Exercise and appetite
Options
BearCountryHermit
Posts: 12 Member
Hello, I wanted to see what other folks' experience and advice would be for something I experienced today. For the most part, I have focused on diet, calories, nutrition, to help with weight loss and managing my health, while remaining functionally active. I don't exercise on purpose per se, but I do outdoor work and occasional hiking. Today I was laying gravel by hand in one of the barns, which involved loading it into the wheelbarrow, walking it about 120 ft, and spreading it with the shovel. It's heavy stuff, and I tend to overestimate how much I should be putting in the barrow, so the loads are large. I did this for 4.5hrs (finished the first layer!). I've had no problem eating 1200 - 1300 calories for the past couple of weeks, but today I couldn't get satisfied, and the final count was about 2700. It's one day, I worked hard, I'm not worried. But my question is, how do y'all gauge calorie needs when you do workouts like this that can't be calculated? If I do start exercising regularly, I want to know how to handle this (and also because I have 3 more days of working with gravel...). My appetite is not trustworthy, I've spent years ignoring hunger signals, and then eating when I had time to and not because I felt hungry.
Thanks kindly for any input!
Thanks kindly for any input!
2
Replies
-
I haven’t been exercising until the last few weeks...I have lost 91 lbs in 15 months on MFP....now that I started swimming again I eat back 25% of the calories MFP says I used since I think they credit you too many exercise calories....this seems to be working for me...good luck figuring yours out!2
-
I, too, have a completely untrustworthy appetite. I’ve just only gotten back to MyFitnessPal. I stopped before because I was always hungry after doing uncatecorizable exercise.
I now have a Fitbit Inspire HR, which stands for heart rate and it’s been incredibly useful. Because it has a heart rate monitor, it tracks how long you are in a fat burning zone based on elevated heart rate and gives exercise calories accordingly. I was doing heavy digging and lifting, though little walking, and was surprised at how many calories Iearned, but I actually earned more than I was hungry for. So it doesn’t matter, what you are doing to increase heart rate, whether formal exercise or outside work.
You do have to put your activity level on sedentary or not very active, otherwise people here say that the exercise calories might be added twice. So your daily limit will be lower in the morning, but as you are active through the day, those exercise calories keep getting added on. Sometimes, after heavy gardening, it’s been an extra thousand, which is a lot for a woman. I’m sure you would have earned even more through your paving work.
I haven’t eaten all of my exercise calories back, most days, but am still losing faster than my goal. This Fitbit has made an unbelievable difference because now if I am really active, I don’t have to guess how much more I can eat. Usually, I have more than enough calories to eat with a clear conscience! That’s why I stopped before, because I was hungry all the time since I wasn’t able to properly calculate exercise calories.
I would really consider some kind of tracker that syncs with MyFitnessPal and has a heart rate tracker!5 -
gracegettingittogether wrote: »You do have to put your activity level on sedentary or not very active, otherwise people here say that the exercise calories might be added twice. So your daily limit will be lower in the morning, but as you are active through the day, those exercise calories keep getting added on.
Those people didn't know what they are talking about, just FYI.
If you select sedentary and are very active (not even exercise) you get big adjustments.
If you selected lightly-active you would get smaller adjustments.
If you happen to be able to select exactly the right level - you would get no adjustments.
The end result would be the same no matter what method.
Fitbit daily burn minus your deficit for eating goal.
Exercise or extra activity doesn't matter - Fitbit only sends the daily burn figure to MFP to do math with.
That daily burn contains any exercise and all daily activity estimated calories.
The only difference is how do you like dealing with your adjustment - big or small. Plan your day with large amount or small.
Really after a few days of average activity levels you learn where your daily burn will.
This is a much better idea than doing nothing - that's for sure.
Because of course that extra work didn't burn 0 calories.
Oh - the HR-based calorie burn is inflated for anything that is causing HR just into exercise zone, just above daily activity levels. And if it's interval in nature it's even worse inflated. Because in the fat-burning zone has no bearing on the calculations, it just means it's potentially more inflated.
That tidbit may not matter now if you have much to lose - keep it in mind when you are down to your last 20 lbs though and the numbers no longer seem to be working.
OP - you probably got some damage to your body coming from that work too - if you miss out on some deficit for these days, probably not a bad thing and will aid repair.
Count it as massive strength training routine and you are feeding the muscle!7 -
BearCountryHermit wrote: »But my question is, how do y'all gauge calorie needs when you do workouts like this that can't be calculated? !
I guess.
Think of the frequency of these events and the cumulative size of the numbers and you can see that occasional guessing has little impact.
As you have a few days with this task you could change your activity level for the duration of course.
Or you could log it as 4.5hrs of strength training (in the cardio part of the diary).
For the wider question about exercise calories, I've always estimated and eaten back my exercise calories and lost weight / maintained weight just fine.
2 -
You could have a look through the METS activity list (http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf) for something equivalent to what you have been doing.
This is also useful: https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/pdf/PA_Intensity_table_2_1.pdf-
Then calculate calories burned uing this tracker: http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/MetsCaloriesCalculator/MetsCaloriesCalculator.htm.
You can then set up your mfp exercise database with a new cardio activity with the relevant calorie value. I have found this a really helpful tool.0 -
Thanks y'all! My settings are on lightly active, because that's more accurate for my average, so for the work I did I went ahead and put it in as a crossfit type workout. I've not done crossfit, but from what I understand it's more like what I was doing, but it boosted my calorie needs really high, and I'm skeptical that I burned through that much. What's more, food has not been appealing the next day, which tells me I probably overate.
Y'all confirmed for me that I really should get a fitness tracker, so I've got one on the way. But now I'm really wondering how they set the trackers to calculate calories based on HR. Doesn't that really depend on muscle mass, type of workout, etc, rather than how fast your heart's going? Since the heart pumps faster and harder to get oxygen/nutrients to the rest of the body, but that can really vary with different people. I'm a petite female, carrying about 50 lbs of extra fat, with likely very poor workout form and general fitness, but decent upper body strength, but someone who knows how to use their body more efficiently, or does so more regularly would burn it differently, yes? Cell needs/repairs have to vary. So how does the technology know?2 -
We have a homestead, and barn work is HARD work. And ... I'm lazy, so I generally have my husband and son do it, or at least the worst of it LMAO
For me, I haven't found that manual labor, or any hard deliberate workout really intensifies my hunger. I do know working out in the heat outside, decreases it, and it does for my husband as well. Everyone is going to be different. I mucked out the duck barn and laid down more lime, and horse pellets, and straw, and I was exhausted.... but not hungry. ducks are disgusting creatures by the way LOL
He works 10 to 12 hour days as a sheet metal foreman and then comes home to finish his days usually doing something outside that has come up that I can't or wont deal with. The last 2 weeks it has been fencing issues with expanding and adding hotwire to the new sections, then troubleshooting when all the hotwire went out (ugh!!). We have 20 acres fenced so... its a lot of fencing LOL on those days.... he eats but barely. though, he also doesnt have a weight issue, and if anything could stand to gain a few pounds.
You could always wear a fitbit or similar to get an idea. Thats what I do. I dont eat back many of my calories, but my logging also has a lot of room for error, many days, so it balances out.2 -
BearCountryHermit wrote: »Thanks y'all! My settings are on lightly active, because that's more accurate for my average, so for the work I did I went ahead and put it in as a crossfit type workout. I've not done crossfit, but from what I understand it's more like what I was doing, but it boosted my calorie needs really high, and I'm skeptical that I burned through that much. What's more, food has not been appealing the next day, which tells me I probably overate.
Y'all confirmed for me that I really should get a fitness tracker, so I've got one on the way. But now I'm really wondering how they set the trackers to calculate calories based on HR. Doesn't that really depend on muscle mass, type of workout, etc, rather than how fast your heart's going? Since the heart pumps faster and harder to get oxygen/nutrients to the rest of the body, but that can really vary with different people. I'm a petite female, carrying about 50 lbs of extra fat, with likely very poor workout form and general fitness, but decent upper body strength, but someone who knows how to use their body more efficiently, or does so more regularly would burn it differently, yes? Cell needs/repairs have to vary. So how does the technology know?
The tracker using HR-based calculations will be off.
Almost certainly inflated calorie burn if you are poor general fitness.
The calculations can be a decent estimate in right situations.
HR all over the place is not one of those - it'll be inflated calorie burn.
It will read the high HR to mean a higher calorie burn from hard workout, not that you are unfit, or dehydrated.
It will use your BMI and gender and age to decide somewhat unfit though.
It will use your restingHR to help with range somewhat.
It will calculate your HRmax for 220-age for that range too, which may be no where near reality.
It will look at weekly workouts to decide somewhat a fitness level to improve calc's.
Daily activity calories are based on distance seen that you move - which is actually very accurate.
If distance is accurate.1 -
So far i haven't run into significant problems until I do more than about a thousand calories worth of work. I exceeded that recently and paid a price. My blood sugar was in the basement the next day and I essentially felt like crap for a couple of days. If I had eaten more I feel confident this would not have happened.
I'm learning as I go. If I struggle through a workout/activity with low energy, I make a note of it and maybe change the way I eat the next day I do the same activity. Sometimes I change timing of meals, sometimes volume, sometimes both and then evaluate results.
I find I feel better generally if I have one day per week where I boost my calories and make a point of resting. Maybe that's worth considering.1 -
BearCountryHermit wrote: »Thanks y'all! My settings are on lightly active, because that's more accurate for my average, so for the work I did I went ahead and put it in as a crossfit type workout. I've not done crossfit, but from what I understand it's more like what I was doing, but it boosted my calorie needs really high, and I'm skeptical that I burned through that much. What's more, food has not been appealing the next day, which tells me I probably overate.
Y'all confirmed for me that I really should get a fitness tracker, so I've got one on the way. But now I'm really wondering how they set the trackers to calculate calories based on HR. Doesn't that really depend on muscle mass, type of workout, etc, rather than how fast your heart's going? Since the heart pumps faster and harder to get oxygen/nutrients to the rest of the body, but that can really vary with different people. I'm a petite female, carrying about 50 lbs of extra fat, with likely very poor workout form and general fitness, but decent upper body strength, but someone who knows how to use their body more efficiently, or does so more regularly would burn it differently, yes? Cell needs/repairs have to vary. So how does the technology know?
The tracker using HR-based calculations will be off.
Almost certainly inflated calorie burn if you are poor general fitness.
The calculations can be a decent estimate in right situations.
HR all over the place is not one of those - it'll be inflated calorie burn.
It will read the high HR to mean a higher calorie burn from hard workout, not that you are unfit, or dehydrated.
It will use your BMI and gender and age to decide somewhat unfit though.
It will use your restingHR to help with range somewhat.
It will calculate your HRmax for 220-age for that range too, which may be no where near reality.
It will look at weekly workouts to decide somewhat a fitness level to improve calc's.
Daily activity calories are based on distance seen that you move - which is actually very accurate.
If distance is accurate.
Endorsed - this is heybales' wheelhouse, so his advice always useful on things like this IMO.
I'd add this, though: The fitness trackers are measuring lots of things that get averaged over lots of days. The end result will be that fitness trackers tend to produce total all-day calorie burn (TDEE) estimates that will be pretty close for quite a few people (the ones close to population averages), a bit off (high or low) for some people, and quite far off for a very few people.
So, using one is a lot like using any other estimating method: You trust it provisionally for a month or so, and see if your weight management results bear out what your fitness tracker is saying (in context of your food logging, another potential accuracy issue). If the early few weeks/months prove the tracker estimate to be close for you, trust it. If not close, you can either try to figure out a percentage adjustment (theoretically iffy, but can work as a practical matter), or ignore the tracker estimate and focus on what you learn from logging & loss data. "Experiment and adjust" tends to work.
There's a whole lot in this logging for weight loss scenario, IMO, that is shaky from a strict theoretical standpoint, but in practice turns out to be close enough for gubmint work. 😉1 -
BearCountryHermit wrote: »Thanks y'all! My settings are on lightly active, because that's more accurate for my average, so for the work I did I went ahead and put it in as a crossfit type workout. I've not done crossfit, but from what I understand it's more like what I was doing, but it boosted my calorie needs really high, and I'm skeptical that I burned through that much. What's more, food has not been appealing the next day, which tells me I probably overate.
Y'all confirmed for me that I really should get a fitness tracker, so I've got one on the way. But now I'm really wondering how they set the trackers to calculate calories based on HR. Doesn't that really depend on muscle mass, type of workout, etc, rather than how fast your heart's going? Since the heart pumps faster and harder to get oxygen/nutrients to the rest of the body, but that can really vary with different people. I'm a petite female, carrying about 50 lbs of extra fat, with likely very poor workout form and general fitness, but decent upper body strength, but someone who knows how to use their body more efficiently, or does so more regularly would burn it differently, yes? Cell needs/repairs have to vary. So how does the technology know?
Sorry but I trust a fitness tracker less distance than I can throw it lol.
I use my Fitbit for sleep, heart rate, and as a watch. That’s it. I talk with my hands a lot and so my Fitbit tracks it as if I’m exercising. I’m not, I’m standing or sitting.
That said, you could track your activity as a generic “light cardio” or some such in MFP. Of course, no matter what you choose the calorie burn won’t be accurate, but it will give you a ballpark figure to work with.
I suggest eating slower after your gravel laying work to give your body time to decide if it really IS still so hungry that you need to keep eating. My guess is you way over ate yesterday, but not a big deal unless it becomes an all the time thing.0 -
BearCountryHermit wrote: »Thanks y'all! My settings are on lightly active, because that's more accurate for my average, so for the work I did I went ahead and put it in as a crossfit type workout. I've not done crossfit, but from what I understand it's more like what I was doing, but it boosted my calorie needs really high, and I'm skeptical that I burned through that much. What's more, food has not been appealing the next day, which tells me I probably overate.
Y'all confirmed for me that I really should get a fitness tracker, so I've got one on the way. But now I'm really wondering how they set the trackers to calculate calories based on HR. Doesn't that really depend on muscle mass, type of workout, etc, rather than how fast your heart's going? Since the heart pumps faster and harder to get oxygen/nutrients to the rest of the body, but that can really vary with different people. I'm a petite female, carrying about 50 lbs of extra fat, with likely very poor workout form and general fitness, but decent upper body strength, but someone who knows how to use their body more efficiently, or does so more regularly would burn it differently, yes? Cell needs/repairs have to vary. So how does the technology know?
The tracker using HR-based calculations will be off.
Almost certainly inflated calorie burn if you are poor general fitness.
The calculations can be a decent estimate in right situations.
HR all over the place is not one of those - it'll be inflated calorie burn.
It will read the high HR to mean a higher calorie burn from hard workout, not that you are unfit, or dehydrated.
It will use your BMI and gender and age to decide somewhat unfit though.
It will use your restingHR to help with range somewhat.
It will calculate your HRmax for 220-age for that range too, which may be no where near reality.
It will look at weekly workouts to decide somewhat a fitness level to improve calc's.
Daily activity calories are based on distance seen that you move - which is actually very accurate.
If distance is accurate.
Distance accuracy greatly depends on the person and the tracker. Fitbit IMHO is particularly unreliable for distance (as I said, I talk with my arms and hands a lot and get steps on my Fitbit for it).
My mother once won a contest at work to see who could walk the most just by swinging her arm at her desk. If there was an option below sedentary, she could select it lol.
0 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »Sorry but I trust a fitness tracker less distance than I can throw it lol.
I use my Fitbit for sleep, heart rate, and as a watch. That’s it. I talk with my hands a lot and so my Fitbit tracks it as if I’m exercising. I’m not, I’m standing or sitting.
That said, you could track your activity as a generic “light cardio” or some such in MFP. Of course, no matter what you choose the calorie burn won’t be accurate, but it will give you a ballpark figure to work with.
