Are calories based on BMR? What’s the diff?

beerbornemedic
beerbornemedic Posts: 1 Member
edited December 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
So it give options for activity level..... then subtracts work out calories.

Confused.... seems like I’m double dipping on burned calories if I put I have an active lifestyle and I add my workout

Replies

  • harper16
    harper16 Posts: 2,564 Member
    edited May 2020
    You set your activity before your exercise. Set yourself at active. Log any exercise separate and eat back those calories.
  • Justin_7272
    Justin_7272 Posts: 341 Member
    I feel the same way regarding double dipping. I set mine to sedentary so I'm not overestimating my calories burned. Even if I had a more physically-strenouos job, I'd be hesitant to go much above sedentary; worst case scenario you're burning more calories through daily activity than you think. Seems like a win 🤷‍♂️
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    If you set your activity level to super duper active and then work out for 20 minutes, the system thinks you're having a lazy day and subtracts some of the calories it gave you on the assumption that your job or lifestyle is like marathon training.
  • Go_Deskercise
    Go_Deskercise Posts: 1,630 Member
    zcinwf67m6qo.png
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,862 Member
    MFP means for your activity level to include the stuff you're normally doing on a day-to-day basis that isn't 'purposeful exercise' - stuff that will definitely happen daily-ish and that you wouldn't be timing/tracking like you might a bike ride/run/sports game/etc. ie do you regularly walk to get to work/bus stops/shops, does your job have you standing/moving/doing physical labor much of the day, etc. it accounts for what would be difficult/cumbersome to manually add as an exercise activity everyday.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,900 Member
    edited May 2020
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    If you set your activity level to super duper active and then work out for 20 minutes, the system thinks you're having a lazy day and subtracts some of the calories it gave you on the assumption that your job or lifestyle is like marathon training.

    That's only if you have a linked device.

    MFP doesn't "take away" calories once you've set your goal - that's the linked device interface that is doing that.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,864 Member
    beerbornemedic wrote: »
    So it give options for activity level..... then subtracts work out calories.

    Confused.... seems like I’m double dipping on burned calories if I put I have an active lifestyle and I add my workout

    That would be double dipping because if you're using MFP as designed, exercise isn't included in your activity level. MFP's methodology only includes your day to day hum drum in your activity level...that's why you log exercise after the fact to account for that additional activity and get additional calories to account for additional activity.
  • Justin_7272
    Justin_7272 Posts: 341 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    I feel the same way regarding double dipping. I set mine to sedentary so I'm not overestimating my calories burned. Even if I had a more physically-strenouos job, I'd be hesitant to go much above sedentary; worst case scenario you're burning more calories through daily activity than you think. Seems like a win 🤷‍♂️

    It's not a win if it winds up creating a large deficit that leaves you unable to support your daily activities.

    The odds of this would be so unlikely I wouldn't even take it into consideration; it's very unlikely a person would accidentally workout so intensely that he'd no longer be able to function due to deficit. And arguendo you're at such a deficit, it's easy to put more fuel in the tank.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    I feel the same way regarding double dipping. I set mine to sedentary so I'm not overestimating my calories burned. Even if I had a more physically-strenouos job, I'd be hesitant to go much above sedentary; worst case scenario you're burning more calories through daily activity than you think. Seems like a win 🤷‍♂️

    It's not a win if it winds up creating a large deficit that leaves you unable to support your daily activities.

    The odds of this would be so unlikely I wouldn't even take it into consideration; it's very unlikely a person would accidentally workout so intensely that he'd no longer be able to function due to deficit. And arguendo you're at such a deficit, it's easy to put more fuel in the tank.

    You might be surprised at which point the body finds a deficit too much and starts adapting in negative ways, besides increasing cortisol and water weight.
    While it is individualized (healthy or with disease, large or small amount to healthy weight, other life stress or little), studies have shown some lines in the sand that on average can start impacting people.

    And sadly it's not as sudden and in your face as not being able to function one day.
    Much like vitamin or mineral deficiency slowly creeps up on people and not until something major is noticed do they get tested and discovered what has been happening over some time.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,862 Member
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    I feel the same way regarding double dipping. I set mine to sedentary so I'm not overestimating my calories burned. Even if I had a more physically-strenouos job, I'd be hesitant to go much above sedentary; worst case scenario you're burning more calories through daily activity than you think. Seems like a win 🤷‍♂️

    It's not a win if it winds up creating a large deficit that leaves you unable to support your daily activities.

    The odds of this would be so unlikely I wouldn't even take it into consideration; it's very unlikely a person would accidentally workout so intensely that he'd no longer be able to function due to deficit. And arguendo you're at such a deficit, it's easy to put more fuel in the tank.

    um... that would be a recipe for disaster for someone that actually does have a physical labor job. That being said, those folks are probably much less likely to wind up on this site. (Cutting back on some obvious recurring calorie bombs would have a good likelihood of being enough to rein in their weight). (They would also be likely to know that their regular base activity level is far from sedentary).
  • Justin_7272
    Justin_7272 Posts: 341 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    I feel the same way regarding double dipping. I set mine to sedentary so I'm not overestimating my calories burned. Even if I had a more physically-strenouos job, I'd be hesitant to go much above sedentary; worst case scenario you're burning more calories through daily activity than you think. Seems like a win 🤷‍♂️

    It's not a win if it winds up creating a large deficit that leaves you unable to support your daily activities.

    The odds of this would be so unlikely I wouldn't even take it into consideration; it's very unlikely a person would accidentally workout so intensely that he'd no longer be able to function due to deficit. And arguendo you're at such a deficit, it's easy to put more fuel in the tank.

    You might be surprised at which point the body finds a deficit too much and starts adapting in negative ways, besides increasing cortisol and water weight.
    While it is individualized (healthy or with disease, large or small amount to healthy weight, other life stress or little), studies have shown some lines in the sand that on average can start impacting people.

    And sadly it's not as sudden and in your face as not being able to function one day.
    Much like vitamin or mineral deficiency slowly creeps up on people and not until something major is noticed do they get tested and discovered what has been happening over some time.

    Are you talking below 1500 cal net? That's not the topic at hand (or at least it wasn't meant to be).

    I don't know to which studies you're referring, or the "line in the sand," but it's my understanding minimum .8g protein/lb, 50g fat, & 1,500 calories are the minimum benchmarks for daily male functioning. I'd think you'd have to be pushing morbidly obese for your BMR to be high enough to hit a point where your defecit is so large you cannot function on 1,500 - 1,800 calories.

    For example, a 5'10 350lb sedentary male has a TDEE of ~3500. Let's say he has a -500 calorie workout, so net 4,000 calories to maintain weight. He eats 1,500 - 1,800, plus another 500 to cover the workout (so intake - workout = net 1,500 - 1,800 total). Deficit would be 1,700 - 2,000 calories. Is that healthy or sustainable? It's up to 4lbs a week, which is over 1%, but he's also hot a lot to lose. I'm admittedly not familiar with science when reaching these levels, so I'm curious.

    I guess the question is, from a scientific standpoint at what point do you have to exceed the average minimum benchmark in order to function?
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    I feel the same way regarding double dipping. I set mine to sedentary so I'm not overestimating my calories burned. Even if I had a more physically-strenouos job, I'd be hesitant to go much above sedentary; worst case scenario you're burning more calories through daily activity than you think. Seems like a win 🤷‍♂️

    It's not a win if it winds up creating a large deficit that leaves you unable to support your daily activities.

    The odds of this would be so unlikely I wouldn't even take it into consideration; it's very unlikely a person would accidentally workout so intensely that he'd no longer be able to function due to deficit. And arguendo you're at such a deficit, it's easy to put more fuel in the tank.

    You might be surprised at which point the body finds a deficit too much and starts adapting in negative ways, besides increasing cortisol and water weight.
    While it is individualized (healthy or with disease, large or small amount to healthy weight, other life stress or little), studies have shown some lines in the sand that on average can start impacting people.

    And sadly it's not as sudden and in your face as not being able to function one day.
    Much like vitamin or mineral deficiency slowly creeps up on people and not until something major is noticed do they get tested and discovered what has been happening over some time.

    Are you talking below 1500 cal net? That's not the topic at hand (or at least it wasn't meant to be).

    I don't know to which studies you're referring, or the "line in the sand," but it's my understanding minimum .8g protein/lb, 50g fat, & 1,500 calories are the minimum benchmarks for daily male functioning. I'd think you'd have to be pushing morbidly obese for your BMR to be high enough to hit a point where your defecit is so large you cannot function on 1,500 - 1,800 calories.

    For example, a 5'10 350lb sedentary male has a TDEE of ~3500. Let's say he has a -500 calorie workout, so net 4,000 calories to maintain weight. He eats 1,500 - 1,800, plus another 500 to cover the workout (so intake - workout = net 1,500 - 1,800 total). Deficit would be 1,700 - 2,000 calories. Is that healthy or sustainable? It's up to 4lbs a week, which is over 1%, but he's also hot a lot to lose. I'm admittedly not familiar with science when reaching these levels, so I'm curious.

    I guess the question is, from a scientific standpoint at what point do you have to exceed the average minimum benchmark in order to function?

    There’s a big difference between “function” and being “well”. I can eat 1200 calories a day and function (meaning I’ll be alive and trudging through my fog of a day, dragging from one place to the next, wondering why I’m so tired all the time but can’t sleep, wondering when I turned into such a cranky, miserable person, etc.). Workout? I was exhausted after I walked across the parking lot. Maybe Tomorrow.

    Or I can eat at a reasonable deficit, have the energy to train for races, or to lift more weight, still have the energy to get through my day’s and act like a reasonable human being, be engaged in life and not feel sickly and weak all the time, sleep well, train well, etc.

    One can “function” on a huge deficit. But that’s a miserable life to lead just to lose weight (and muscle-like your heart) as fast as possible. And those with a great deal to lose have more leeway. But still-I don’t aspire to simply “function” so I work at finding the level of deficit that allows me to continue to live well and train the way I like. And that deficit is a much smaller number.



  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Justin_7272 wrote: »
    I feel the same way regarding double dipping. I set mine to sedentary so I'm not overestimating my calories burned. Even if I had a more physically-strenouos job, I'd be hesitant to go much above sedentary; worst case scenario you're burning more calories through daily activity than you think. Seems like a win 🤷‍♂️

    It's not a win if it winds up creating a large deficit that leaves you unable to support your daily activities.

    The odds of this would be so unlikely I wouldn't even take it into consideration; it's very unlikely a person would accidentally workout so intensely that he'd no longer be able to function due to deficit. And arguendo you're at such a deficit, it's easy to put more fuel in the tank.

    I'm not talking about workouts. I'm talking about your advice to ignore the realities of a physically active job. That can be a difference of hundreds of calories per day. You're talking about adding that on top of the deficit that is already being created (and maybe some additional exercise).
This discussion has been closed.

Categories