Stupid Question, but I haven´t found a reliable answer yet

Have you read these?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/6556-the-answers-to-the-questions

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/9433-expectations

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

I would say that it would be 300 calories burned, not 400. Your body would be burning 100 of those calories anyway. And personally I prefer to be safer than sorry with that If you eat 400 calories back, make sure it's not bad food. Have you ever heard of anyone getting fat from eating fruit all day?

It's 100 calories. You make that many mistakes in a day of logging food. This is not an exact science.

The HRM counts all the calories you burned in that amount of time, and doesn't "take off" your RMR. Technically, you could manually subtract the hundred calories. But the HRM is not an exact count, either. It is based on an algorithm that is inherently flawed...so either way you're using estimations.

Try it one way or the other for a month. Adjust if necessary.

That's one of the reasons I don't eat back all of my exercise calories. (plus I allow for a reasonable margin of error on food portions etc)

I posed a similar hypothesis a few weeks back (maybe a month or so, time flies). I think you would back it out. But that said, what is 100 calories and considering that is an average, your waking hours would burn more than your sleep time. So, the math gets to be even less significant. The point is 100 calories isn't going to do all that much to jeopardize your metabolism. As a result, I would take the most conservative calculation (reducing HRM exercise by the average basic for that same period of time) if you eat all of your exercise calories. Otherwise, you may not be getting the deficit you thought you were.

Put more effort into the exercising than the math.
300-400 calories. Not that big of a difference. A tablespoon of peanut butter....
Put your base info into MFP - enter your food and exercise honestly and the process will work.

my answer is B.

if you go over by 100 calories, i dont think that's a huge crisis though..............

Put more effort into the exercising than the math.
300-400 calories. Not that big of a difference. A tablespoon of peanut butter....
Put your base info into MFP - enter your food and exercise honestly and the process will work.

^^^This.

Don't over-think it. I've seriously debated getting a HRM, but after seeing success by honestly logging what I've eaten and what exercise I've done, I don't see that a HRM would have helped.

It doesn't quite average out like that. Your BMR may be 2400; however, you dictate that by entering your daily lifestyle activity level. If you were sedentary, then, the BMR would not be 2400. Also, don't assume that 100 calories is gone every hour as your energy expenditure is different throughout the day. First, it's important to know that a "calorie" a unit of heat used to measure energy. You are burning additional calories during strenuous activity such as exercise. Example... it takes 140 calories for a 180 pound man to run 1 mile (approx.) Secondly, your metabolic rate remains elevated as your body works to "recover" from the additional energy expended to compensate for the demands you are placing on your body. After running, your BMR can remain elevated for nearly an hour; however, a good session of weight training, i.e. squats and deadlifts can have your BMR skyrocketed for 18 to 24 hours AFTER exercise. Yes, you will actually be burning additional calories as you sit on the couch later thay night recovering from the weight training session.

Long story short, DO NOT back out any calories from what your body does naturally, its a well oiled machine. Your body will hit your 2400 regardless of how much addtional work you put in. If your starting point is 2400, and you burn 600 working out in an hour... your adjusted number is 3000, NOT 2900.

And, since you posted this looking for an answer (or possibly some advice)... get a good session of squats and deadlifts in once a week... you won't have to worry about those 100 calories at all.

Hope this helps.

Interesting topic!
There are many examples where calculation of cals burnt can be misleading For example sedentary lifestyle multiplied by bmr provides my tdee. If i sit at a desk at work all week but at weekends i am really active, gardening, washing car, housework etc should sendentary be changed in order to adjust my target cals? Also many gym machines seem to over estimate cals burnt. For example 40 mins on my gym crosstrainer shows 600 cals burnt - seems a lot? I do feel that sometimes the recording of additional cals through excercise is really on the high side and that the overall activity level should be adjusted. For example if you go to the gym 4 times a week and workout for say total of 4/5 hours but have a desk job should you record sedentary lifestyle? At what point does excercise influence your lifestyle rating?

It doesn't quite average out like that. Your BMR may be 2400; however, you dictate that by entering your daily lifestyle activity level. If you were sedentary, then, the BMR would not be 2400. Also, don't assume that 100 calories is gone every hour as your energy expenditure is different throughout the day. First, it's important to know that a "calorie" a unit of heat used to measure energy. You are burning additional calories during strenuous activity such as exercise. Example... it takes 140 calories for a 180 pound man to run 1 mile (approx.) Secondly, your metabolic rate remains elevated as your body works to "recover" from the additional energy expended to compensate for the demands you are placing on your body. After running, your BMR can remain elevated for nearly an hour; however, a good session of weight training, i.e. squats and deadlifts can have your BMR skyrocketed for 18 to 24 hours AFTER exercise. Yes, you will actually be burning additional calories as you sit on the couch later thay night recovering from the weight training session.

This is what I was thinking. No way you could say 100 calories every hour and estimate that simply. There are times when you burn more when your body is conducting extra processes, and times when you're burning less (they've done studies that show the more you stand, the more calories you burn...they've done studies for everything, though, so...), plus with the increase in calorie burn following a workout....well, wouldn't it all just even out in the end anyhow? I'd say stop trying to do the math and just trust in the process. (Of course, I got a degree in English...we always say "stop trying to do math" )

Absolutely includes the 100 calories you would have burned had you done nothing at all.

This post may help answer your question:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/558207-calorie-consumption-of-walking-vs-running

Why worry so much about those 100 calories? If you figure your TDEE (Total Daily Energy expenditure), you are using more than your BMR (body AT REST) in a day. So even if you eat those 100 extra calories you will still be at a deficit and will still lose weight.

After reading other responses, I maybe misunderstood the question. If the treadmill says you just burned 400 calories, that is not in addition to what you would have burned during that time period regardless of what those calories would have been. Keep in mind BMR are the calories you burn if you were laying in bed doing absolutely nothing but staying alive. I suppose that can vary, but I wouldn't think it would vary by much. After wearing a BodyBugg for two years I learned that I averaged a one calorie per minute burn while sitting at my computer at work, .9 calories while sleeping. Just standing up, that nearly doubled.

i was thinking about the body bug. you've had yours 2 years? that's awesome. do you recommend on of those over a hrm with a strap?