TDEE calculation vs. Eating "exercise calories"

I mostly ignore it. For one, the MFP method is needlessly confusing, as seen by the constant daily threads from new users not understanding how it works. For another, it's a fundamentally flawed assumption that you can eat back 100% of your exercise calories, even if those exercise calories were estimated correctly (which is a big if). Especially with rigorous exercise, your NEAT will likely go down for the rest of the day while you recover from it. It's less of an issue with zone 2 type stuff. Therefore MFP's approach is both confusing and inaccurate.

I like the calculator below. Start with an estimate of what you think your average TDEE is, track your input calories in MFP and track your weight change, and that will inform you what your actual TDEE is. I maintain a spreadsheet for this purpose, and it shows that my own TDEE is far higher than MFP thinks. So I use MFP for calorie tracking and protein tracking, but I ignore the MFP calorie target.

To answer your question, yes I successfully lost about 60 pounds in my early 50's with MFP, and I've maintained in a range slightly above that low for a few years. It's a great tool, but it also helps to do your own tracking. Personalized stats beat population sourced stats.

https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/

yirara wrote: »

I don't think the idea behind it is bad. It's great for people who don't exercise every day, or who do vastly different exercises across the week. And it can teach people the caloric value of exercising, that it's not as much as people think but that it gives more food to eat.

On paper, sure it sounds like a good idea. But as I said, it's fundamentally flawed from the start, and definitely confusing for many. There are so many estimations being done by these calculators anyway, starting with your RMR based on population averages (with an assumption of your muscle mass e.g.), followed by a large coarse multiplier of 1.2, 1.4, etc. to estimate for general daily activity, then exercise tracking has its own issues. I think the sailrabbit approach with more granularity is simpler, and it should be common sense that if you worked out four times one week and zero times another week, your TDEE is going to be different week to week.

If I were in charge of MFP I'd scrap the exercise calorie tracking completely, start with a TDEE estimate with more granularity like sailrabbit offers, and give more robust tools for correlating inputs (your calories, and your stated activity level) to outputs (weight change).

Just track your food and exercise for a couple months and figure out a number that works for you. That's really the only way. Part of your issue will be accurate food logging and part of it will be guessing on exercise. Since you're really hungry on exercise days it seems like it would work for you to use myfitnesspal like it is designed - that way you get to eat more on days you move more. That's what I've always done.

I find myfitnesspal to be really close to other calculators when I input the correct parameters but I had to run the experiment to find out exactly what the numbers needed to be and then tweak my Goals to meet that number.

I'm retired and live in a tiny condo. Not much daily activity needed to maintain a small place. I set my Goals to "Lightly Active" and I log exercise separately. I just use a flat 300 calories per hour of any moderate exercise - that's easy to calculate. Mostly my exercise consists of walking for 90 minutes in my hilly neighborhood. It's been working for over 12 years that way.

letzlive wrote: »

I have appreciated many of the discussions here about "eating back" your exercise calories. What I don't understand is whether that choice is self-defeating in light of the "Activity Level" selected when your TDEE is calculated. (The total daily energy expenditure, on which the calorie deficits are based.) I have lower and higher exercise days, and one complete rest day. But I think the averaging out of my exercise levels might be a stumbling block. I get super hungry on days of higher exercise, then go over my planned nutrition goals, then feel discouraged. Has anyone worked this out to demonstrable successful weight loss? Option 1 would be to choose "sedentary" or "low" and then eat all the exercise calories. Option 2 would be to try to white knuckle my exercise days to fit that average weekly number. Is there an Option 3?

I'm another who thinks this question is confusing.

MFP's instructions say to set activity level based on non-exercise activity (job, home chores, etc.), then log exercise and eats the exercise calories. TDEE averages in exercise plans so the person eats the same number of calories every day, exercise or no. Then either method applies a calorie deficit for weight loss. They should work out somewhat close to the same - close enough, anyway.

Either method starts with BMR/RMR, then accounts for daily life activity, exercise calories and a deficit. The MFP base calories will be lower than the TDEE calories, because MFP base doesn't include exercise calories, and TDEE does. It's just a different accounting method, but essentially the same budget.

Here's the thing, though: Riverside is right. Anyone will need to stick close to the starting estimate for 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual cycles for those who have them), then compare average weekly loss rate with target loss rate. If they're different, adjust calorie intake. This is a vital step.

Why? Because any of these so-called calculators just spit out what amounts to the average calorie needs for people who are similar based on the few demographic data we tell them. None of us is an average. Most of us will be close, but a few will be noticeably non-average (high or low) and a rare few will be surprisingly far off. That's the nature of statistical estimates.

Demonstrable success? Maybe. I follow the MFP method. In 2015, I started logging, using MFP's calorie estimate, and logged exercise and ate that back, too. (I tried to be accurate, but conservative, when estimating exercise calories - I don't always use the MFP values, if I have a method I think is better.) Oops, I lost weight way too fast, so adjusted my base calorie goal upward (by about 25-30%! - unusual but possible).

Then I moved forward with the experience-adjusted calorie goal. I found my weight loss rate after that very predictable based on calorie intake, looked at as a multi-week average for both. I lost 50-ish pounds in just under a year, class 1 obese to a healthy weight. I deliberately slowed loss as I got close to goal (by raising calorie goal and eating more), and found that very predictable, too.

I've continued the same methods in maintenance for almost 8 years, and stayed in a healthy weight range that whole time (after about 30 previous years of overweight/obesity, BTW).

My exercise changes seasonally, and some of it is weather dependent. In that scenario, the MFP method is perfect for me. While my exercise is usually only low hundreds of calories, it's too significant a part of my calorie goal to ignore (usually 10-20%, maybe half a pound weekly fat loss if I just ignored it, which would be extra dumb during maintenance). I care about my athletic performance, so I want to fuel it, not starve it.

In your case, you (seemingly?) don't want to use the MFP method as designed (or maybe have set your activity level to include exercise already?). <== That's where I'm confused.

But you're more hungry on exercise days. IMO, you have a couple of choices.

One option is to use MFP, set your activity level based on pre-exercise, log and eat exercise. (Or, better yet, sync a good tracker and turn on negative adjustments. I predict you may find the adjustments confusing if you do this. If so, read the MFP docs about how it works, then ask here if you're still confused.) Work on understanding exercise calorie estimates - they aren't that hard, really - and work to make those estimates accurate. Again, if you have questions about what's realistic, post specifics of your typical workout in the Fitness and Exercise topic of the Community, plus your estimate and how you got it, and people will help you fine-tune if it seems necessary.

That option is pretty much your option 1, but I wouldn't set to sedentary/low unless my life before exercise actually was sedentary/low. (Lots of jobs are physical more vigorous, families with small children especially may have non-sedentary home lives, etc. Sedentary is maybe 3000-5000 steps daily or equivalent movement.)

A sub-option of this one, which might be your option 3, is to eat back some standard percentage of your exercise calories that you feel comfortable with (50% or 75% or whatever) until you finish the 4-6 week n=1 experiment/adjustment process. Quite a few people do this. (I didn't, except insofar as 100% is a percent. ).

The other option is to stick with TDEE, if you have more confidence in that and like having the same calories most days. BUT, since you're more hungry on exercise days, "bank" a few calories on non-exercise days, i.e., eat under your goal (maybe 100? depends on exercise details). Use those calories to eat over goal on exercise days. Use the weekly average calories in the MFP phone/tablet app to keep average calorie intake close to calorie goal. (This option is sort of a half-donkeyed version of the MFP method, honestly. But it's not wrong to do, if it makes more sense to you.)

Like I said, I'm confused by the question. MFP method can work. TDEE method can work. One method or the other may suit a given individual better, and either can be implemented in the MFP context. Either method should be used with that 4-6 week trial, a look at average results, then adjustment of calorie intake if necessary.

Best wishes!

kshama2001 wrote: »

I think the confusion is because MFP does not in fact use TDEE. I don't use TDEE because I am also hungrier on high exercise days, and want the resulting exercise calories that day.

I think that conflates things. It all comes back to TDEE in the end. If you work out every other day, and your TDEE flips from 2400 to 2800 every day, your average TDEE is 2600, but your TDEE on any given day is 2400 or 2800. I don't think anybody is saying you must match 2600 every day if your goal is maintenance. People often comment about weekly target, so aim for 7*2600. It would be logical to feel a bit hungrier on workout days, especially rigorous workouts, and to eat more on those days even if "intuitive eating".

Saying you eat back all your exercise calories is effectively matching TDEE on that day (if your goal is maintenance), and then not eating them back matches TDEE on that day, so the average works out the same.

The biggest mistake MFP makes (aside from the fundamental flaw that some exercise calories may result in reduced NEAT), is asking people in the Goals section how many workouts they plan to do and for how long, which I think plants the seed in peoples heads that their workouts are included in the base calories goal produced, hence the endless confusion amongst new posters.

You aren't going to slow your metabolism. You may reduce your NEAT, e.g. fidgeting, general movement, without even realizing it, and that's a large chunk of typical daily calorie usage. You may also have not enough energy for a good workout.

For me, sailrabbit only fills in the Harris and Mifflin tabs. Mifflin is the standard. Several of them are empty unless I enter a bf %, and I have no clue what mine is, nor would I trust most estimates of it, especially those from scales.

Ultimately, it's all just a starting point. Track your own results, like a new thread today here in this forum is showing. Your weight change over time plus knowledge of your calories consumed tells you what your TDEE is better than any calculator can estimate for you.

letzlive wrote: »

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

"I like the calculator below. Start with an estimate of what you think your average TDEE is, track your input calories in MFP and track your weight change, and that will inform you what your actual TDEE is. I maintain a spreadsheet for this purpose, and it shows that my own TDEE is far higher than MFP thinks. So I use MFP for calorie tracking and protein tracking, but I ignore the MFP calorie target."


https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/

Thanks so much for your generous answer. I looked at the SailRabbit link --- how do you choose which of the six BMR/TDEE methodologies to use? They are quite different from one another! Do you prefer one?
[/quote]

I know this will be hard to accept when the values potentially could differ by - what? - maybe low hundreds of calories? (The BMR estimate for me, without the body fat formulas, varies by 88 calories, but I'm not a big person, rather an average height li'l ol' lady.)

It doesn't matter which one you choose.

Mifflin-St Jeor is the most recent research, and it's the one MFP uses to estimate BMR. Or, you could click the "include" box on all of them, and use the average at the end of the BMR box on that site. If you have a reasonable body fat estimate (better than from a body weight scale), you can use one of the others. It still doesn't matter which one you choose.

It's just a starting point.

Follow it for 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual periods for those who have them). Stay pretty close to calorie goal on average, then compare your average weekly loss over that whole time period to your target loss rate. If the first couple of weeks' loss is very different from what follows, ignore the unusual weeks at the beginning, and go for another couple of weeks to get solid data.

That will give you the best estimate you can get of your calorie needs based on personal experience. That's useful, because individuals vary from the estimating formulas. Use that information to adjust calorie goal going forward from there. (Assume 500 calories per day is roughly a pound a week, and use arithmetic for partial pounds.)

I do feel I need a number in MFP I can trust (at least more than I do now) to start with. When I suspect I am under-eating I panic a little thinking I will slow my metabolism, or just have a crappy run the next day. (Plus I hate feeling that hungry all day.) On the other hand, when I think, "fuel your exercise" I go overboard. So many people say, "just try different numbers and see how your body responds." That approach has never been useful to me, which is why I'm wearing the Garmin all day and tracking in the first place! My personality and my eating habits demand a more technical approach, at least for now.

I appreciate your input!

There's a degree of experiment in all of this. You won't slow your metabolism, though if you try to lose fast you may drag through your day and burn fewer calories than expected, or - as you say - have a bad run. If you start feeling weak or fatigued, eat somewhat more (i.e., accept a slower loss rate).

"Fuel your exercise" just means "don't ignore your exercise when you estimate your calorie needs". If you use a TDEE number (like from Sailrabbit), include your exercise in activity level. If you use the MFP method of eating back exercise calories on exercise days, don't include your exercise in activity level in MFP, and log your exercise when you do it (or sync your Garmin to MFP with negative adjustments enabled in MFP). If you're one of the people who worries that exercise calories are over-estimated, eat back some standard percent of them (50% or 75% or whatever) until you complete that 4-6 week experiment.

If you treat the calculator result as a starting estimate, and proceed with testing the estimate as if this were a fun, productive science fair experiment for grown-ups. That might appeal to the part of you that wants a more technical approach? Some people create tracking spreadsheets and such to really pin down their personal experimental situation. (I didn't .)

BTW: Your Garmin is just estimating, too. If you sync it to MFP, you're also testing its estimate. The issue isn't whether the Garmin is accurate, it's whether you're statistically average.

MFP, Garmin, Sailrabbit, others: They just give you more or less nuanced statistical averages for people similar to you in demographic details and whatever other data they have. You're an individual, not an average. Gather your own data for long enough to see reasonable average trends, and use that information. That'll work.

Best wishes!

frhaberl wrote: »

My biggest learning through this process has been that the magic comes when you figure out what works FOR YOU in the long term. Generally that means making small changes and figuring out if you can stick with them long term and if they give the desired results. Sometimes that means sticking with them for 4-6 weeks before deciding if they give the desired results. Sometimes that means realizing that 4-6 weeks have passed and you haven't gotten the results you'd hoped, but you've learned that x habit is something you could sustain and it gives positive results you weren't planning on. I know most of us struggle with feeling that those 4-6 weeks were "wasted" because we didn't lose the planned number of pounds, but I've learned that there are so many wins that we miss out on if we make weight loss the only measure of success.

<snip>

My advice is to resist the urge to get caught up in the minutia of "getting it right" from the start. Pick something and stick with it long enough to learn from it. Then make adjustments that you feel are necessary and sustainable.

These kinds of "experiments" are never wasted. Learning what DOESN'T work is very important when you're dialing in what DOES work. It's only wasted if you don't pay attention and do the same thing again and expect different results. Einstein probably never actually said that this is the definition of insanity, but for sure it's not productive. Edison actually may HAVE said, "I haven't failed, I have just found a thousand things that don't work."