Beware "eating" your exercise calories!!
Options
Replies
-
METs and it's limitations. So, it makes sense as to why each of us are different in what we get from the mfp calculator. Trial and error works best.
Limitations
When using the Compendium to estimate the energy cost of activities, investigators should remind participants to recall only the time spent in movement. The Compendium was not developed to determine the precise energy cost of physical activity within individuals, but rather to provide a classification system that standardizes the MET intensities of physical activities used in survey research. The values in the Compendium do not estimate the energy cost of physical activity in individuals in ways that account for differences in body mass, adiposity, age, sex, efficiency of movement, geographic and environmental conditions in which the activities are performed. Thus, individual differences in energy expenditure for the same activity can be large and the true energy cost for an individual may or may not be close to the stated mean MET level as presented in the Compendium. [emphasis added]
Reference:
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/0 -
Right. And as with any testing method, the closer any individual person is to the test's "average person", and the more closely their activity mimics the activity being tested, the closer the numbers will be for that individual. It doesn't make that estimate any more or less accurate as a whole, it just makes it more accurate for a specific type of person doing a specific type of workout.First, MFPs estimates are high for pretty much everything. Yes, even running and walking. Even considering that MFP is reporting (apparently) gross and not net burns for exercise.
How do you know that? Is there some standard? MPF's estimates have been dead on for me - certainly within 10%.
There's a published paper where they measured calorie burn for runners and for walking and came up with a standard calculation. It was summarized in an old Runner's World article runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning, but the paper does exist and the formula they reported is directly out of the paper. I checked.
Net calorie burn per mile, running: .63 x your weight in lbs.
Net calorie burn per mile, walking: .3 x your weight in lbs.
Obviously, like any standard there's going to be variances and it doesn't take changes in elevation into account. MFP puts me 20% higher than the calculation. When I'm running 10+ miles, that error wipes out my deficit. I'm short and don't have much to lose.
So you're saying the variance that comes with MFP is unacceptable, while the variance that comes with that formula is OK?
It's all just estimates, and what might be very close for some people could be very wrong for others. People need to quit trying to be accurate and worry more about being reasonable and consistent, then accept that there is probably going to be some trial and error.
No, I'm saying who knows what MFP based their numbers on, at least I know how the other numbers were determined - through experimentally testing the oxygen consumed by a decent number of both men and women. Nothing easily portable accurately accounts for things like population variances and differences in terrain. I only mention it so no one thinks that those calculations are necessarily the end-all-be-all either.
It's also not such a big deal if you have a similar margin for error when estimating calories consumed. Or when estimating BMR cals.Accuracy, or at least not erring on the high side, becomes more important when your deficit is small or if you exercise a lot. That 20% difference? Not such a big deal if you run short distances and/or have a decent deficit to absorb it. What's an extra 60 or so cals, right? Bigger deal when you run long distances like I was (and am working back into). It meant an extra 150-300 cals per run, and I run 5 days a week. Now I'm looking at training for a marathon, so you can about double those numbers for the last couple of months. Unacceptable.
And I'm still curious how you know the formula posted by the paper is more accurate than any other method. What is accuracy? How is that measured? For all of us normal people, accurate is when your expected results match your actual results, and there are a zillion factors that can influence that.
Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight (though I do feel kind of argumentative today, which is probably why I keep coming back to this thread). Looking at the bigger picture, it sounds like you know what you're talking about. Maybe it's a pet peeve of mine, but I just hate the idea that people run around trying to be accurate, and when things don't work out the way they think they should, they blame the process. What they need to know from the start is that the foundation is inherently fuzzy because EVERYTHING is based on estimates that could be fairly close or wildly off.
For as much as I want the math to line up all nice and neat, it's rarely that simple.
0 -
I eat my calories back, but I usually don't end up eating all my allotment. I don't use MFP's calculations. I use an HRM and underreport as a rule as well because we have tendencies to underreport eating. So it averages out.0
-
Thanks all for a great discussion, fascinating to read how these things are worked out. I'm considering setting my allowance at 1500 and not logging my exercise.0
-
I lose around a 1 lb a week keeping within my calorie goal. I eat well and don't go hungry. I'm also pretty active, run, cycle, walk. I log my exercise but don't eat extra calories. I don't feel I could and continue losing weight. I have lost 15 lbs in around 11 weeks so feel I am doing it right for me. However, I agree, we should be able to eat back at least some burned calories n still lose, I think if I did, I would b staying the same though, not sure y this is0
-
makemybodysing wrote: »I've noticed a trap in the way MyFitnessPal adds our exercise calories to our total allowed for the day, which means we can eat more.
The calories added are not accurate, so you can easily end up adding in more calories than you actually burned!
That's not MFP's fault, it's just that people don't exercise at the same rate. To give you an example, an hour of Body Pump is set at 435 calories. However, my gym has a body monitoring system (a bit like Fitbit) with totals showing on a screen behind the teacher: and in today's class, some people scored 475 calories - but some scored only 350. That's 85 calories less than what MFP says.
If that woman was using MFP instead of her body monitor, did the class four times a week, and ate all her calorie allowance every day, she would end up eating over 400 extra calories a week without knowing it.
I noticed that a long time ago. That is why I invested in a Fitbit so I can judge the calories I burn more accurately. MFP says that in an hour of cardio I burn almost 700 calories...when in reality I burn about 350. If I ate back all those calories id gain weight
0 -
soldiergrl_101 wrote: »makemybodysing wrote: »I've noticed a trap in the way MyFitnessPal adds our exercise calories to our total allowed for the day, which means we can eat more.
The calories added are not accurate, so you can easily end up adding in more calories than you actually burned!
That's not MFP's fault, it's just that people don't exercise at the same rate. To give you an example, an hour of Body Pump is set at 435 calories. However, my gym has a body monitoring system (a bit like Fitbit) with totals showing on a screen behind the teacher: and in today's class, some people scored 475 calories - but some scored only 350. That's 85 calories less than what MFP says.
If that woman was using MFP instead of her body monitor, did the class four times a week, and ate all her calorie allowance every day, she would end up eating over 400 extra calories a week without knowing it.
I noticed that a long time ago. That is why I invested in a Fitbit so I can judge the calories I burn more accurately. MFP says that in an hour of cardio I burn almost 700 calories...when in reality I burn about 350. If I ate back all those calories id gain weight
How do you know the fitbit is more accurate than MFP?0 -
I think you have to figure out what works for you- I typically change the estimates MFP gives, like if it gives me 600 calories for spinning, I'll log it as 300. I do eat back all my fitbit calories that are estimated, so far I've been losing0
-
soldiergrl_101 wrote: »makemybodysing wrote: »I've noticed a trap in the way MyFitnessPal adds our exercise calories to our total allowed for the day, which means we can eat more.
The calories added are not accurate, so you can easily end up adding in more calories than you actually burned!
That's not MFP's fault, it's just that people don't exercise at the same rate. To give you an example, an hour of Body Pump is set at 435 calories. However, my gym has a body monitoring system (a bit like Fitbit) with totals showing on a screen behind the teacher: and in today's class, some people scored 475 calories - but some scored only 350. That's 85 calories less than what MFP says.
If that woman was using MFP instead of her body monitor, did the class four times a week, and ate all her calorie allowance every day, she would end up eating over 400 extra calories a week without knowing it.
I noticed that a long time ago. That is why I invested in a Fitbit so I can judge the calories I burn more accurately. MFP says that in an hour of cardio I burn almost 700 calories...when in reality I burn about 350. If I ate back all those calories id gain weight
How do you know the fitbit is more accurate than MFP?
For me, they are actually pretty consistent, but I do tend to trust a device that is actually on my body 24 hours a day, rather than a database working off of statistical models. I know FitBit isn't accurate for all types of exercise/activity, and like I said - the numbers between the two systems are pretty dead on for me (1900 NEAT maintenance for MFP vs 2100-2200 daily burn from FitBit), but it might be different for others.
0 -
Right. And as with any testing method, the closer any individual person is to the test's "average person", and the more closely their activity mimics the activity being tested, the closer the numbers will be for that individual. It doesn't make that estimate any more or less accurate as a whole, it just makes it more accurate for a specific type of person doing a specific type of workout.First, MFPs estimates are high for pretty much everything. Yes, even running and walking. Even considering that MFP is reporting (apparently) gross and not net burns for exercise.
How do you know that? Is there some standard? MPF's estimates have been dead on for me - certainly within 10%.
There's a published paper where they measured calorie burn for runners and for walking and came up with a standard calculation. It was summarized in an old Runner's World article runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning, but the paper does exist and the formula they reported is directly out of the paper. I checked.
Net calorie burn per mile, running: .63 x your weight in lbs.
Net calorie burn per mile, walking: .3 x your weight in lbs.
Obviously, like any standard there's going to be variances and it doesn't take changes in elevation into account. MFP puts me 20% higher than the calculation. When I'm running 10+ miles, that error wipes out my deficit. I'm short and don't have much to lose.
So you're saying the variance that comes with MFP is unacceptable, while the variance that comes with that formula is OK?
It's all just estimates, and what might be very close for some people could be very wrong for others. People need to quit trying to be accurate and worry more about being reasonable and consistent, then accept that there is probably going to be some trial and error.
No, I'm saying who knows what MFP based their numbers on, at least I know how the other numbers were determined - through experimentally testing the oxygen consumed by a decent number of both men and women. Nothing easily portable accurately accounts for things like population variances and differences in terrain. I only mention it so no one thinks that those calculations are necessarily the end-all-be-all either.
It's also not such a big deal if you have a similar margin for error when estimating calories consumed. Or when estimating BMR cals.Accuracy, or at least not erring on the high side, becomes more important when your deficit is small or if you exercise a lot. That 20% difference? Not such a big deal if you run short distances and/or have a decent deficit to absorb it. What's an extra 60 or so cals, right? Bigger deal when you run long distances like I was (and am working back into). It meant an extra 150-300 cals per run, and I run 5 days a week. Now I'm looking at training for a marathon, so you can about double those numbers for the last couple of months. Unacceptable.
And I'm still curious how you know the formula posted by the paper is more accurate than any other method. What is accuracy? How is that measured? For all of us normal people, accurate is when your expected results match your actual results, and there are a zillion factors that can influence that.
Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight (though I do feel kind of argumentative today, which is probably why I keep coming back to this thread). Looking at the bigger picture, it sounds like you know what you're talking about. Maybe it's a pet peeve of mine, but I just hate the idea that people run around trying to be accurate, and when things don't work out the way they think they should, they blame the process. What they need to know from the start is that the foundation is inherently fuzzy because EVERYTHING is based on estimates that could be fairly close or wildly off.
For as much as I want the math to line up all nice and neat, it's rarely that simple.
Feel free to be argumentative if it suits your mood, I don't mind. I get that it's a balancing act. There is a point where it gets obsessive and ridiculous. If someone is paralyzed by the details, or just wants to say f- it and quit then they should step back and keep it simple.
Maybe it's because of my research background, but when I see a bunch of 'fuzzy' variables, that means in order to get good results, I need to limit variance that's under my control as much as possible. Back in the lab, that would have meant using the same lot of reagents to prep samples I eventually wanted to compare, processing them all at the same time with the same equipment, yadda, yadda. If I didn't do that, I often ended up with so much variation you couldn't make sense out of any of the results. Multiple sources of technical variation on top of biological variation will do that. I also tend to put more weight on numbers that have a known source. Too much error out there on websites for me to put much trust in them (like TDEE calculators - same input, supposedly same calculation, different answer on every site).0 -
soldiergrl_101 wrote: »makemybodysing wrote: »I've noticed a trap in the way MyFitnessPal adds our exercise calories to our total allowed for the day, which means we can eat more.
The calories added are not accurate, so you can easily end up adding in more calories than you actually burned!
That's not MFP's fault, it's just that people don't exercise at the same rate. To give you an example, an hour of Body Pump is set at 435 calories. However, my gym has a body monitoring system (a bit like Fitbit) with totals showing on a screen behind the teacher: and in today's class, some people scored 475 calories - but some scored only 350. That's 85 calories less than what MFP says.
If that woman was using MFP instead of her body monitor, did the class four times a week, and ate all her calorie allowance every day, she would end up eating over 400 extra calories a week without knowing it.
I noticed that a long time ago. That is why I invested in a Fitbit so I can judge the calories I burn more accurately. MFP says that in an hour of cardio I burn almost 700 calories...when in reality I burn about 350. If I ate back all those calories id gain weight
How do you know the fitbit is more accurate than MFP?
Because she paid money for the fitbit, therefore it MUST be the more accurate measure.0 -
MFP calorie burns are too high, especially for things like spinning and Zumba. I also find it depends on the instructor. I've got a Fitbit charge HR, and with one spin instructor I burned 375 calories in 45 minutes. The following week there was a stand in instructor and I only burned 281 calories in the same time. I also do a lot of circuits classes and the calorie burns vary so much depending on what we do - in an endurance session I'll burn nearly 500 in an hour, but in a session with more resistance exercises I'll burn about 350.
I rarely eat back exercise calories anyway.0 -
First, MFPs estimates are high for pretty much everything. Yes, even running and walking. Even considering that MFP is reporting (apparently) gross and not net burns for exercise.
How do you know that? Is there some standard? MPF's estimates have been dead on for me - certainly within 10%.
There's a published paper where they measured calorie burn for runners and for walking and came up with a standard calculation. It was summarized in an old Runner's World article runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning, but the paper does exist and the formula they reported is directly out of the paper. I checked.
Net calorie burn per mile, running: .63 x your weight in lbs.
Net calorie burn per mile, walking: .3 x your weight in lbs.
Obviously, like any standard there's going to be variances and it doesn't take changes in elevation into account. MFP puts me 20% higher than the calculation. When I'm running 10+ miles, that error wipes out my deficit. I'm short and don't have much to lose.
