Saw Something On The News This Morning About Exercise Being More Important Than Diet
Options
Replies
-
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 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I don't always leave calories on the table. I always leave a certain amount for grazing (usually 300 to 500). I also agree that they may be overestimating to a certain degree, but double or triple seems way over exaggerated to me. If that was the case, I would have gained a ton by now.0 -
The study actually said that exercise may be more important to weight loss than was previously thought in that the key to maintaining a weight loss is to become more active.0
-
47Jacqueline wrote: »The study actually said that exercise may be more important to weight loss than was previously thought in that the key to maintaining a weight loss is to become more active.
I believe that.0 -
47Jacqueline wrote: »The study actually said that exercise may be more important to weight loss than was previously thought in that the key to maintaining a weight loss is to become more active.
I would argue that exercise becomes increasingly important as one shift from loss to maintenance.
When people transition from the thought of exercise to performance they are creating a positive feedback loop. If you eat too much and start to gain weight/lose muscle, you won't be able to perform as well. This is critical in long term success.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