I suggest eating slower after your gravel laying work to give your body time to decide if it really IS still so hungry that you need to keep eating. My guess is you way over ate yesterday, but not a big deal unless it becomes an all the time thing.
eating more slowly is an excellent suggestion. i know in the past, when i was really hungry i ate fast, and 20 minutes later i was overfull, but i didn't feel that till minutes after.
my fitbit is accurate for distance as i was careful to measure my stride several times, and it was always close to 22 inches. but i wear my fitbit on my hip so it won't measure arm gestures, bass playing, typing or cleaning the house, and with my particular fitbit, to get an accurate measure when you wear it on a clip, you have to change it to "off wrist".
for me, the sleep feature is useless. glad to hear it works for someone.
0 -
zebasschick wrote: »Dogmom1978 wrote: »Sorry but I trust a fitness tracker less distance than I can throw it lol.
I use my Fitbit for sleep, heart rate, and as a watch. That’s it. I talk with my hands a lot and so my Fitbit tracks it as if I’m exercising. I’m not, I’m standing or sitting.
That said, you could track your activity as a generic “light cardio” or some such in MFP. Of course, no matter what you choose the calorie burn won’t be accurate, but it will give you a ballpark figure to work with.
I suggest eating slower after your gravel laying work to give your body time to decide if it really IS still so hungry that you need to keep eating. My guess is you way over ate yesterday, but not a big deal unless it becomes an all the time thing.
eating more slowly is an excellent suggestion. i know in the past, when i was really hungry i ate fast, and 20 minutes later i was overfull, but i didn't feel that till minutes after.
my fitbit is accurate for distance as i was careful to measure my stride several times, and it was always close to 22 inches. but i wear my fitbit on my hip so it won't measure arm gestures, bass playing, typing or cleaning the house, and with my particular fitbit, to get an accurate measure when you wear it on a clip, you have to change it to "off wrist".
for me, the sleep feature is useless. glad to hear it works for someone.
Yeah, me, too. I wore my wristwatch during an overnight stay at the sleep clinic, when I was all wired up with various electrodes and detectors like one of the Borg, and a sleep tech watching monitors/recording details all night.
In the morning, while discussing the results with the tech, I showed her the sleep report from my tracker, which thinks it knows when I'm in light sleep, deep sleep, REM, awake, etc. We both laughed and laughed. For one big example, it was showing me as asleep (various phases), when the tech and I both knew I'd been wide awake but lying very still.
For me, the sleep data from the tracker is pure fantasy. But the all-day calorie count isn't accurate, either . . . but unlike most armchair critics assume, it's not way overestimating my TDEE, it's way underestimating it.
I've been here (MFP) long enough to know that the same brand/model spits out a decently close TDEE for some people. It's not the device, it's me. 😆 I know a lot of folks find these device very helpful, including some who've run careful experiments with spreadsheets and such so they know pretty *exactly* how close it is for them.3 -
Well, for the sleep part for me, I’m actually only tracking how long I’m in bed lol, not actually how long I’m sleeping. I also move so much in my sleep, that I usually wake up with 50 or more “steps” and I definitely am NOT sleep walking. 😜
I did measure my strides, so when walking it’s accurate. Because of the issues with arm movements, typing, etc, I use an app called Gaya for dog walks and hiking so I can track my distance accurately.0 -
I got a Fitbit years ago and sent it back, precisely because it did count my hand movements as steps. But this Inspire HR one doesn’t. I’ve worn it for 5 months now, even while I wasn’t on MyFitnessPal, so I’ve had a long time to test it’s accuracy. And it’s very accurate. I did test it against another pedometer I used to wear habitually. I’ve measured my stride and entered it, so I know the distance is right too.
And for me, it’s not giving me too many exercise calories. Because I’m losing 3lbs a week, for the last two weeks, with having around 500 calories left over per day, while my target weight loss is 1 1/2 lbs per week. So even if I ate all my calories, I would still be losing an extra half lb.
Though, we’ll have to see if that pattern continues, when I weigh in tomorrow, since it’s only been two weeks. Still, I am happy so far.0 -
So far i haven't run into significant problems until I do more than about a thousand calories worth of work. I exceeded that recently and paid a price. My blood sugar was in the basement the next day and I essentially felt like crap for a couple of days. If I had eaten more I feel confident this would not have happened.
I'm learning as I go. If I struggle through a workout/activity with low energy, I make a note of it and maybe change the way I eat the next day I do the same activity. Sometimes I change timing of meals, sometimes volume, sometimes both and then evaluate results.
I find I feel better generally if I have one day per week where I boost my calories and make a point of resting. Maybe that's worth considering.
From a fasted state:
700 is my yellow zone
800 is my red zone
900 is my gonna be miserable for a few hours zone
1000+ is my gonna be miserable for days zone
Generally 500ish calories of mostly protein and some carbs before I get too far along the red zone will avoid the ache (head and body). This coincides with the start of my work day (desk job) or at least a few hours of rest on the weekend.
If I am not able to get a good gauge on CO like doing hard yard work I eat maintenance plus fitness tracker exercise. I am sick of the ache. It can't be a sign that things are going great and I do not have days like that often enough to worry about the lack of progress. The last time I got it wrong I was ill for 2 weeks. The fitness tracker does a pretty good job most of the time but it sure didn't give me enough calories for opening and distributing 150 bags of soil and mulch.3 -
BearCountryHermit wrote: »Hello, I wanted to see what other folks' experience and advice would be for something I experienced today. For the most part, I have focused on diet, calories, nutrition, to help with weight loss and managing my health, while remaining functionally active. I don't exercise on purpose per se, but I do outdoor work and occasional hiking. Today I was laying gravel by hand in one of the barns, which involved loading it into the wheelbarrow, walking it about 120 ft, and spreading it with the shovel. It's heavy stuff, and I tend to overestimate how much I should be putting in the barrow, so the loads are large. I did this for 4.5hrs (finished the first layer!). I've had no problem eating 1200 - 1300 calories for the past couple of weeks, but today I couldn't get satisfied, and the final count was about 2700. It's one day, I worked hard, I'm not worried. But my question is, how do y'all gauge calorie needs when you do workouts like this that can't be calculated? If I do start exercising regularly, I want to know how to handle this (and also because I have 3 more days of working with gravel...). My appetite is not trustworthy, I've spent years ignoring hunger signals, and then eating when I had time to and not because I felt hungry.
Thanks kindly for any input!
I would consider that as equivalent to heavy yard work or gardening, which is a 4 MET activity.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/met-hour-equivalents-of-various-physical-activities
Determine your hourly RMR and multiply by 4 (for the hourly burn), then by the number of hours you worked.1 -
BearCountryHermit wrote: »Thanks y'all! My settings are on lightly active, because that's more accurate for my average, so for the work I did I went ahead and put it in as a crossfit type workout. I've not done crossfit, but from what I understand it's more like what I was doing, but it boosted my calorie needs really high, and I'm skeptical that I burned through that much. What's more, food has not been appealing the next day, which tells me I probably overate.
Y'all confirmed for me that I really should get a fitness tracker, so I've got one on the way. But now I'm really wondering how they set the trackers to calculate calories based on HR. Doesn't that really depend on muscle mass, type of workout, etc, rather than how fast your heart's going? Since the heart pumps faster and harder to get oxygen/nutrients to the rest of the body, but that can really vary with different people. I'm a petite female, carrying about 50 lbs of extra fat, with likely very poor workout form and general fitness, but decent upper body strength, but someone who knows how to use their body more efficiently, or does so more regularly would burn it differently, yes? Cell needs/repairs have to vary. So how does the technology know?
Unless you were running as you pushed the wheelbarrow, I doubt it was anywhere close to a crossfit workout. Probably not even then. Remember the reason wheelbarrows were invented and are used is because they make the effort much less. It's not like you were shoveling the gravel into big sacks that you threw on your back. I'm sure 4.5 hours of it was a lot of effort, but not equivalent to 4.5 hours of crossfit.2 -
Maybe try to have a small snack right before and after and also remember to eat back at least half your exercise calories.
For me, walking doesn’t increase my appetite but weight lifting or high intensity cardio does.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions