eating exercise calories

thearianadiaz
thearianadiaz Posts: 9 Member
edited December 2020 in Health and Weight Loss
i’m a 19 yr. female and weigh about 106 pounds, i’ve recently started going to the gym 6 days a week burning around 700 calories a day. i set my goal on mfp to lose 2 pounds per week to get back to 100 pounds. the only reason i burn so many calories is so i can eat whatever i want and still be in a calorie deficit. does this approach work, or am i actually gaining weight unknowingly?
«1

Replies

  • jessiemeckle
    jessiemeckle Posts: 118 Member
    The risky thing about eating your exercise calories you might end up eating more calories than you "earn". A watch, fitbit, or piece of technology doesn't know Exactly how many calories you are burning, so it's an estimation. Since a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight, you may not be in a calorie deficit if you eat more calories back than you burn. That being said, I feel like losing 2lbs a week is dangerous for someone who weighs 100 pounds. I'm not an expert though!
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,832 Member
    Two pounds per week is way too aggressive when one only has 6 pounds to lose.

    9kjwnia17qv9.jpg

    Also, how long are you at the gym and what are you doing that is burning 700 calories?

    If your exercise burn is correct, then yes, if you use MFP you are supposed to eat back your exercise calories, but you need to make sure that 700 calories is accurate.
  • thearianadiaz
    thearianadiaz Posts: 9 Member
    i’m going by what the the treadmill says
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,832 Member
    i’m going by what the the treadmill says

    How long are you on the treadmill?
  • thearianadiaz
    thearianadiaz Posts: 9 Member
    i go for about an hour, 3.5 mph with the incline set at 15
  • globalc00
    globalc00 Posts: 103 Member
    CICO, so as long as you are burning more than you take in, you will lose weight. That being said, make sure you are accurately tracking your food and exercise. The calories shown on exercise machines are typically not accurate and most people tend to underestimate the number of calories they are eating. There are also reasons for body weight to not change such as water retention, building muscle and stuff. So need to be aware of those things.

    Whether what you are doing is healthy, or ideal or sustainable or a good choice are questions you didn't ask so I won't answer.
  • nooshi713
    nooshi713 Posts: 4,861 Member
    edited December 2020
    i go for about an hour, 3.5 mph with the incline set at 15

    You’re likely not burning close to 700 calories doing an hour on the treadmill at your weight. I weigh 30 lbs more than you and burn about 250 per hour at that rate.
  • Dogmom1978
    Dogmom1978 Posts: 1,581 Member
    All of the above.

    No way you are burning 700 calories in one hour on the treadmill. Sorry, but thats simply not a thing (based on your speed/incline).

    And .5 lbs a week MAX for your deficit. You have very little to lose and it is going to take TIME. Your tracking will need to be spot on also. Are you weighing your food with a food scale to determine how many calories you eat in a day?
  • netitheyeti
    netitheyeti Posts: 539 Member
    it's fine (and good) to eat your exercise calories if you're active, however, like people have pointed out, those calories sound inflated... for perspective, I'm a bit older (30), a hair under 5'3 and maintaining in the 118-120ish lb range, I just spent a month walking to work and back (2h of walking a day, at roughly 3.5mph) and doing some yoga, pilates and weights in the evenings and I needed about 2100kcal a day to maintain - so 2-3h of extra activity a day only gave me about 500-600kcal extra to eat

    Honestly I'd set the deficit to something like 250kcal a day and use a food scale, and maybe take machine estimates with a grain of salt
  • djaxon1
    djaxon1 Posts: 82 Member
    https://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/
    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
    Both in close agreement - 504 cals for 60 mins , not for "about" 60 mins.
    These 2 calculators read a fair bit higher than my HRM and app. does for my incline TM workout.

    That is good going - an hour, 6 days, 3.5mph 15% ! What % max HR at the end?
    Even with your very high calorie burn it's a lot easier just to not eat it in the first place -
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10817189/how-do-you-get-over-this-mindset
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 7,514 Member
    djaxon1 wrote: »
    https://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/
    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
    Both in close agreement - 504 cals for 60 mins , not for "about" 60 mins.
    These 2 calculators read a fair bit higher than my HRM and app. does for my incline TM workout.

    That is good going - an hour, 6 days, 3.5mph 15% ! What % max HR at the end?
    Even with your very high calorie burn it's a lot easier just to not eat it in the first place -
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10817189/how-do-you-get-over-this-mindset

    I only tried the first calculator, assuming 2mph for one hour. clearly walking. I get 271 calories, which seems a lot for a low stroll. using the 0.3 multiplier for walking I get 84 net calories.
    Then I tried the same for running, same weight and duration, speed at 5 mph. I get 572 calories, which also seems high. Using the 0.64 multiplier for running I get 448 net calories.

    So my guess is that this calculator is not useful for walking but only for running. And it displays gross calories and not net calories. If you were to eat everything back it gives you then you'd overeat by a bit.
  • dragon_girl26
    dragon_girl26 Posts: 2,182 Member
    Yeah, I usually estimate about 70ish calories per mile when I walk..and that's at a higher pace (about 4.5 mph). Also, I have about 70 lbs on you, OP.
    So, 700 calorie burn at that pace,, and especially at your current weight/ height is definitely an overestimate.
  • djaxon1
    djaxon1 Posts: 82 Member
    Not sure what grade you used, but for OP at 2mph, 15 grade, gives 287cals/hr 15% makes v. much harder.
    I do think they both read a bit high.
    The 2nd has nett/gross option.
    They seem to be fairly well regarded tho' .
    My treadmill is rigged to 18% grade and no other calcs will give any readings.
    I've read that such steady state cardio work is pretty well known for actual cal. burn
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,894 Member
    edited December 2020
    The 15% incline (top incline for most treadmills, I think) makes a difference, though, at least as long as you aren't holding tight to the handlebars. I would expect the burn to be quite a bit higher with a 15% incline, all else equal, vs a 2%, say. (Estimates from calculators are all over the place, so if the exercise is consistent I'd focus more on calories eaten and what the weight does. I don't personally try to log or calculate cals from walking at all, but figure it into how active I am overall. Here, however, I'd probably recommend halving it -- if OP is not hanging on the handlebars -- and then evaluating over time.)

    That said, I think the focus on the exercise burn and whether it's too high (I also think so) is somewhat misplaced given that OP is 19, 106, and trying to get to 100 with a loss rate of 2 lb/week, and we have no idea what she's eating or what her overall activity level is. Obviously, OP has not given her height, which makes a difference, but 2 lb/week is not realistic (not for lasting, healthy weight loss). The biggest issue doesn't strike me as whether she's overestimating her treadmill cals.

    OP asks "does this approach work" (meaning doing the exercise identified, which presumably is an increase, and eating what she wants) or "am I actually gaining weight unknowingly?"

    It's confusing since she also said she set MFP to lose 2 lb/week, which at her weight is going to give her 1200 and probably nowhere near 2 lb/week for that.

    OP, I'd say that you should track your eating and exercise (and include a good estimate of overall activity which could or could not include exercise, although I wouldn't also log the treadmill cals if it does) for a while and see what your weight does. You can't gain weight unknowingly if you weigh yourself regularly, but you also shouldn't overreact to weight fluctuations, as there will be some.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 7,514 Member
    djaxon1 wrote: »
    Not sure what grade you used, but for OP at 2mph, 15 grade, gives 287cals/hr 15% makes v. much harder.
    I do think they both read a bit high.
    The 2nd has nett/gross option.
    They seem to be fairly well regarded tho' .
    My treadmill is rigged to 18% grade and no other calcs will give any readings.
    I've read that such steady state cardio work is pretty well known for actual cal. burn

    yes, to have something to compare it to and to test this calculator I used no incline. Main story remains: It seems unlikely this is in any way realistic for walking. For running it seems ok, provided one uses a net calorie option.