It seems impossible to track exercise calories burned …

By looking at what your weight is doing. Weightloss or gain is slow. Thus if you collect data over 4 weeks the world won't end. Eat your calories, eat some exercise calories or whatever method you chose to lose/gain. Then look at the end of the 4 weeks what your weight is doing. Losing faster than expected? Eat more. Crashing before that? Eat way more. Losing slower? Reevaluate your logging. Caveat: If you're on 1200 (female) or 1500 (male) calories then your weightloss goal won't be achievable as this is the minimum MFP will give anyone who choses a too steep weightloss goal.

Personally: I use the numbers my fitness tracker (Garmin watch) gives me. There is no way to know if specifically the numbers for the (types of) exercise sessions are accurate but:
- with months (years even) of data from Garmin, combined with my intake on MFP and my weight trend, I know how much my tracker is off from reality regarding my TDEE
- I do spot checks specifically for running based on this calculator: https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

In effect, you're averaging your exercise calories (over a period of time) into your base calories, using the bodyweight scale as an adjustment guide. That absolutely can work. I don't buy that it's inherently better or more accurate or a superior method.

I'm reasonably active , working out 6 days most weeks, varied activities. I eat all the exercise calories I log.

I estimate the calories for different types of exercise in different ways, in each case choosing an easy method that I think is most reasonably close to accurate.

For some things, I use a fitness tracker estimate, for some a watts-based formula, for some MFP's METS-based estimate.

That's been close enough to manage my weight quite predictably for nearly 9 years so far. There have been times when I couldn't exercise for weeks (e.g. surgical recovery), plus my exercise is seasonal and can be limited by weather conditions (i.e., a bit unpredictable). Using this method, my weight behaved as I'd expect under those varied conditions.

I don't delude myself that the exercise calories are strictly accurate . . . but they seem to be close enough to work. That's all I need.

The base calorie estimate is also just an estimate. In reality even BMR can differ day to day for an individual, let alone differ from the population averages MFP or another calculator spit out. An individual's TDEE varies daily even more. Even fitness trackers only give statistical estimates based on averages for all-day calorie burn. Food labels can be off by 20%. Home scales (for food and bodyweight) have limited precision.

It's aaalllll estimates.

It works anyway. "Close enough to work" is all I need.

I don't understand why, swimming in this absolute sea of statistical approximation, people get extra special emotional about exercise calories. Meh.

Estimate TDEE and base calorie goal on that. That can work, has pros and cons.

Or

Estimate pre-exercise calorie needs and base calorie goal on that, then estimate and add exercise. That can work, has pros and cons.

Either one can work.

I was overweight to obese for around 30 years, and athletically active for the later (and fatter) dozen years. I've been at a healthy weight for 7+ years since loss. Seems like, for me, estimating exercise separately is working. That's all I need.

jdenbeaux wrote: »

I am very active - Pilates, judo and track workouts when not covered in snow - and exercise calorie burns seem impossible to calculate with ANY degree of certainty.

Age, gender, how hard the training is … so I have taken to upping my calorie intake by settings and ignoring the workouts.

How have other people dealt with this?

Thanks, in advance.

- Josh

The MFP exercise database does factor in your age and gender, and is using the METS system to calculate how hard it is. Some items have qualifiers such as "light," "moderate," etc.

"Walking, 3.0 mph, mod. pace" seems accurate for me and I use it to judge other entries.

I only use "Gardening, general" when I'm using a shovel and created "Gardening, moderate" for most other things and while my "Trail maintenance, light" was for that I also use it for light gardening.

I elliptical much slower than standard so created my own entry "Elliptical 3.8 METS" for that. I got those METS from the machine.

MFP's "Tai chi" seems to be based on a more martial style, so I use my own "Tai chi 2.75 METS." I got those METS from looking at the Tai Chi categories on https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/sports and using a number that was higher than "tai chi, qi gong, sitting, light effort" but lower than "tai chi, qi gong, general."

Least this seems like a lot of fuss, since I might create one or two new entries per year, it's no big deal.

I am very confident in my food logging, so if I don't lose weight as expected I might reevaluate my exercise logging. More often though, if I don't lose weight it's because I'm eating too much and I see this in my food diary.

I use the MFP exercise numbers, for the most part. I am mostly a runner and walker, though I do other activities occasionally and log those too. I burn 500-1000 extra calories a day on most days. If I didn't eat back those calories, I would be seriously undernourished. I lost weight and have maintained my weight for the past 10+ years. If you are burning 100 calories a day in exercise, you can ignore them if you want. If you are burning a lot more, then it is doing yourself a real disservice to ignore them. I know I would be starving, both figuratively and literally if I didn't eat back what I burn.