Saw Something On The News This Morning About Exercise Being More Important Than Diet
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm just curious why the statement was made that MFP calories burned were double or triple what is accurate. Most specifically, what backs up the statement.
It's been explained in considerable detail, more than once now.
In this thread? Can you give me the cliff notes, I missed it. And I'm not being flip, I really did miss it. Unless you mean double counting BMR, which I concede but don't believe could explains that big of a difference.
Walking burns about the same amount of calories as BMR. That means any exercise calculator that doesn't exclude BMR (like MFP and most others) is - this is basic math - doubling the real calorie burn for walking and other low intensity exercises.
Something like interval training combines periods of low intensity (like walking/resting) with periods of high intensity. Since we established above that the low intensity periods will be greatly over-estimated, we've also established that burn estimates for interval training will also be over-estimated - unless you *only* count the time spent in actual high intensity (which will only be a few minutes because that's what high intensity means).
I'm not sure I believe that brisk walking burns the same as BMR (source?), but let's say it does. It would never explain the counts being tripled.
Tripling is typically seen when out of shape people use HRMs during interval-y training. That follows from the walking example.What if I run a 5k or hike for 3 hours, or go rock climbing, or split wood for an hour, or go on a 15 mile bike ride? Would all those be doubled or tripled., or are we assuming walking and interval training are the only exercises?
Running is typically in the 20-30% overestimated range. Bike riding is highly dependent on speed - highly - so that would be a "depends". Splitting wood will be a low burner - I'd just book it as walking for the same amount of time. Rock climbing is extremely variable on terrain, no easy way to estimate that one other than using the rule of thumb of 1 calorie per 100kg of body weight per metre of elevation gained.
0 -
Not sure I am buying this double and triple thing.
my Garmin Vivoactive uses a pedometer, heart rate (chest strap monitor), GPS, elevation, height, weight, and age to calculate calories burned when an activity is recorded.
I compared the results with several on line calculators (including one that uses heart rate in the calculation), and the MFP database.
MFP and the other calculators came up a lower than my Garmin, and the calculator that uses heart rate came up higher than my Garmin. I have to assume that since my Garmin uses all the variables, that it would have to be pretty close.
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »Not sure I am buying this double and triple thing.
my Garmin Vivoactive uses a pedometer, heart rate (chest strap monitor), GPS, elevation, height, weight, and age to calculate calories burned when an activity is recorded.
I compared the results with several on line calculators (including one that uses heart rate in the calculation), and the MFP database.
MFP and the other calculators came up a lower than my Garmin, and the calculator that uses heart rate came up higher than my Garmin. I have to assume that since my Garmin uses all the variables, that it would have to be pretty close.
Admittedly, it really depresses me when I read done trust this, don't trust that. And especially so when I hear my beloved fitbit is lying to me too
0 -
I'm not suggesting anyone phrase things in any way. I'm not suggesting that exercise is more important or even that anyone do it.
Maybe we need to re-formulate the statement a bit and say that " the average person does better when it comes to losing weight with a caloric deficit than with increased exercise ".
Agreed.I've never understood people trying to completely separate exercise and diet as being more or less important than the other for weight loss. You need a deficit. You can get that through, relative to maintenance, exercising more, or eating less. Or you can get that through eating more calories, but exercising in a way that burns even more calories. You can get that through reducing your exercise burns, as long as you reduce your intake even more.
Now, I certainly get people focusing on whichever method works best for them. But the whole "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" thing is kinda nonsense (from a weight loss perspective). You can. Are you likely to? Well, that may depend on how bad you mean by bad. But there's a while lot of eating you can out-exercise if you're willing to say, run 100 miles a week (not that I'd recommend that).
It's very silly to try to separate the CI from the CO, as if they don't both count.
Weight loss happens in the kitchen, but it happens in the pool, too.
The average person ( according to the WHO ) in the US does not exercise and even those who do, often don't exercise enough to make a big enough difference to use exercise as a constant tool for weight loss.In order to do so, many would have to sacrifice a lot of other activities, which I think most people are not willing to do.
Only a very small group has the interest and lives in the circumstances that make running a 100 miles a week ( or going to the gym every day for more than minimum time ) even possible.
As a former competitive weight lifter I still know people who bike, run or lift weights in a way that they can almost eat anything they want ( and lots of it ! ), because they burn a lot of calories.
One has not been on vacation for ten years or so, because he feels he cannot stay away from a gym. Another is obsessed with his ( very limited ) diet and his shredding & bulking cycles. He is socially fairly withdrawn, because his " program " is before anything including family birthdays and other celebrations.
The daughter of a friend of mine got so involved with exercise that her family life suffered and her husband asked for a divorce.
I know, those are extreme cases as well as you do also, because the average person will not forgo the spouses birthday party to go to the gym, or will exercise so much that a somewhat varied and normal life is not possible. Most people look for a middle way and that means that for most of us it is easier to lose with a caloric deficit than with exercise.
I agree that exercise is important to maintain good physical, emotional and psychological health, which imo makes eating at a deficit and therefore weight loss much easier
I'm simply saying that when it comes to CICO, as it applies to gaining, losing or maintaining weight, has two parts, the CI and the CO. They both count.
That's all.
0 -
Struggled with my weight for years. Pretty much since getting out of the Army in 1996. A good friend made it simple for me. With few exceptions, weight loss is simply a matter of input vs. output. If you are taking in more calories than your burning, you'll gain weight. If you take in less than your burning, you'll lose weight. I have been maintaining a weight of about 160 since February. Started at about 220. Didn't exercise at all the first few months. When I started, the weight came off faster, but I didn't eat the extra calories earned from exercise. I feel good and thank God for it daily.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »Not sure I am buying this double and triple thing.
my Garmin Vivoactive uses a pedometer, heart rate (chest strap monitor), GPS, elevation, height, weight, and age to calculate calories burned when an activity is recorded.
I compared the results with several on line calculators (including one that uses heart rate in the calculation), and the MFP database.
MFP and the other calculators came up a lower than my Garmin, and the calculator that uses heart rate came up higher than my Garmin. I have to assume that since my Garmin uses all the variables, that it would have to be pretty close.
Admittedly, it really depresses me when I read done trust this, don't trust that. And especially so when I hear my beloved fitbit is lying to me too
I have read that the fitbits are pretty darn accurate.
I think overall that MFP & on line calculators may be off by a small percent because it does not use all the variables to calculate, and activity trackers (especially ones that measure HR & elevation) may be off by even a smaller percent.
Normally I burn so many calories that I cant even eat them all back, so I usually have plenty left over to be on the safe side.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »Coca cola should expand their corporation. Only time I drink it is to splash it to top of liquor.
They have. Coca Cola owns a ton of non-soda areas of the market. So does Pepsi.
0 -
Then don't.bcalvanese wrote: »Not sure I am buying this double and triple thing.
All of the people eating back 25-75% of their exercise calories and having success are probably just wrong. Your case, even if accurate, is the only valid one. Every scenario which doesn't match yours involves error of some kind. Glad we got that sorted out.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Then don't.bcalvanese wrote: »Not sure I am buying this double and triple thing.
All of the people eating back 25-75% of their exercise calories and having success are probably just wrong. Your case, even if accurate, is the only valid one. Every scenario which doesn't match yours involves error of some kind. Glad we got that sorted out.
Does it bother you that someone else can be successful doing things other than your double/triple over exaggerated claim?
no sense arguing anymore.0 -
If it bothered me, I wouldn't have said, probably five times by now, do what's working for you. That's not the issue. The issue is more your utter refusal to accept that that's not how it's working for a lot of other people. But, again, if it's working for you, keep doing it.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Then don't.bcalvanese wrote: »Not sure I am buying this double and triple thing.
All of the people eating back 25-75% of their exercise calories and having success are probably just wrong. Your case, even if accurate, is the only valid one. Every scenario which doesn't match yours involves error of some kind. Glad we got that sorted out.
Does it bother you that someone else can be successful doing things other than your double/triple over exaggerated claim?
no sense arguing anymore.
ETA:
And, as far as "over exaggerated", here's today's "accurate" account of my burn:
0 -
Re: how accurate activity trackers are for calorie burn (rather than accuracy of steps taken and so on) this article is quite useful:
Activity Tracker Accuracy
Of which the following is pertinent:The difference between measured and predicted kcals ranged from 13 to 60 percent, with some devices overpredicting and some devices underpredicting. None of the devices were accurate across all the activities for recording calories burned, so picking an activity device to record caloric expenditure may not be the best option.
and“Predicting calorie burn is a complicated thing,” explains Porcari. “People vary how they move their arms, for example. Some are more efficient and some are more variable. Most devices probably won’t get within 10 to 15 percent accuracy because there is simply too much biological variability.”0 -
Re: how accurate activity trackers are for calorie burn (rather than accuracy of steps taken and so on) this article is quite useful:
Activity Tracker Accuracy
Of which the following is pertinent:The difference between measured and predicted kcals ranged from 13 to 60 percent, with some devices overpredicting and some devices underpredicting. None of the devices were accurate across all the activities for recording calories burned, so picking an activity device to record caloric expenditure may not be the best option.
and“Predicting calorie burn is a complicated thing,” explains Porcari. “People vary how they move their arms, for example. Some are more efficient and some are more variable. Most devices probably won’t get within 10 to 15 percent accuracy because there is simply too much biological variability.”
I'm glad to know I don't waste money on this.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »Re: how accurate activity trackers are for calorie burn (rather than accuracy of steps taken and so on) this article is quite useful:
Activity Tracker Accuracy
Of which the following is pertinent:The difference between measured and predicted kcals ranged from 13 to 60 percent, with some devices overpredicting and some devices underpredicting. None of the devices were accurate across all the activities for recording calories burned, so picking an activity device to record caloric expenditure may not be the best option.
and“Predicting calorie burn is a complicated thing,” explains Porcari. “People vary how they move their arms, for example. Some are more efficient and some are more variable. Most devices probably won’t get within 10 to 15 percent accuracy because there is simply too much biological variability.”
I'm glad to know I don't waste money on this.
I guess it depends how you use the thing. It certainly helps people be more active which is no bad thing.
Also it can be used to establish a consistent trend over time which would also be far more use potentially than actual accuracy.
If I were interested in doing the whole exercise calorie thing I would go about it this way:
Weeks 1-2 keep cals constant and eat back all the cals predicted by my activity tracker. If I lost weight then continue on. If not:
Weeks 2-4 keep cals constant but eat back 90% of the cals predicted by my activity tracker. If I lost weight then continue on. If not:
Weeks 4-6 keep cals constant but eat back 80% of the cals predicted by my activity tracker. If I lost weight then continue on etc.
I would do this process until I reached the sweet spot of losing weight comfortably. Hack your deficit yo!0 -
Exactly this.yopeeps025 wrote: »Re: how accurate activity trackers are for calorie burn (rather than accuracy of steps taken and so on) this article is quite useful:
Activity Tracker Accuracy
Of which the following is pertinent:The difference between measured and predicted kcals ranged from 13 to 60 percent, with some devices overpredicting and some devices underpredicting. None of the devices were accurate across all the activities for recording calories burned, so picking an activity device to record caloric expenditure may not be the best option.
and“Predicting calorie burn is a complicated thing,” explains Porcari. “People vary how they move their arms, for example. Some are more efficient and some are more variable. Most devices probably won’t get within 10 to 15 percent accuracy because there is simply too much biological variability.”
I'm glad to know I don't waste money on this.
I guess it depends how you use the thing. It certainly helps people be more active which is no bad thing.
Also it can be used to establish a consistent trend over time which would also be far more use potentially than actual accuracy.
I move more because of my band.
I don't care if my band is accurate, as long as it is precise.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Exactly this.yopeeps025 wrote: »Re: how accurate activity trackers are for calorie burn (rather than accuracy of steps taken and so on) this article is quite useful:
Activity Tracker Accuracy
Of which the following is pertinent:The difference between measured and predicted kcals ranged from 13 to 60 percent, with some devices overpredicting and some devices underpredicting. None of the devices were accurate across all the activities for recording calories burned, so picking an activity device to record caloric expenditure may not be the best option.
and“Predicting calorie burn is a complicated thing,” explains Porcari. “People vary how they move their arms, for example. Some are more efficient and some are more variable. Most devices probably won’t get within 10 to 15 percent accuracy because there is simply too much biological variability.”
I'm glad to know I don't waste money on this.
I guess it depends how you use the thing. It certainly helps people be more active which is no bad thing.
Also it can be used to establish a consistent trend over time which would also be far more use potentially than actual accuracy.
I move more because of my band.
I don't care if my band is accurate, as long as it is precise.
I had a different issue which was 100% diet. I never had an issue exercising and have been for a long time.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
If it bothered me, I wouldn't have said, probably five times by now, do what's working for you. That's not the issue. The issue is more your utter refusal to accept that that's not how it's working for a lot of other people. But, again, if it's working for you, keep doing it.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Then don't.bcalvanese wrote: »Not sure I am buying this double and triple thing.
All of the people eating back 25-75% of their exercise calories and having success are probably just wrong. Your case, even if accurate, is the only valid one. Every scenario which doesn't match yours involves error of some kind. Glad we got that sorted out.
Does it bother you that someone else can be successful doing things other than your double/triple over exaggerated claim?
no sense arguing anymore.
ETA:
And, as far as "over exaggerated", here's today's "accurate" account of my burn:
I never get numbers close to that high (usually a little over half of that), even when I wear my heart rate monitor (which adds a little more).
Don't know why you are getting those numbers.0 -
I get those numbers because activity trackers, apps, and machines are subject to overestimating grievously the calories burned by exercise.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Exactly this.yopeeps025 wrote: »Re: how accurate activity trackers are for calorie burn (rather than accuracy of steps taken and so on) this article is quite useful:
Activity Tracker Accuracy
Of which the following is pertinent:The difference between measured and predicted kcals ranged from 13 to 60 percent, with some devices overpredicting and some devices underpredicting. None of the devices were accurate across all the activities for recording calories burned, so picking an activity device to record caloric expenditure may not be the best option.
and“Predicting calorie burn is a complicated thing,” explains Porcari. “People vary how they move their arms, for example. Some are more efficient and some are more variable. Most devices probably won’t get within 10 to 15 percent accuracy because there is simply too much biological variability.”
I'm glad to know I don't waste money on this.
I guess it depends how you use the thing. It certainly helps people be more active which is no bad thing.
Also it can be used to establish a consistent trend over time which would also be far more use potentially than actual accuracy.
I move more because of my band.
I don't care if my band is accurate, as long as it is precise.
This! Far too few understand the difference between accuracy and precision.
I use a Fitbit as a motivator to ensure I'm moving throughout the day and don't jockey my desk for hours on end. I pay little attention to the caloric burn estimation.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »I get those numbers because activity trackers, apps, and machines are subject to overestimating grievously the calories burned by exercise.
you are getting overestimated numbers for sure, but I am not.
There has to be a reason for that.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If it bothered me, I wouldn't have said, probably five times by now, do what's working for you. That's not the issue. The issue is more your utter refusal to accept that that's not how it's working for a lot of other people. But, again, if it's working for you, keep doing it.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Then don't.bcalvanese wrote: »Not sure I am buying this double and triple thing.
All of the people eating back 25-75% of their exercise calories and having success are probably just wrong. Your case, even if accurate, is the only valid one. Every scenario which doesn't match yours involves error of some kind. Glad we got that sorted out.
Does it bother you that someone else can be successful doing things other than your double/triple over exaggerated claim?
no sense arguing anymore.
ETA:
And, as far as "over exaggerated", here's today's "accurate" account of my burn:
I never get numbers close to that high (usually a little over half of that), even when I wear my heart rate monitor (which adds a little more).
Don't know why you are getting those numbers.
As has been pointed out, he is taller than you.
Similarly, your numbers -- even if they were accurate, and the fact you constantly leave calories on the table and lose what you should shows they are not -- are not relevant at all to those of us who are smaller than you.
This is really quite basic information.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions