Do you eat Your Exercise Calories
Replies
-
All I can say is that MFP is broken then. It doesn't set a minimum net calorie intake goal of 1500, it sets a minimum food calorie intake goal of 1500.0
-
All I can say is that MFP is broken then. It doesn't set a minimum net calorie intake goal of 1500, it sets a minimum food calorie intake goal of 1500.
It sets a goal of 1500 + exercise calories (if you set an aggressive enough rate of loss).
The only time it intends you to eat just 1500 is on a day with no exercise.
You must see your calorie goal go up when you log exercise?
3 -
In for a penny...
You yourself said that exercise calories are no different to any others. If I'm a bricklayer and count as very active, that's no different to an office worker who expends the same amount of calories per week of exercise. Do you agree?
Let's assume I do zero exercise, but I'm a bricklayer instead:
I have a BMR of 1520 and set a goal in MFP of 1kg/week loss. MFP adjusts that so that my intake is no less than 1500 cals/day and adjusts the projected loss above.
Don't you see that the original question in this thread "Do you eat your exercise calories?" depends on what you set your activity level is? If I say I'm sedentary, I "must eat them", but if I'm very active, then I don't?
0 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »I only eat them back if I am hungry, or to fit in something that I may not otherwise have room for. I also go by the activity calories from my fitness tracker and not mfp or machine based exercise calories. For ME, it seems to be fairly accurate.
I have a question about this, since I'm newly using a tracker. I have my activity level on MFP set to "sedentary" and then it automatically adds calories based on my step count. I don't log exercise on either the tracker or MFP, but my step count is higher when I exercise. If I were to set my activity level higher (since "lightly active" is probably more accurate) or log exercise in addition to the regular step count, would that mean those calories burned would be getting double-counted and therefore artificially high (beyond just the high estimation from logging the activities themselves)?
As it is, I only eat back about half those automatically-added calories when I want to, and I figure I can experiment a bit to make sure that however I'm logging it I'm still losing weight, but I'm curious about how the actual math gets worked out.
ETA: Sorry, I didn't realize there were three more pages to the thread when I replied! It sounds like we're starting to get into the nitty gritty, but I'm still not sure I've seen an answer to my specific question yet.0 -
alisdairsmommy wrote: »callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »I only eat them back if I am hungry, or to fit in something that I may not otherwise have room for. I also go by the activity calories from my fitness tracker and not mfp or machine based exercise calories. For ME, it seems to be fairly accurate.
I have a question about this, since I'm newly using a tracker. I have my activity level on MFP set to "sedentary" and then it automatically adds calories based on my step count. I don't log exercise on either the tracker or MFP, but my step count is higher when I exercise. If I were to set my activity level higher (since "lightly active" is probably more accurate) or log exercise in addition to the regular step count, would that mean those calories burned would be getting double-counted and therefore artificially high (beyond just the high estimation from logging the activities themselves)?
As it is, I only eat back about half those calories when I want to, and I figure I can experiment a bit to make sure that however I'm logging it I'm still losing weight, but I'm curious about how the actual math gets worked out.In for a penny...
You yourself said that exercise calories are no different to any others. If I'm a bricklayer and count as very active, that's no different to an office worker who expends the same amount of calories per week of exercise. Do you agree?
Let's assume I do zero exercise, but I'm a bricklayer instead:
I have a BMR of 1520 and set a goal in MFP of 1kg/week loss. MFP adjusts that so that my intake is no less than 1500 cals/day and adjusts the projected loss above.
Don't you see that the original question in this thread "Do you eat your exercise calories?" depends on what you set your activity level is? If I say I'm sedentary, I "must eat them", but if I'm very active, then I don't?
As you say, how you mechanical achieve the deficit is immaterial. Part of the issue here is that no matter how you get to a calorie goal that some of us consider too low, it still seems too low.
To get a 1500 BMR estimate, a man is going to vary (approximately) from a 20 y/o at 120 pounds, to a 70 y/o at 160 pounds, assuming average-ish 5'10" height. Height does make a difference, but we're generally talking about not very large people, one way or another. In that kind of size range, even one pound per week weight loss is getting toward the aggressive end, for people who prefer to minimize health risk.
It doesn't matter how one gets there, speaking generically, netting less than 1500 calories tends to be an aggressive calorie goal for most men. In some specific cases (quite short, older), it may be OK. But as generic advice, IMO it's iffy.
You as an individual can choose whatever weight loss rate you wish, of course. Risk assessment and acceptance of risk are up to you. But if there's any hint or implication that netting under 1500 is generically OK for men, it's reasonable to expect push-back from people who think that's too aggressive, creates unnecessary health risk . . . except in the unusual specific individual cases where it doesn't (usually, older, smaller, inactive).
Getting to a aggressively-low net when athletically active seems more unreasonable to some of us, too - me for one - because we want to drive fitness maintenance/improvement or performance, which are also health issues. Underfueling that seems like a suboptimal plan. Again, other people can make different choices for themselves.
Personally, I think that what matters is actual weight loss rate, not calculator estimates, and not how one assembles the accounting tinkertoys to reach the deficit. Eat the exercise, don't eat the exercise, but be thoughtful about weight loss rate.
IMO it's good to be conservative (risk averse) at the start, until one has a month or so of personal results data. (Probably I'm biased that way because MFP, my fitness tracker and some other "calculators" dramatically underestimate my calorie needs. I went out of the gate at 1200 *plus* exercise, rational per the calculators for a li'l ol' lady, felt great and not hungry, then suddenly crashed. The weakness and fatigue required a few weeks to reverse, despite correcting intake as soon as I realized. I only had a little hair loss later from it, thankfully no worse consequences: Lucky.)
I think that 1% of current weight per week is about the most anyone should be targeting on a sustained basis, unless under close medical supervision, and that something more like 0.5% is a better plan when somewhere within 25-50 pounds of goal (depending on other potential sources of stress in the person's life, since stress is cumulative across sources).
Further, I think that someone with a very non-aggressive loss rate goal for their current size, and doing small amounts of not-super-intense exercise, is probably fine not eating back that exercise at the start. On the opposite end of the scale, IMO, someone who has a maximally aggressive loss rate target, and does a lot of relatively intense exercise, yet eats no more on account of the exercise, is taking on unnecessarily high health risk. In between, it varies, is more situational.
Individual cases have some nuance, and are always at the specific individual's control. Generic advice is . . . generic. I don't like risky generic advice, personally . . . at least not when it's being described as "perfectly OK", in effect.0 -
Just quoting one snippet, but my addressing your whole comment.It doesn't matter how one gets there, speaking generically, netting less than 1500 calories tends to be an aggressive calorie goal for most men. In some specific cases (quite short, older), it may be OK. But as generic advice, IMO it's iffy.
Since I specifically chose my current BMR, that appears to have allowed you to misdirect my argument to be about whether I go below some sort of 1500 calorie limit. Even if I had a BMR of 3000, the point is the same: A bricklayer working his extra 800 calories a day as "very active", is not expected to eat an extra 800 calories, but a "sedentary" person running 800 calories a day, is expected to eat that back. It does not make any sense.
If someone asks is it ok to eat back their exercise calories, and you respond with "aim to lose no more than 1% of your body weight per week and eat at least 1500 calories a day", then that answer sounds fine to me. It allows that person to lay bricks all day or run a half marathon every day and eat what's required to keep below the 1% line without muddying the issue with calories "net of something but not net of something else".0 -
I underestimate the exercise burn by manually entering the estimate (to about 1/3) and I usually eat that amount back. I guess thats the same as eating back 1/3 of the calories but its just what I have always done0
-
...
Personally, I think that what matters is actual weight loss rate, not calculator estimates, and not how one assembles the accounting tinkertoys to reach the deficit. Eat the exercise, don't eat the exercise, but be thoughtful about weight loss rate....
I think that 1% of current weight per week is about the most anyone should be targeting on a sustained basis, unless under close medical supervision, and that something more like 0.5% is a better plan when somewhere within 25-50 pounds of goal (depending on other potential sources of stress in the person's life, since stress is cumulative across sources).
Further, I think that someone with a very non-aggressive loss rate goal for their current size, and doing small amounts of not-super-intense exercise, is probably fine not eating back that exercise at the start. On the opposite end of the scale, IMO, someone who has a maximally aggressive loss rate target, and does a lot of relatively intense exercise, yet eats no more on account of the exercise, is taking on unnecessarily high health risk. In between, it varies, is more situational.
This makes a lot of sense, thank you. My personal situation is a bit weird because I'm breastfeeding too, so I have no idea how many calories I'm actually burning doing that. I set my log for "exclusive breastfeeding" which gives me an extra 500 calories. It might be more than that, or less. But I'm losing at about the rate I set (1.5 lbs/week) and my supply hasn't suffered. I figured the rate would slow down as I lost weight, and I'll have to readjust as my baby begins consuming more solids (rather than just fingerpainting with them) and then eventually weans. In addition to my own health, I want to make sure she is OK. I'm at about 200 lbs currently and looking to get into the 130s, more specifics pending.
I asked about how MFP is calculating and integrates with the apps more as a "behind the scenes" question just because I was curious about how they do the math. I'm fine with it working for me as long as it's working, too.
2 -
I'm sorry, I meant to post in reply to your question, but sort of wandered off track. Apologies!alisdairsmommy wrote: »callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »I only eat them back if I am hungry, or to fit in something that I may not otherwise have room for. I also go by the activity calories from my fitness tracker and not mfp or machine based exercise calories. For ME, it seems to be fairly accurate.
I have a question about this, since I'm newly using a tracker. I have my activity level on MFP set to "sedentary" and then it automatically adds calories based on my step count. I don't log exercise on either the tracker or MFP, but my step count is higher when I exercise. If I were to set my activity level higher (since "lightly active" is probably more accurate) or log exercise in addition to the regular step count, would that mean those calories burned would be getting double-counted and therefore artificially high (beyond just the high estimation from logging the activities themselves)?
As it is, I only eat back about half those automatically-added calories when I want to, and I figure I can experiment a bit to make sure that however I'm logging it I'm still losing weight, but I'm curious about how the actual math gets worked out.
ETA: Sorry, I didn't realize there were three more pages to the thread when I replied! It sounds like we're starting to get into the nitty gritty, but I'm still not sure I've seen an answer to my specific question yet.
If you have a tracker synched, MFP should reconcile the calories the tracker sees with whatever activity level you set, assuming you have negative adjustments enabled, as I understand it. (If you don't enable negative adjustments, it will adjust upward to give you extra calories, but not downward if you burn less than your activity level setting implies, I believe.) So, if you set activity level too low, you'll get big upward adjustments; set about right you'll get a combo of smaller up or down adjustments; set too high, big downward adjustments.
I don't personally synch my tracker (because it's woefully inaccurate for me, way too low, a rare problem), so I'm not expert about how it works, but I believe the above is correct. If you log exercise as well as synching, I think there are some ways for that to go wrong and double count, but I can't really speak to that, and how to avoid problems might differ depending on the type of device.
From reading others' posts, I believe that in most cases, the adjustment that looks like its maybe just steps is actually a total-calories reconciliation, but that may vary by device, I'm not certain. If you have specific questions (even just curiosity), it would probably be most helpful to either go to an MFP group for that device type (I know there's an active one for Fitbits), or to create your own thread with the device type in the subject heading, like "Questions about Synching Brand XYZ Tracker". That way, people who use that brand could give you experienced answers.1 -
alisdairsmommy wrote: »callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »I only eat them back if I am hungry, or to fit in something that I may not otherwise have room for. I also go by the activity calories from my fitness tracker and not mfp or machine based exercise calories. For ME, it seems to be fairly accurate.
I have a question about this, since I'm newly using a tracker. I have my activity level on MFP set to "sedentary" and then it automatically adds calories based on my step count. I don't log exercise on either the tracker or MFP, but my step count is higher when I exercise. If I were to set my activity level higher (since "lightly active" is probably more accurate) or log exercise in addition to the regular step count, would that mean those calories burned would be getting double-counted and therefore artificially high (beyond just the high estimation from logging the activities themselves)?
As it is, I only eat back about half those automatically-added calories when I want to, and I figure I can experiment a bit to make sure that however I'm logging it I'm still losing weight, but I'm curious about how the actual math gets worked out.
ETA: Sorry, I didn't realize there were three more pages to the thread when I replied! It sounds like we're starting to get into the nitty gritty, but I'm still not sure I've seen an answer to my specific question yet.
No double-counting.
MFP is adjusting itself to tracker Daily burn calories, then less a deficit for eating goal.
At that point it doesn't matter what the setting is on MFP or what the nature of the calories is.
If you start at sedentary say 2000, and tracker says you burned 2500 due to not being sedentary, less 500 deficit - eating goal is 2000.
If you say Active then 2250, and tracker says you burned 2500, less 500 - eating goal 2000.
Same deficit either way.
Starting at sedentary means the adjustment gets bigger as the day goes on.
Starting at Active means the initial goal is bigger but adjustment stays smaller.
Either method you'd likely learn about what the eating goal is going to end up as.
The only time it really matters is if you hit the couch and go to bed early say 7 pm, and final eating goal is viewed and eaten to.
MFP was assuming the next 5 hrs was at the stated activity level rate. Either sedentary or Active.
Fitbit is going to tell MFP on next sync in the morning you actually burned BMR level rate that whole time.
Your daily burn will be less by little or lot, your eating goal will go down, and you will have gone over this new adjusted goal when you look back.
Hence why sedentary is recommended.
But here again - a couple times, or math it out - and you'll know exactly how much to leave in the green at night, to have it hit goal the next morning.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »So . . . you're using MFP in a way that pushing you below 1,500 net per day?
Yes. Just as everyone who actually is highly active and whose MFP calorie recommendation is around 1650 would also be doing.
I don't know who told you this, but no. Everyone who is highly active isn't using MFP to net below the 1,200/1,500 minimum.2 -
This is hopeless. Let's just agree to disagree.0
-
Yep. I'm highly active at 57. I don't net less than 1900 calories minimum. I have to eat back my exercise calories or I'd not only be ravenous, but weak as well.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So . . . you're using MFP in a way that pushing you below 1,500 net per day?
Yes. Just as everyone who actually is highly active and whose MFP calorie recommendation is around 1650 would also be doing.
I don't know who told you this, but no. Everyone who is highly active isn't using MFP to net below the 1,200/1,500 minimum.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
If someone is losing weight, by definition they are net negative. Somehow you define this "net" as BMR*activity-factor - food - exercise calories. But only if activity factor isn't "very active". Because if it is, BMR * activity-factor - food - zero exercise somehow isn't a "net" any more.Yep. I'm highly active at 57. I don't net less than 1900 calories minimum. I have to eat back my exercise calories or I'd not only be ravenous, but weak as well.
0 -
What you're trying to do here is confuse the math. My TDEE is anywhere from 2700 to 3500 daily. Basic math will tell you if I want lose a pound a week, I consume 500 calories less than that. 2lbs 1000 calories (which I would never do). With a BMR of 1609, I just sat on a couch 24 hours a day for a month and consumed 1500 calories, I'd still lose weight right? If I want to lose more, I'd have to up my activity, BUT if I still want to lose at the same rate as sitting on the couch, I could exercise and I could eat back all my exercise calories and still lose at the same rate, correct? I think you're just looking at it from the prospective of the "set" amount of calories a male shouldn't go under. By all means, they can, but on average someone doing that is LOSING something somewhere in nutritional value for macro and micro nutrients.
If someone is losing weight, by definition they are net negative. Somehow you define this "net" as BMR*activity-factor - food - exercise calories. But only if activity factor isn't "very active". Because if it is, BMR * activity-factor - food - zero exercise somehow isn't a "net" any more.Yep. I'm highly active at 57. I don't net less than 1900 calories minimum. I have to eat back my exercise calories or I'd not only be ravenous, but weak as well.
But I won't argue this all day. I KNOW how to lose weight and teach people how to do it as a profession. Good luck teaching your way to others if that's what you're set on.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Ok, this is my very last attempt. I promise I won't say another word.
Let me introduce my pals John and Jim. They're twins. They both have a BMR of 1650. They both want to lose weight and have pulled out of a hat the goal of losing 1kg/week. John works from home at a desk so puts his activity level as Sedentary into MFP. Jack is a coal miner and he puts his activity level as Highly Active. MFP spits out this:
John: TDEE 2060 (1650x1.25) Net target: 1500. Projected loss 0.5kg/week since he hit the min of 1500
Jim: TDEE 2970 (1650x1.8) Net target: 1870. Projected loss 1kg/week.
John is a keen runner and he runs the equivalent of 910 calories per day, coincidentally expending the same amount of energy per day as Jim does.
Jim goes home every day and watches TV.
John comes on here and asks whether he should eat his exercise calories every day and maintain 1500 "net".
Everyone tells him that he must, because otherwise he'd "net" 590 cals per day and that would be bad for him
Which is exactly what MFP has advised Jim to do every day.
John points at Jim and says how come he can do 910 calories of effort at work every day and nobody tells him to eat it all.1 -
Ok, this is my very last attempt. I promise I won't say another word.
Let me introduce my pals John and Jim. They're twins. They both have a BMR of 1650. They both want to lose weight and have pulled out of a hat the goal of losing 1kg/week. John works from home at a desk so puts his activity level as Sedentary into MFP. Jack is a coal miner and he puts his activity level as Highly Active. MFP spits out this:
John: TDEE 2060 (1650x1.25) Net target: 1500. Projected loss 0.5kg/week since he hit the min of 1500
Jim: TDEE 2970 (1650x1.8) Net target: 1870. Projected loss 1kg/week.
John is a keen runner and he runs the equivalent of 910 calories per day, coincidentally expending the same amount of energy per day as Jim does.
Jim goes home every day and watches TV.
John comes on here and asks whether he should eat his exercise calories every day and maintain 1500 "net".
Everyone tells him that he must, because otherwise he'd "net" 590 cals per day and that would be bad for him
Which is exactly what MFP has advised Jim to do every day.
John points at Jim and says how come he can do 910 calories of effort at work every day and nobody tells him to eat it all.
If he has set his activity to "highly active" MFP has already taken his estimated daily activity calories into account. If he finds that he is losing too much weight at the suggested level then he adjusts his daily intake, and eats back some of his activity calories.
It's a general guideline - if you choose "highly active" and then run a marathon every day then yeah, it's not going to allow you enough calories.3 -
-
Yep. I'm highly active at 57. I don't net less than 1900 calories minimum. I have to eat back my exercise calories or I'd not only be ravenous, but weak as well.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So . . . you're using MFP in a way that pushing you below 1,500 net per day?
Yes. Just as everyone who actually is highly active and whose MFP calorie recommendation is around 1650 would also be doing.
I don't know who told you this, but no. Everyone who is highly active isn't using MFP to net below the 1,200/1,500 minimum.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If I eat my exercise calories back, I do not lose weight. I am 56.0 -
I eat 110% of my calories back and I’m 61. Have not had any trouble maintaining my weight at my age. To add, my calorie counting is spot on.
To add: my fitness tracker is not all that accurate either, I need to add calories to my day or I will be in a slight deficit and losing weight.4 -
mpkpbk2015 wrote: »my calorie needed for a given day was calculated via a metabolism test done by my doctor's office what's on MFP which was higher for my age, height and beginning weight. Just checking other users experience - Thanks for sharing.
Bear in mind your resting metabolism is just part of your total daily needs.
Two people with the same RMR can have very different activity and exercise which results in very different total calorie needs.
If you tell people what your exercise is then it is entirely possible that the exercise database here isn't the best way to get decent estimates.
My experience is that I'm lucky that my main exercise is easy to get good estimates for, I must take my large exercise burns into account or I'd waste away to nothing. Very roughly my exercise averages out to 600cals / day but with massive variations day on day, week on week, even season by season.
Would the person who disagrees with my previous post please speak up?
I'd love to know what part you disagree with and why.
Here's a summary of just my last 365 days cycling calories for context of why I have large exercise burns.
2 -
middleagegirl wrote: »
Yep. I'm highly active at 57. I don't net less than 1900 calories minimum. I have to eat back my exercise calories or I'd not only be ravenous, but weak as well.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So . . . you're using MFP in a way that pushing you below 1,500 net per day?
Yes. Just as everyone who actually is highly active and whose MFP calorie recommendation is around 1650 would also be doing.
I don't know who told you this, but no. Everyone who is highly active isn't using MFP to net below the 1,200/1,500 minimum.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If I eat my exercise calories back, I do not lose weight. I am 56.
Keep in mind that the base calorie burn estimate can be inaccurate (high or low), too, without exercise even being in the picture. I'm convinced it's inaccurate for me. It's just an estimate, effectively a statistical average. By definition, not everyone is average.2 -
This question comes up a lot and I can never understand how people who are so full all the time wound up on a weight loss app.6
-
You must be special then because I DON'T have clients that have issues of eating back exercise calories IF the initial deficit set for them was correct for them to lose weight.middleagegirl wrote: »
Yep. I'm highly active at 57. I don't net less than 1900 calories minimum. I have to eat back my exercise calories or I'd not only be ravenous, but weak as well.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So . . . you're using MFP in a way that pushing you below 1,500 net per day?
Yes. Just as everyone who actually is highly active and whose MFP calorie recommendation is around 1650 would also be doing.
I don't know who told you this, but no. Everyone who is highly active isn't using MFP to net below the 1,200/1,500 minimum.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If I eat my exercise calories back, I do not lose weight. I am 56.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
mpkpbk2015 wrote: »my calorie needed for a given day was calculated via a metabolism test done by my doctor's office what's on MFP which was higher for my age, height and beginning weight. Just checking other users experience - Thanks for sharing.
Bear in mind your resting metabolism is just part of your total daily needs.
Two people with the same RMR can have very different activity and exercise which results in very different total calorie needs.
If you tell people what your exercise is then it is entirely possible that the exercise database here isn't the best way to get decent estimates.
My experience is that I'm lucky that my main exercise is easy to get good estimates for, I must take my large exercise burns into account or I'd waste away to nothing. Very roughly my exercise averages out to 600cals / day but with massive variations day on day, week on week, even season by season.
Would the person who disagrees with my previous post please speak up?
I'd love to know what part you disagree with and why.
Here's a summary of just my last 365 days cycling calories for context of why I have large exercise burns.
Ohhh - that was me!
Just kidding.
But - you would not waste away to nothing.
Your workouts would take a massive nosedive in intensity and would suck.
You'd fall off your bike at some point and get injured.
And then you'd be laid up in bed for 6-8 weeks attempting to heal many things. Maybe longer.
The body does seem to have an incredible ability to eventually get what it needs and take care of foolishness.
Hopefully it's not the ultimate rest, the one that has no recovery from it.4 -
middleagegirl wrote: »
Yep. I'm highly active at 57. I don't net less than 1900 calories minimum. I have to eat back my exercise calories or I'd not only be ravenous, but weak as well.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So . . . you're using MFP in a way that pushing you below 1,500 net per day?
Yes. Just as everyone who actually is highly active and whose MFP calorie recommendation is around 1650 would also be doing.
I don't know who told you this, but no. Everyone who is highly active isn't using MFP to net below the 1,200/1,500 minimum.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If I eat my exercise calories back, I do not lose weight. I am 56.
I'm always curious in these cases what people's numbers are.
If you have deficit say 500 losing 1 lb weekly, and a workout that burns say 500 calories, but then somehow eat 500 calories more than maintenance in order to gain 1 lb of fat weight each week - how does that happen, or what are your numbers to cause that?
Even if 500 was inflated 100% and you only burned 250, you'd still have to eat 1000 more daily to cause 1 lb fat gain weekly, to eat through the deficit and add on more.
1 -
mpkpbk2015 wrote: »my calorie needed for a given day was calculated via a metabolism test done by my doctor's office what's on MFP which was higher for my age, height and beginning weight. Just checking other users experience - Thanks for sharing.
Bear in mind your resting metabolism is just part of your total daily needs.
Two people with the same RMR can have very different activity and exercise which results in very different total calorie needs.
If you tell people what your exercise is then it is entirely possible that the exercise database here isn't the best way to get decent estimates.
My experience is that I'm lucky that my main exercise is easy to get good estimates for, I must take my large exercise burns into account or I'd waste away to nothing. Very roughly my exercise averages out to 600cals / day but with massive variations day on day, week on week, even season by season.
Would the person who disagrees with my previous post please speak up?
I'd love to know what part you disagree with and why.
Here's a summary of just my last 365 days cycling calories for context of why I have large exercise burns.
Ohhh - that was me! Just kidding.
But - you would not waste away to nothing.
Your workouts would take a massive nosedive in intensity and would suck.
You'd fall off your bike at some point and get injured.
And then you'd be laid up in bed for 6-8 weeks attempting to heal many things. Maybe longer.
The body does seem to have an incredible ability to eventually get what it needs and take care of foolishness.
Hopefully it's not the ultimate rest, the one that has no recovery from it.
Just think what my VO2 max results would be 25kg lighter!
That's if I could actually still cycle of course.2 -
If I set my goal as 1kg/week and activity level as sedentary, I get a target of 1500 cals/day and a projected loss of 0.4kg/week. If I set my activity level at highly active since I do 5-6 workouts of 1-4 hours each, I get a target of 1640 cals/day and a projected loss of 1kg/week. That tells me not to eat all my exercise calories back.
I'm intentionally going back and quoting what I believe is your first post on this thread, but commenting on the whole flow of the back-and-forth posts.
Based on a re-read, I'm going to be very frank, and suggest that primarily people are not arguing with your mathematical logic. What people are talking about is the advisability of losing weight at a rate that's fast enough that it's likely *not* to be the best-assured path to long-term thriving good health. The discussion is in terms of exercise calories, because that's the thread topic, but exercise calories are not the main point others (and me, for sure) are trying to make, IMO.
To the bolded, I think what MFP is trying to tell you is that at your current body mass level, there's a very good chance that losing a kg a week is too aggressive, that it creates an undesirable level of health risk, essentially.
It doesn't matter how someone assembles the tinkertoys (BMR, daily activity, exercise, intake, etc.). Losing aggressively fast is not a good idea, IMO.
I don't know how large you are, but if you have a BMR around 1520 (as your spreadsheet suggests) and your 1kg (2.2lb) per week loss goal puts you below 1500 net calories, many of us would say that's aggressively fast. That's the point. (I'm using "net" in the usual MFP sense here.)
You can make a personal choice to lose faster, of course. Your body, your risk assessment. But IMO people are arguing with the implication that it's generically totally fine for someone to game the activity and exercise settings to rationalize what is likely to be a too-aggressive loss. It doesn't matter how the math is done, it matters what the outcome is.
This path of arguing that MFP's math is wrong or illogical, because it implies you shouldn't lose as fast as you prefer, is essentially implying that that's a reasonable way for others to look at it, too. I think it's bad advice for others, personally, and that's why I'm arguing with it. I think you're missing my (and others) main points. It isn't about differences between bricklayers and marathoners and how they account for work vs. exercise.
I have one last comment, related to your most recent reply to me:
Just quoting one snippet, but my addressing your whole comment.It doesn't matter how one gets there, speaking generically, netting less than 1500 calories tends to be an aggressive calorie goal for most men. In some specific cases (quite short, older), it may be OK. But as generic advice, IMO it's iffy.
Since I specifically chose my current BMR, that appears to have allowed you to misdirect my argument to be about whether I go below some sort of 1500 calorie limit. Even if I had a BMR of 3000, the point is the same: A bricklayer working his extra 800 calories a day as "very active", is not expected to eat an extra 800 calories, but a "sedentary" person running 800 calories a day, is expected to eat that back. It does not make any sense.
If someone asks is it ok to eat back their exercise calories, and you respond with "aim to lose no more than 1% of your body weight per week and eat at least 1500 calories a day", then that answer sounds fine to me. It allows that person to lay bricks all day or run a half marathon every day and eat what's required to keep below the 1% line without muddying the issue with calories "net of something but not net of something else".
You mention snipping parts of my full post, and I appreciate that acknowledged that, so that people realize there was a larger context.
In so doing, though, I think you left out something relevant, in a way that looks like more rationalization of aggressive loss, in context. What I said was:I think that 1% of current weight per week is about the most anyone should be targeting on a sustained basis, unless under close medical supervision, and that something more like 0.5% is a better plan when somewhere within 25-50 pounds of goal (depending on other potential sources of stress in the person's life, since stress is cumulative across sources).
I think, just spitballing the arithmetic, that a man who has a BMR around 1520, and is getting a goal of 1500 at sedentary, stands a decent chance of being in that "0.5% is more suitable" subgroup. Bricklayer or marathoner, within around 25-50 pounds of goal, 0.5% is a better plan.0 -
mpkpbk2015 wrote: »middleagegirl wrote: »Isn't the point of exercising to burn calories? Why would I eat them back after all of the work???
So no, I do not eat mine back. I don't even log what I burn.
From what I have read and been told your supposed to according to MFP program. That's why I put the question out there to see exactly how many people actually do. Because when I tried I winded up gaining. thanks for sharing
Tried it for how long?
Because you are saying you were in a diet, eating less than some daily burn estimate without exercise. say 500.
Then when you exercised and burned more, you also ate more. say 250.
And somehow you ate more than the deficit to cause weight loss, and ate more than the exercise burned, so much more that you actually gained fat weight?
Say the exercise estimate was 100% inflated - only burned 125 calories.
How could eating 250 extra calories overcome the 500 cal deficit and the 125 cal exercise?
See how something doesn't work out there, and therefore more to the story is to be found by examining what happened.
Or you tried for 2 days and gained water weight type of response?
It was over a two week period - two weigh ins because I only weigh once a week, same day , same time of day. And at the time the only exercise I was doing because my gym closed was low impact aerobics alternating with walking. In other words the days I walked 3 miles I didn't do the aerobics.0 -
mpkpbk2015 wrote: »mpkpbk2015 wrote: »Do you eat back your exercise calories even when your stomach/body is telling you your full for the day.
My stomach/body doesn't have a brain - and I originally had to lose weight because that described feedback was obviously not working correctly.
I now know the foreign language the body speaks in most cases, most don't.
I am not saying the stomach/body has a brain but you or at least I know when I feel full. And according to my dietician I should pay attention to that feeling and stop eating or I will go back to weighing 227 pounds again and I am not letting that happen.
But didn't you gain weight such it needs to be lost now because you were eating until you felt full?
Or you mean you felt full - and kept eating?
The reason I said it that way - to show you can't trust it without knowledge of it - and again it's like a foreign language, and if you don't know you'll misunderstand it.
Just as many can easily overeat without "feeling" full, the body can also fool you by not feeling hungry when in actuality you can be undereating by an amount that can cause problems.
Feeling full, and fully feeding your body is not the same thing.
It's gotten to a bad point when a person has undereaten too long, and body starts to adapt to the foolishness and they no longer feel hungry. It's a bad state if frequent or continuous thing.
I mean I felt full so I stopped eating.
I gained weight because I stuffed my face with junk food and processed food.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions