Exercise calories
Options
blueangelkim
Posts: 1 Member
Is it ok if you don’t eat exercise calories? I’m trying to lose weight and new to My Fitness Pal. Came over from WW as I want to ensure I learn about calories, fat, carbs so I can keep weight off.
Tagged:
0
Best Answer
-
Maybe?
In one way, exercise calories aren't any different from any other calories we burn. (As you probably know, we burn calories just being alive, more calories doing daily life stuff like home chores or job, then even more when we do exercise. Our bodies don't know the difference between (say) job calories and exercise calories.)
Our fat-weight loss is the result of the gap between the calories we burn (in all ways) and the calories we eat. Eat less than burned, lose fat, simplistically.
Truly fast weight loss isn't necessarily a great idea. It can be harder to stick with long enough to lose a meaningful total amount of weight, increase health risks, cause fatigue/weakness so reduce daily calorie burn, compromise appearance, and make it difficult to get adequate nutrition. (Truly fast, loosely: More than about 1% of current weight per week unless severely obese and under close medical supervision for deficiencies or complications. For many, 0.5% would be more conservative.)
Are bad things guaranteed to happen with fast loss? Of course not. But risks are increased as the rate becomes more extreme.
If a person has a moderate weight loss rate goal (say half a pound or a quarter kilo a week), and does a moderate amount of not-super-intense exercise (maybe 200-300 calories 3-4 times a week), it may be fine to not eat back exercise calories, instead letting them increase weight loss rate. (4-6 weeks of weight-loss results will tell whether the actual loss rate is moderate or extreme.)
At the other extreme, if a person shoots for a fast weight loss rate (like 2 pounds or a kilo per week), then does intense exercise most days of the week on top of that, that's probably not a health-promoting or sustainable thing. Odds go up for complications, deficiencies, or crashing/burning.
In between those extremes? It depends on how much risk tolerance a person has, when it comes to health, energy level, etc. Judgement call.
Personally, I don't like risking my health. All through weight loss (class 1 obese to healthy weight), I estimated exercise calories carefully, and ate all of them back routinely. I've done the same through nearly 8 years of maintaining a healthy weight since.
For me, that works especially well because much of my exercise is weather dependent, and varies seasonally. Over these years, I've had episodes where I couldn't do normal workouts for up to a few weeks (injury or surgical recovery, illness, whatever). I feel like estimating my exercise separately helped me maintain my weight predictably, under conditions of quite varied exercise. Also, I value my exercise performance (most of it is stuff I did even before weight loss, and I sometimes competed). If I don't fuel my exercise at least minimally adequately, performance is compromised.
Bottom line: I think there's some individual choice involved.
Best wishes!
5
Answers
-
I think sometimes too much information just complicates a very simple recipe for weight loss. I did the following myself and had excellent results.
I researched on the internet (with a VERY discerning mind) how much carbs I should limit myself to, to lose fat. I intuitively focused only on carbs, not protein, fat or calories or any other index created by man. I got my carbohydrate intake significantly down while still eating great food. I exercised once or twice a day. I never weighed myself once. I based my progress solely on feeling and seeing my body fat fall away over a few months.
I stuck to the routine like glue. Disciple! And hey presto.2 -
I think sometimes too much information just complicates a very simple recipe for weight loss. I did the following myself and had excellent results.
I researched on the internet (with a VERY discerning mind) how much carbs I should limit myself to, to lose fat. I intuitively focused only on carbs, not protein, fat or calories or any other index created by man. I got my carbohydrate intake significantly down while still eating great food. I exercised once or twice a day. I never weighed myself once. I based my progress solely on feeling and seeing my body fat fall away over a few months.
I stuck to the routine like glue. Disciple! And hey presto.
Your method might have worked for you, but only if your routine created a calorie deficit. Perhaps for you carbs were a large portion of your caloric intake and eliminating them created a calorie deficit. For someone who gets a lot of calories from things other than carbs, one could easily gain weight without many carbs.
I mostly agree with @AnnPT77. You just need a calorie deficit to lose weight. It takes some experimenting to make sure that the numbers that MFP gives you for a goal work FOR YOU. Ideally you should be eating back exercise calories, but that means that you have to pick the right entries for all your food AND all your exercise. No matter your approach, for sure you should do some checking in after several weeks to see if your loss is what you would expect from the numbers. If you lost less or more, you might make some changes. Then reassess the goals as you lose fat because your budget will allow fewer calories when there's less of you to move around.
6 -
I've wondered about this too, but was advised to leave those extra calories alone. The plan is to be in a calorie deficit (take in less than what you need). I'd say that if you find yourself super hungry after all your normal calories are gone, have a protein shake and see if that helps. Im just now getting back into the grind. Best of luck!1
-
I've wondered about this too, but was advised to leave those extra calories alone. The plan is to be in a calorie deficit (take in less than what you need). I'd say that if you find yourself super hungry after all your normal calories are gone, have a protein shake and see if that helps. Im just now getting back into the grind. Best of luck!
But the calories MFP gives you is already your calorie deficit. Say you're female and get 1200 calories because you want too much too fast. Then you exercise for 300 calories. You eat those 300 calories back and you'll still be able to lose at the rate associated with 1200 calories. If you though don't eat them back then that's pretty much the same as not exercising and eating only 900 calories. That's even too little nutrition for a toddler. Of course, if your calorie allowance is not rock-bottom (1500 for male) then you have more room to play with. But MFP does never include exercise calories compared to other calorie calculators where it's included.5 -
I've wondered about this too, but was advised to leave those extra calories alone. The plan is to be in a calorie deficit (take in less than what you need). I'd say that if you find yourself super hungry after all your normal calories are gone, have a protein shake and see if that helps. Im just now getting back into the grind. Best of luck!
Unlike other sites which use TDEE calculators, MFP uses the NEAT method (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis), and as such this system is designed for exercise calories to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns given by MFP to be inflated for them and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back. Others are able to lose weight while eating 100% of their exercise calories.
https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032625391-How-does-MyFitnessPal-calculate-my-initial-goals-
3 -
If your weekly calorie amount is sufficient to cause you to lose weight in the manner that you desire without figuring in exercise calories then no, you don’t need to figure those in.
The proof of how your equation is working will be in 4-6 weeks. At that point adjust things around if you aren’t meeting your goals.1 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »If your weekly calorie amount is sufficient to cause you to lose weight in the manner that you desire without figuring in exercise calories then no, you don’t need to figure those in.
The proof of how your equation is working will be in 4-6 weeks. At that point adjust things around if you aren’t meeting your goals.
But here the minimum calories thingy comes into play. If TO is only eating 1200 calories, hoping to lose 2lbs per week, but with exercise on top only loses 1lbs per week then this could be way too low.2 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »If your weekly calorie amount is sufficient to cause you to lose weight in the manner that you desire without figuring in exercise calories then no, you don’t need to figure those in.
The proof of how your equation is working will be in 4-6 weeks. At that point adjust things around if you aren’t meeting your goals.
But here the minimum calories thingy comes into play. If TO is only eating 1200 calories, hoping to lose 2lbs per week, but with exercise on top only loses 1lbs per week then this could be way too low.
You have to figure in inaccurate weekly logging of calories always.
If OP loses more that they want in the first 4-6 weeks then things are adjusted as mentioned. Many people don't figure in exercise calories and do perfectly fine and some include exercise calories and do perfectly fine. There are way too many variables to give an absolute answer2 -
I think sometimes too much information just complicates a very simple recipe for weight loss. I did the following myself and had excellent results.
I researched on the internet (with a VERY discerning mind) how much carbs I should limit myself to, to lose fat. I intuitively focused only on carbs, not protein, fat or calories or any other index created by man. I got my carbohydrate intake significantly down while still eating great food. I exercised once or twice a day. I never weighed myself once. I based my progress solely on feeling and seeing my body fat fall away over a few months.
I stuck to the routine like glue. Disciple! And hey presto.
Your method might have worked for you, but only if your routine created a calorie deficit. Perhaps for you carbs were a large portion of your caloric intake and eliminating them created a calorie deficit. For someone who gets a lot of calories from things other than carbs, one could easily gain weight without many carbs.
I mostly agree with @AnnPT77. You just need a calorie deficit to lose weight. It takes some experimenting to make sure that the numbers that MFP gives you for a goal work FOR YOU. Ideally you should be eating back exercise calories, but that means that you have to pick the right entries for all your food AND all your exercise. No matter your approach, for sure you should do some checking in after several weeks to see if your loss is what you would expect from the numbers. If you lost less or more, you might make some changes. Then reassess the goals as you lose fat because your budget will allow fewer calories when there's less of you to move around.
"easily gain weight without many carbs".
Unlikely. Carbs are a large portion of caloric intake in general, especially if you are in America. So much of your food is laced with sugar, it's hard to get away from it and processed foods. A healthy, low carb diet and plenty of activity, and discipline.0 -
I think sometimes too much information just complicates a very simple recipe for weight loss. I did the following myself and had excellent results.
I researched on the internet (with a VERY discerning mind) how much carbs I should limit myself to, to lose fat. I intuitively focused only on carbs, not protein, fat or calories or any other index created by man. I got my carbohydrate intake significantly down while still eating great food. I exercised once or twice a day. I never weighed myself once. I based my progress solely on feeling and seeing my body fat fall away over a few months.
I stuck to the routine like glue. Disciple! And hey presto.
Your method might have worked for you, but only if your routine created a calorie deficit. Perhaps for you carbs were a large portion of your caloric intake and eliminating them created a calorie deficit. For someone who gets a lot of calories from things other than carbs, one could easily gain weight without many carbs.
I mostly agree with @AnnPT77. You just need a calorie deficit to lose weight. It takes some experimenting to make sure that the numbers that MFP gives you for a goal work FOR YOU. Ideally you should be eating back exercise calories, but that means that you have to pick the right entries for all your food AND all your exercise. No matter your approach, for sure you should do some checking in after several weeks to see if your loss is what you would expect from the numbers. If you lost less or more, you might make some changes. Then reassess the goals as you lose fat because your budget will allow fewer calories when there's less of you to move around.
"easily gain weight without many carbs".
Unlikely. Carbs are a large portion of caloric intake in general, especially if you are in America. So much of your food is laced with sugar, it's hard to get away from it and processed foods. A healthy, low carb diet and plenty of activity, and discipline.
Ate 150g+ carbs on average daily during weight loss, lost anyway. At the time, menopausal, aging (59-60 then), severely hypothyroid (medicated), besides. Eat 200g+ carbs on average daily during maintenance, maintain anyway (8 years so far, and now age 68).
Low carb eating is fine, for those it suits. But it's not universally essential. My approach, rock-solid right for me, won't suit everyone, either.
I don't much do "discipline", as a hedonistic aging hippie flake. IMO, finding relatively easy, personally sustainable new habits is key: Personalization to our own preferences, strengths, challenges, lifestyles.
If low carb is working for you, I support and even celebrate that . . . for you.5 -
I think sometimes too much information just complicates a very simple recipe for weight loss. I did the following myself and had excellent results.
I researched on the internet (with a VERY discerning mind) how much carbs I should limit myself to, to lose fat. I intuitively focused only on carbs, not protein, fat or calories or any other index created by man. I got my carbohydrate intake significantly down while still eating great food. I exercised once or twice a day. I never weighed myself once. I based my progress solely on feeling and seeing my body fat fall away over a few months.
I stuck to the routine like glue. Disciple! And hey presto.
Your method might have worked for you, but only if your routine created a calorie deficit. Perhaps for you carbs were a large portion of your caloric intake and eliminating them created a calorie deficit. For someone who gets a lot of calories from things other than carbs, one could easily gain weight without many carbs.
I mostly agree with @AnnPT77. You just need a calorie deficit to lose weight. It takes some experimenting to make sure that the numbers that MFP gives you for a goal work FOR YOU. Ideally you should be eating back exercise calories, but that means that you have to pick the right entries for all your food AND all your exercise. No matter your approach, for sure you should do some checking in after several weeks to see if your loss is what you would expect from the numbers. If you lost less or more, you might make some changes. Then reassess the goals as you lose fat because your budget will allow fewer calories when there's less of you to move around.
"easily gain weight without many carbs".
Unlikely. Carbs are a large portion of caloric intake in general, especially if you are in America. So much of your food is laced with sugar, it's hard to get away from it and processed foods. A healthy, low carb diet and plenty of activity, and discipline.
A diet high in carbs can also be healthy. Look up the mediterranean diet, lots of Asian food, etc. Eating carbs doesn't mean it's highly processed food. Likewise, eating low carb can mean you're eating highly processed food. And besides, what keeps someone full and happy is highly individual. I know I'd gnaw my arms off if I had to eat low carb, and then continue with the wallpaper.2 -
As with @AnnPT77 i ate c 150g carbs each day to lose weight and I eat approx 220-250g each day. I lost weight eating a tonne of carbs and I maintain eating a tonne of carbs.I think sometimes too much information just complicates a very simple recipe for weight loss. I did the following myself and had excellent results.
I researched on the internet (with a VERY discerning mind) how much carbs I should limit myself to, to lose fat. I intuitively focused only on carbs, not protein, fat or calories or any other index created by man. I got my carbohydrate intake significantly down while still eating great food. I exercised once or twice a day. I never weighed myself once. I based my progress solely on feeling and seeing my body fat fall away over a few months.
I stuck to the routine like glue. Disciple! And hey presto.
Your method might have worked for you, but only if your routine created a calorie deficit. Perhaps for you carbs were a large portion of your caloric intake and eliminating them created a calorie deficit. For someone who gets a lot of calories from things other than carbs, one could easily gain weight without many carbs.
I mostly agree with @AnnPT77. You just need a calorie deficit to lose weight. It takes some experimenting to make sure that the numbers that MFP gives you for a goal work FOR YOU. Ideally you should be eating back exercise calories, but that means that you have to pick the right entries for all your food AND all your exercise. No matter your approach, for sure you should do some checking in after several weeks to see if your loss is what you would expect from the numbers. If you lost less or more, you might make some changes. Then reassess the goals as you lose fat because your budget will allow fewer calories when there's less of you to move around.
"easily gain weight without many carbs".
Unlikely. Carbs are a large portion of caloric intake in general, especially if you are in America. So much of your food is laced with sugar, it's hard to get away from it and processed foods. A healthy, low carb diet and plenty of activity, and discipline.
1 -
Eat back half your exercise calories. I find mfp can over estimate them. Eating none back will make you grouchy, eating all back is too many.0
-
I think sometimes too much information just complicates a very simple recipe for weight loss. I did the following myself and had excellent results.
I researched on the internet (with a VERY discerning mind) how much carbs I should limit myself to, to lose fat. I intuitively focused only on carbs, not protein, fat or calories or any other index created by man. I got my carbohydrate intake significantly down while still eating great food. I exercised once or twice a day. I never weighed myself once. I based my progress solely on feeling and seeing my body fat fall away over a few months.
I stuck to the routine like glue. Disciple! And hey presto.
Your method might have worked for you, but only if your routine created a calorie deficit. Perhaps for you carbs were a large portion of your caloric intake and eliminating them created a calorie deficit. For someone who gets a lot of calories from things other than carbs, one could easily gain weight without many carbs.
I mostly agree with @AnnPT77. You just need a calorie deficit to lose weight. It takes some experimenting to make sure that the numbers that MFP gives you for a goal work FOR YOU. Ideally you should be eating back exercise calories, but that means that you have to pick the right entries for all your food AND all your exercise. No matter your approach, for sure you should do some checking in after several weeks to see if your loss is what you would expect from the numbers. If you lost less or more, you might make some changes. Then reassess the goals as you lose fat because your budget will allow fewer calories when there's less of you to move around.
"easily gain weight without many carbs".
Unlikely. Carbs are a large portion of caloric intake in general, especially if you are in America. So much of your food is laced with sugar, it's hard to get away from it and processed foods. A healthy, low carb diet and plenty of activity, and discipline.
Very likely. I could EASILY gain weight without a high-carb diet.
I could eat avocados, peanut butter, almond butter, salmon, ribeye steaks, bacon, brie cheese (or cheddar or cambozola or....) and many other lower carb foods that pack lots of calories. I could add more olive oil or butter to my meals. I could (and did) lose weight while eating carbs, and it would be easy to gain without having a lot of them. I love food.
2 -
Eat back half your exercise calories. I find mfp can over estimate them. Eating none back will make you grouchy, eating all back is too many.
I can understand that the bolded is your experience, and personal experience is what counts most for each of us. But that (the bolded) isn't necessarily universally true.
Overall, MFP underestimates my overall calorie needs (base calories + exercise) by 25-30% . . . which is hundreds of calories daily. That's as compared with nearly 9 years of careful calorie logging. That big a difference is rare, but it can happen. Most people are close to the averages that MFP and other so-called calculators spit out, but individuals can vary from the research-based statistical estimates in either direction, high or low.
So, yes, MFP can overestimate calories, or underestimate them. That goes for base calories, and for exercise. Personal experience, averaged over many weeks, will tell the truest story.
I admit I don't use MFP's calorie estimates for all exercise types. (The METS methodology it uses suits some exercise types better than others; other methods are more likely to be accurate in some cases.) But I've always eaten back all of my carefully estimated exercise calories, and my weight behaves as I expect on average.
2 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »If your weekly calorie amount is sufficient to cause you to lose weight in the manner that you desire without figuring in exercise calories then no, you don’t need to figure those in.
The proof of how your equation is working will be in 4-6 weeks. At that point adjust things around if you aren’t meeting your goals.
But here the minimum calories thingy comes into play. If TO is only eating 1200 calories, hoping to lose 2lbs per week, but with exercise on top only loses 1lbs per week then this could be way too low.
You have to figure in inaccurate weekly logging of calories always.
If OP loses more that they want in the first 4-6 weeks then things are adjusted as mentioned. Many people don't figure in exercise calories and do perfectly fine and some include exercise calories and do perfectly fine. There are way too many variables to give an absolute answer
This is correct. Calorie counts are inaccurate. On the intake side, the FDA nutrition labels in the US allow for a 20% margin of error. On the exercise (output) side the most accurate way to calculate calories burnt during exercise is through a process called “indirect calorimetry” which measures gas exchange (oxygen and carbon dioxide). The devices, tables, and even indirect calorimetry have errors in them. While calorie labels on foods and calorie burn form devices can give a rough direction, they expectation one can manage calorie input/output via these methods within a couple hundred calories isn't very realistic.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions