Do you eat Your Exercise Calories

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.

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?

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.

dolorsit wrote: »

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.

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 done

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.

dolorsit 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.

janejellyroll wrote: »

dolorsit 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.

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.

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

dolorsit wrote: »

ninerbuff 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.

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.

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.
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

dolorsit wrote: »

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.

ninerbuff wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

dolorsit 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.

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.

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.