Why Eating Exercise Calories is so important.

How do you calculate how many calories you burn in a workout if you don't rely on HR?

I don't. I have an accurate calorie deficit setup and that's it.

That's great. But for me i need to know an accurate count of calories I burn in a workout. I don't trust a canned number. No two people/workouts are the same. MFP exercises i think are meant to be a guideline. Alot of people were complaining in the thread how MFP overestimates calories burned. For me it actually is too low on most exercises. Hence the HR monitor.

A canned number? I don't track exercise at all, not sure what you're talking about. I enter my food, that's it.

I go by the estimates provided by MFP, the treadmill at the gym (when I'm stuck indoors), or Runkeeper. And using those estimates gave me the results I wanted, so they're accurate enough for me.

Trial and error. It's the most effective way to find what works for you.

So by this line of thought, you should get as close to 0 calories remaining without going over?

Yes, but going over is ok, too, since you'll still be in a calorie deficit.

you can get one that goes on your wrist.

I'm so glad to have come across this, I've been struggling with trying to figure out how many calories I should eat. I'll try this and see how it works

Thanks!

you can get one that goes on your wrist.

I know and read on here they are not that accurate. Should I really bother with it? The elliptical at the gym asks my age, weight and takes my heartrate. Is a wrist HRM going to be much different?

Cheers,

Sean

No that would be just as accurate as a monitor so in your case I would not bother. Just check ur hr every min or two to keep it more accurate.

I am a bit skeptical, did the research and only the minority of the science community believe this. My theory is that to lose weight you have to burn more calories than you eat, right? What is our fat, it is energy that has been stored. So if we burn all the calories we ate and we need energy are body will get it from our fat. It will get energy from muscle as a last resort, once all fat is gone. As for the exercise it is not as simple as our metabolism rises, we build muscle and muscle burns more energy thus resulting in the fact that we can eat a bit more without gaining weight, it more complicated than this but this is what it comes down to.

And from the creator of this topic I quote, "the more calories she eats, the more her metabolism is raised". Does this make any sense. Really if that was true I would not be overweight. I would have a metabolism that was impossibly quick.

My dieticianist laughed at this topic saying it was counter productive, and I am inclined to believe her seeing as I have lost 20 pounds thus far with her help.

The problem is, your dietician doesn't use the same formula that MFP does. THis is a common misunderstanding on here.
And technically, she does have you "eat back" your exercise calories, just in a different way. Most dieticians will figure your BMR, then account for your daily life and anticipated activity level. They then create a deficit from that. So your exercise calories are built into the equation, but you still eat more than someone else the same size who is less active.
MFP figures your BMR, then accounts for daily life, but not exercise. That is why they tell you to eat the calories back.
I have figured mine both ways and I pretty much end up in the same place.
Even if you eat what MFP suggests, then eat the calories from exercise, you are still at a deficit with MFP's numbers. you are still burning less than you eat.
Ex - if I figure my TDEE minus 20% I get around 1600 (not exact just to make math easier). That 11, 200 for the week.
If I follow MFP, I get a little over 1400 a day. With exercise, eating back the calories, I'm around 1700. At 5 days of 1700, and two days of 1400, that takes me to 11,300. for the week.

By all means, follow what your nutritionist suggests, however, it does not necessary mean MFP is wrong either. Its simply two different paths to the same end.