Reading MFP stats

sollyn23l2 wrote: »

The calories burned are just calories burned in exercise you have entered. Your base weekly goal includes the amount of calories you burn in general day to day (which means that's how much you can eat without any exercise).

It's actually a combination of exercise calories and what MFP calls 'step calories' (calorie adjustment when more (or less) active than the selected activity level).
But yeah, it doesn't include the 'base' calories burned for BMR and selected activity level.

PS: I may be overstepping the bounds of your question, but do you realise you are most likely starving yourself?

Consuming 8300 calories per week is already 'rock bottom' to ensure adequate nutrition, 1200 per day is often considered the minimum for women, and even then only appropriate for older/ shorter and/or sedentary women. Burning 3570 extra calories through activity/exercise, it's the equivalent of not being active and consuming less than 700 calories per day.

If all the numbers are correct, you are most likely not only burning bodyfat but also muscle, and there are other health risks as well.

Flgirljenn wrote: »

@yirara It isn't intentional, I have had stomach issues for a couple weeks and just trying to get through that. @lietchi Thank you, I'm keeping an eye on that, introducing foods back into my diet to see why my stomach is getting so torn up. ***Also, my garmin logs way more activity than I actually do. About half of those calories burned are just my walking to work from the parking garage at work. I work 12 sedentary hour shifts.

Kudos to you for recognizing those exercise calories might be off.

If you’ve got a tracker, suggest syncing it.

My tracker rocked my world. So much data at my fingertips, gave me a new understanding of it all, especially how much work it took to burn a serving of something.