over estimated calorie burn

lauracups

Is there a reason for the big discrepancy? Every machine I've used shows a burn of half of what suggested here.

Azexas

MFP always gives higher calorie burns for some reason. Do you use a heart rate monitor?

AllanMisner

All calorie burns (and calorie intakes) are estimates. I’d recommend just plugging a number based on perceived effort and time. Take measurements (neck, chest, stomach, waist, hips, upper arms, upper legs) and weigh yourself. If after a few weeks you’re getting the results you want, you’re good. If not, tweak it.

lauracups

Troutsy wrote: »

MFP always gives higher calorie burns for some reason. Do you use a heart rate monitor?

It's my next saved up for purchase, I want the wireless one.

jacksonpt

AllanMisner wrote: »

All calorie burns (and calorie intakes) are estimates. I’d recommend just plugging a number based on perceived effort and time. Take measurements (neck, chest, stomach, waist, hips, upper arms, upper legs) and weigh yourself. If after a few weeks you’re getting the results you want, you’re good. If not, tweak it.

I generally agree.

All those numbers (including HRMs) are estimates based on some formula and certain assumptions. How close they are to each other or how close they are to being accurate for you will depend on the formula and the assumptions.

Generally speaking, I suggest people pick 1 method for estimating cals burned - use MFP, use the machines, use an HRM, use 5 x number of minutes exercised, whatever. But pick one method and use it exclusively. Then, after 6 weeks or so, compare your expected results to your actual results. If they are reasonably close, then you're doing well. If not, then tweak something. and start the process again.

Azexas

lauracups wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

MFP always gives higher calorie burns for some reason. Do you use a heart rate monitor?

It's my next saved up for purchase, I want the wireless one.

The HRM will still be an estimate, but in my experience it's a little more realistic than the burn MFP gives you. If you are eating back your exercise calories, I suggest only eating back a portion just because its a rough estimate I have the Polar Ft4 and it seems to work pretty well.

lauracups

Troutsy wrote: »

lauracups wrote: »

Troutsy wrote: »

MFP always gives higher calorie burns for some reason. Do you use a heart rate monitor?

It's my next saved up for purchase, I want the wireless one.

The HRM will still be an estimate, but in my experience it's a little more realistic than the burn MFP gives you. If you are eating back your exercise calories, I suggest only eating back a portion just because its a rough estimate I have the Polar Ft4 and it seems to work pretty well.

Yep, as is I only log half the estimated and dropped down intake to 1000 to come up with a good total until the weather is better and I'm back up to an average of 18k steps a day.