So you're saying the variance that comes with MFP is unacceptable, while the variance that comes with that formula is OK?
It's all just estimates...
Not all estimates are equal. The "formula" above takes out BMR - MFP's does not. This means that non only are MFP's numbers too high, they also have *two* sources of variance instead of just one.
0 -
That's why most of us pretty much only eat back 50 -75% of exercise calories...0
-
First, MFPs estimates are high for pretty much everything. Yes, even running and walking. Even considering that MFP is reporting (apparently) gross and not net burns for exercise.
How do you know that? Is there some standard? MPF's estimates have been dead on for me - certainly within 10%.
There's a published paper where they measured calorie burn for runners and for walking and came up with a standard calculation. It was summarized in an old Runner's World article runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning, but the paper does exist and the formula they reported is directly out of the paper. I checked.
Net calorie burn per mile, running: .63 x your weight in lbs.
Net calorie burn per mile, walking: .3 x your weight in lbs.
Obviously, like any standard there's going to be variances and it doesn't take changes in elevation into account. MFP puts me 20% higher than the calculation. When I'm running 10+ miles, that error wipes out my deficit. I'm short and don't have much to lose.
So you're saying the variance that comes with MFP is unacceptable, while the variance that comes with that formula is OK?
It's all just estimates...
Not all estimates are equal. The "formula" above takes out BMR - MFP's does not. This means that non only are MFP's numbers too high, they also have *two* sources of variance instead of just one.
Yep, I get it... MFP sucks.0 -
soldiergrl_101 wrote: »makemybodysing wrote: »I've noticed a trap in the way MyFitnessPal adds our exercise calories to our total allowed for the day, which means we can eat more.
The calories added are not accurate, so you can easily end up adding in more calories than you actually burned!
That's not MFP's fault, it's just that people don't exercise at the same rate. To give you an example, an hour of Body Pump is set at 435 calories. However, my gym has a body monitoring system (a bit like Fitbit) with totals showing on a screen behind the teacher: and in today's class, some people scored 475 calories - but some scored only 350. That's 85 calories less than what MFP says.
If that woman was using MFP instead of her body monitor, did the class four times a week, and ate all her calorie allowance every day, she would end up eating over 400 extra calories a week without knowing it.
I noticed that a long time ago. That is why I invested in a Fitbit so I can judge the calories I burn more accurately. MFP says that in an hour of cardio I burn almost 700 calories...when in reality I burn about 350. If I ate back all those calories id gain weight
How do you know the fitbit is more accurate than MFP?
Because when I eat back all of my Fitbit calories earned I still lose weight at my target pace, but when I ate back all of my MFP logged calories earned for the same exercise (walking @ 3.5 MPH) I lost at a slower pace.
0 -
makemybodysing wrote: »and generally, people recommend only eating 75-50% the calories back
After browsing through the forums for a while, I see people saying that, and I think that's very sensible - but why doesn't MFP set it up like that in the first place? Not all users spend time searching the forums for how to use the site!
They cannot set it up like that because it is not the same for everyone. Some need to eat back most, if not all, of their exercise calories. Other need to eat back a smaller number of them. All MFP can do is calculate according to commonly used info and trust their members to know that it is not a "one size fits all" proposition.
0 -
First, MFPs estimates are high for pretty much everything. Yes, even running and walking. Even considering that MFP is reporting (apparently) gross and not net burns for exercise.
How do you know that? Is there some standard? MPF's estimates have been dead on for me - certainly within 10%.
There's a published paper where they measured calorie burn for runners and for walking and came up with a standard calculation. It was summarized in an old Runner's World article runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning, but the paper does exist and the formula they reported is directly out of the paper. I checked.
Net calorie burn per mile, running: .63 x your weight in lbs.
Net calorie burn per mile, walking: .3 x your weight in lbs.
Obviously, like any standard there's going to be variances and it doesn't take changes in elevation into account. MFP puts me 20% higher than the calculation. When I'm running 10+ miles, that error wipes out my deficit. I'm short and don't have much to lose.
So you're saying the variance that comes with MFP is unacceptable, while the variance that comes with that formula is OK?
It's all just estimates...
Not all estimates are equal. The "formula" above takes out BMR - MFP's does not. This means that non only are MFP's numbers too high, they also have *two* sources of variance instead of just one.
Yep, I get it... MFP sucks.
It doesn't suck - someone who knows what they're doing can easily adjust for MFP numbers.
The real problem is with unfit people, who typically aren't using the database correctly, partly because the entries are misleading, especially for "cardio" type activities.
0 -
Accuracy is highly over-rated, 99.95% of the time.
Accuracy is not needed, 100% of the time.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions