance.

    Your MFP has a calorie target that includes you weight loss deficit without any exercise whatsoever.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    MyrnaSolganick wrote: »
    Pardon my ignorance but what is TDEE?

    Total Daily Energy Expenditure.

    You have BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) which is the calories you burn merely being alive...then you have your NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis)...the calories you burn going about your day to day stuff without exercise. For people that don't exercise, that would also be there TDEE...but if you exercise you would include that in your TDEE since you are expending that energy.

    For example, my BMR is around 1800 calories...that plus my day to day general activity gives me a NEAT of roughly 2400-2500 calories. With regular exercise my actual TDEE is more like 3000+, so I can lose about 1 Lb per week eating around 2500 calories on average.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited January 2020
    Options
    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?

    That estimate is also based on your non-exercise activity level matching what you selected - likely Sedentary.

    So how do you get a bigger deficit that for at least 15 lbs loss might support 1 lb weekly?
    (when you get to 15 lbs left, 1/2 weekly is more reasonable)

    Increase your non-exercise Activity level to Lightly-Active.

    And then actually be lightly active in your daily life - go out for short walks you don't log as exercise. Walk the longer distance to/from anywhere. Get up during day and make the rounds of the house.

    Shoot - you may not be at MFP sedentary already - that level is less than 4K steps usually, a desk job with no getting around, and then home to plop on the couch for the evening and all weekend with no household duties being done. Many people really aren't sedentary anyway.

    Keep your biking there for exercise that really pushes your heart and log it (then eat more when you do more). The short easy walks or other increases to daily activity won't likely be intense enough to improve heart health.

Categories