Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Negative Net

13

Replies

  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Ok I'm going to throw this out there. Not sure why I care. But I'm not over estimating on the calories because I'm manually logging them from what the exercise programs tell me I'm burning per minute. And the Teaira Leshae workouts are no joke. It's a big workout. I'd recommend it actually. She has one that burns 500 calories in one dance. Anyway...it is possible to do this throughout the day. And yes I'm female. LOL
    Oh, I also wanted to add that in order for them to know your calorie expenditure, they would have to know your weight. Otherwise, they are probably taking a very high number for the given weight. How long is a song? If you mean like a normal 5-minute song then even if it burned at the highest rate I've seen, 14 (which would be very very highly unlikely), the person would have to weigh almost 900 (893) pounds to burn that amount of calories. If there is a 900lb person that can move like that, that individual would be a walk-on for any NFL team, man or woman, it wouldn't matter.

    Well, the "songs" are actually books on tape. You can easily burn 500 calories in Tuesdays with Morrie session.
  • 3dogsrunning3dogsrunning Posts: 27,238Member Member Posts: 27,238Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Ok I'm going to throw this out there. Not sure why I care. But I'm not over estimating on the calories because I'm manually logging them from what the exercise programs tell me I'm burning per minute. And the Teaira Leshae workouts are no joke. It's a big workout. I'd recommend it actually. She has one that burns 500 calories in one dance. Anyway...it is possible to do this throughout the day. And yes I'm female. LOL
    I think even for an intense workout of that type, you are probably looking at about 8 METs. It might go as high as 10, but I doubt it. The highest I've seen from the compendium of physical activities is 14, but jumping rope at a pace of 120-160 skips per minute is 12.3. If you want to get an idea of accuracy, try jumping rope at that pace for 25 minutes. If you can keep that pace for that long, you are a bad man...I mean WOman....I mean "Whoa, man you're a beast!" You can use the formula I posted earlier and plug in different numbers to give you a more accurate idea.

    As someone else said, what matters is that you're happy. So even if you aren't interested in all the math, maybe someone else who happens upon this thread might find it useful.

    I agree with this, however, this was posted in the debate section. In order to debate the positive/negatives of a negative net, activity calorie estimation plays a pretty key role.

    But yeah, I agree with everything you said.
  • TeaBeaTeaBea Posts: 14,092Member Member Posts: 14,092Member Member
    Exercise programs advertise an unrealistic calorie burn to get people to buy their products.

    This^

    HUGE calorie burns are marketing. A gimmick to get you to do her video, and not someone else's.

    Besides how much data are you plugging into a calculator, because "all women" don't burn the same number of calories. Height, weight, age, gender, exertion level and more. Things that an on-line calculator can't know.
  • wstephens87wstephens87 Posts: 156Member Member Posts: 156Member Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    Your exercise diary says you burned 300 calories doing this workout:



    There's just no way. It's 10 minutes of stand-up crunches, walking in place, and ab rolls. If I did that workout, I'd burn maybe 80 calories.

    Seriously, you need to reevaluate your exercise burns. They are enormously overestimated.

    Have any of you tried the workouts? You are moving constantly. Regardless of how much is burned, it's great exercise and I'm going for the build she has... Plus that's not all I do. I do yoga and pilates, Sworkt, all kinds of stuff.

    Anyway, as far as what the workout plans say, it depends on the exercise. Some say they burn more and some don't say at all. I was just saying one of them burns 500. But still 300 is great! And hard but fun. I compare it to be similarly accurate because I am built similarly to her. Especially since right before she lost all the weight. Regardless of if it's off or not on the calories really doesn't matter on this forum guys. I mean that with all due respect and appreciate all advice. But I'm exercising and burning calories and eating better. That's the important thing no matter waht anyone thinks.

    I'm raising my heart rate and that's the important thing. I am trying to get more trim. Not bulk up in muscle. So cardio, calisthenics, and dieting are what I'm doing. I don't see a problem here or how it relates to the original post...

    My point of the thread was to find out about if it's ok to have negative net. I have found my answer so I'm satisfied.
  • sllm1sllm1 Posts: 1,992Member Member Posts: 1,992Member Member
    All people are trying to say is that you don't actually have a negative net if you are overestimating the number of calories burned in a given workout. My zumba instructor used to tell us that we could burn up to 1,000 calories in an hour, and I loved her, and it was HARD, but I never burned over 500 according to my HRM.

    For my CrossFit workouts, I use 12 calories per minute of actual work. And it's "I think I'm gonna die today" hard. I don't think you would be able to burn 30 calories per minute with an ab DVD.

    This MFP process won't work if you overestimate calories burned, underestimate food intake, or both. I think people are just trying to be helpful.
    edited April 2016
  • wstephens87wstephens87 Posts: 156Member Member Posts: 156Member Member
    sllm1 wrote: »
    All people are trying to say is that you don't actually have a negative net if you are overestimating the number of calories burned in a given workout. My zumba instructor used to tell us that we could burn up to 1,000 calories in an hour, and I loved her, and it was HARD, but I never burned over 500 according to my HRM.

    For my CrossFit workouts, I use 12 calories per minute of actual work. And it's "I think I'm gonna die today" hard. I don't think you would be able to burn 30 calories per minute with an ab DVD.

    This MFP process won't work if you overestimate calories burned, underestimate food intake, or both. I think people are just trying to be helpful.

    Oh ok cool. Thanks. I may get me a heart rate monitor. That's a great idea!
  • WinoGelatoWinoGelato Posts: 13,334Member Member Posts: 13,334Member Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    Your exercise diary says you burned 300 calories doing this workout:



    There's just no way. It's 10 minutes of stand-up crunches, walking in place, and ab rolls. If I did that workout, I'd burn maybe 80 calories.

    Seriously, you need to reevaluate your exercise burns. They are enormously overestimated.

    Have any of you tried the workouts? You are moving constantly. Regardless of how much is burned, it's great exercise and I'm going for the build she has... Plus that's not all I do. I do yoga and pilates, Sworkt, all kinds of stuff.

    Anyway, as far as what the workout plans say, it depends on the exercise. Some say they burn more and some don't say at all. I was just saying one of them burns 500. But still 300 is great! And hard but fun. I compare it to be similarly accurate because I am built similarly to her. Especially since right before she lost all the weight. Regardless of if it's off or not on the calories really doesn't matter on this forum guys. I mean that with all due respect and appreciate all advice. But I'm exercising and burning calories and eating better. That's the important thing no matter waht anyone thinks.

    I'm raising my heart rate and that's the important thing. I am trying to get more trim. Not bulk up in muscle. So cardio, calisthenics, and dieting are what I'm doing. I don't see a problem here or how it relates to the original post...

    My point of the thread was to find out about if it's ok to have negative net. I have found my answer so I'm satisfied.

    I think you are misunderstanding what people are telling you. It is important to find an exercise that you enjoy doing - whether it burns 50 calories or 500 isn't the point. It is great that you are exercising and burning calories and eating better. Everyone supports you in that.

    What we are telling you is that MFP is built upon a mathematical equation of CICO. In order to lose weight, you have to have your CI<CO. The success that you will find at MFP, or for weight loss in general, is dependent upon having the equation balanced appropriately. If you are underestimating your CI (a common mistake for people not using a food scale for accuracy) or overestimating your CO (a common mistake for people trusting things like estimated calorie burns on a video), then you could end up not being successful in achieving an appropriate CI<CO.

    You were the one asking about if negative net calories are ok. What people are telling you is that if the exercise estimates you are entering are inflated, you likely aren't at a negative net. As long as you are losing at a rate that is healthy and appropriate for your goal, that's fine -but if you suddenly aren't losing weight, you will definitely know where to look based on the feedback offered here.
  • wstephens87wstephens87 Posts: 156Member Member Posts: 156Member Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    Your exercise diary says you burned 300 calories doing this workout:



    There's just no way. It's 10 minutes of stand-up crunches, walking in place, and ab rolls. If I did that workout, I'd burn maybe 80 calories.

    Seriously, you need to reevaluate your exercise burns. They are enormously overestimated.

    Have any of you tried the workouts? You are moving constantly. Regardless of how much is burned, it's great exercise and I'm going for the build she has... Plus that's not all I do. I do yoga and pilates, Sworkt, all kinds of stuff.

    Anyway, as far as what the workout plans say, it depends on the exercise. Some say they burn more and some don't say at all. I was just saying one of them burns 500. But still 300 is great! And hard but fun. I compare it to be similarly accurate because I am built similarly to her. Especially since right before she lost all the weight. Regardless of if it's off or not on the calories really doesn't matter on this forum guys. I mean that with all due respect and appreciate all advice. But I'm exercising and burning calories and eating better. That's the important thing no matter waht anyone thinks.

    I'm raising my heart rate and that's the important thing. I am trying to get more trim. Not bulk up in muscle. So cardio, calisthenics, and dieting are what I'm doing. I don't see a problem here or how it relates to the original post...

    My point of the thread was to find out about if it's ok to have negative net. I have found my answer so I'm satisfied.

    I think you are misunderstanding what people are telling you. It is important to find an exercise that you enjoy doing - whether it burns 50 calories or 500 isn't the point. It is great that you are exercising and burning calories and eating better. Everyone supports you in that.

    What we are telling you is that MFP is built upon a mathematical equation of CICO. In order to lose weight, you have to have your CI<CO. The success that you will find at MFP, or for weight loss in general, is dependent upon having the equation balanced appropriately. If you are underestimating your CI (a common mistake for people not using a food scale for accuracy) or overestimating your CO (a common mistake for people trusting things like estimated calorie burns on a video), then you could end up not being successful in achieving an appropriate CI<CO.

    You were the one asking about if negative net calories are ok. What people are telling you is that if the exercise estimates you are entering are inflated, you likely aren't at a negative net. As long as you are losing at a rate that is healthy and appropriate for your goal, that's fine -but if you suddenly aren't losing weight, you will definitely know where to look based on the feedback offered here.

    I see what you all are saying now. You all will have to be patient with me! LOL I am so new to all this and honestly just wasn't getting your point. Simple works better than over complication for people who are new to weight loss and I am often having too look stuff up here. I get what you all are saying now that someone explained you burn more or less based on your weight.
    Humbly to that person I say thank you and to the rest who tried to explain it to me and failed, thanks for trying.
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    sllm1 wrote: »
    All people are trying to say is that you don't actually have a negative net if you are overestimating the number of calories burned in a given workout. My zumba instructor used to tell us that we could burn up to 1,000 calories in an hour, and I loved her, and it was HARD, but I never burned over 500 according to my HRM.

    For my CrossFit workouts, I use 12 calories per minute of actual work. And it's "I think I'm gonna die today" hard. I don't think you would be able to burn 30 calories per minute with an ab DVD.

    This MFP process won't work if you overestimate calories burned, underestimate food intake, or both. I think people are just trying to be helpful.
    @sllm1 FYI, If you're interested, I added two CrossFit activities to my calculator (linked earlier) basing the MET value from other activities.

    Also, The calories per minute will also be relative to weight.

    @wstephens87 You're welcome. Sorry if I got too technical, that's sometimes all I know how to be. I just wanted to give you the tools to get a more accurate estimate. Getting an activity tracker (i.e. fitbit, jawbone UP, smart watch, Heart Rate Monitor, etc.) will do that for you nicely.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,415Member Member Posts: 9,415Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    @wstephens87 here's a formula I've seen used before: Weight (in lbs) X Time (in minutes) X MET value (for "video exercise workouts, TV conditioning programs (e.g., cardio-resistance), vigorous effort" is 6) X .008 = Calories burned.

    So in this case,

    if you weigh 180, it would be

    180 X 10 X 6 X .008 = 86.4 calories

    Let's test this for cycling. I have good cycling data to compare against. :)

    Unfortunately I'm having a hard time finding the appropriate METs figure for a given ride. It seems like there's a little bit of subjectivity here? I found this pdf which suggests METs values according to average speed, which is useful but only somewhat because things like going up or down hill, into a head wind or with a tail wind, and on dirt or pavement will have dramatic effects on your speed even at the same level of exertion. But all things have limits so we'll go with what we have.

    Here's a hill repeat workout I did.

    220 lbs * 61 mins * 10 METs * 0.008 = 1,073.6 kCal

    In reality, I did 588 kilo-Jules of work, which means I burned anywhere from 647 to 664 kCals.

    For one thing, this was a hill repeat workout, so I pedaled up the hill and mostly coasted down. The entire workout lasted an hour, and the METs formula credits me for the whole hour, not just the time I spent going up the hill. I'm not sure whether it should or not, even on the way down my heart rate was elevated from the previous lap up.

    One more test.

    220 lbs * 223 mins * 10 (?) METs * 0.008 = 3,924.8 kCal

    Actual was 1,823 kJ which is 2,005 to 2,060 kCal.

    I'm coming up with my numbers by measuring the amount of mechanical work I do on the bike (torque times rotational speed, both measured at the pedals) and then adjusting for human efficiency at turning fats and carbs into mechanical work on a bike.
  • kshama2001kshama2001 Posts: 20,299Member Member Posts: 20,299Member Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    No...because you not giving your body any energy for basic functions...good luck with that...your hair shall be falling out soon enough, among other things if this were to be a regular occurrence...you should go check out all of the "lost my period" threads around here...they're pretty awesome.

    Wow The title was "Negative net" not Negative Nancy! Lort. Anyway, are you sure? Because if I'm eating the right amount of protein and unsaturated fat and fiber, vitamins etc.... I'm not sure how my body would not have enough energy. But that is why I started this forum. Just to be sure. And also if this only happens occasionally is it ok? Geeze! Your comment is terrifying!

    Yeah, I'm sure...

    If you're just fasting once in awhile, not a big deal...netting negative calories (as per the way MFP is designed) on a regular basis will destroy your body from the inside out.

    You already "burn" more than 1200 calories per day simply existing...probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 1400 calories or so...do you even BMR bro? So even eating 1200 calories without any exercise at all, you are not quite giving your body what it needs just for basal functions...on top of that you're burning calories doing all of your other stuff you do in a day...so, ya know you have to provide energy for that...then exercise on top of that.

    With MFP you're supposed to net to your GOAL...1200 is a fine calorie goal to net to...meaning if you eat 1200 and then exercise off 500, you should eat an additional 500 to net to your GOAL.

    I will never understand why this basic concept is so lost on so many people...

    Because people don't understand the long term effect of that sort of energy deficit. They don't realize that just because they are feeling fine right now, that malnutrition is a cumulative thing, and when it shows up in visible effects difficulty sleeping, weakness, fatigue, brittle nails, losing hair, etc. the effect internally are already far progressed. For that matter, the whole concept of that weigh loss they see on the scale being mainly lean mass made up of muscles and organs seems difficult for them to believe because the scale is going down.

    Right. Hair loss, for example, can start 2-3 months after the event that precipitates it.
    edited April 2016
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    @wstephens87 here's a formula I've seen used before: Weight (in lbs) X Time (in minutes) X MET value (for "video exercise workouts, TV conditioning programs (e.g., cardio-resistance), vigorous effort" is 6) X .008 = Calories burned.

    So in this case,

    if you weigh 180, it would be

    180 X 10 X 6 X .008 = 86.4 calories

    Let's test this for cycling. I have good cycling data to compare against. :)

    Unfortunately I'm having a hard time finding the appropriate METs figure for a given ride. It seems like there's a little bit of subjectivity here? I found this pdf which suggests METs values according to average speed, which is useful but only somewhat because things like going up or down hill, into a head wind or with a tail wind, and on dirt or pavement will have dramatic effects on your speed even at the same level of exertion. But all things have limits so we'll go with what we have.

    Here's a hill repeat workout I did.

    220 lbs * 61 mins * 10 METs * 0.008 = 1,073.6 kCal

    In reality, I did 588 kilo-Jules of work, which means I burned anywhere from 647 to 664 kCals.

    For one thing, this was a hill repeat workout, so I pedaled up the hill and mostly coasted down. The entire workout lasted an hour, and the METs formula credits me for the whole hour, not just the time I spent going up the hill. I'm not sure whether it should or not, even on the way down my heart rate was elevated from the previous lap up.

    One more test.

    220 lbs * 223 mins * 10 (?) METs * 0.008 = 3,924.8 kCal

    Actual was 1,823 kJ which is 2,005 to 2,060 kCal.

    I'm coming up with my numbers by measuring the amount of mechanical work I do on the bike (torque times rotational speed, both measured at the pedals) and then adjusting for human efficiency at turning fats and carbs into mechanical work on a bike.

    Here is a link to the thread where I first made the calculator. It contains some thoughts about what I was trying to do, but it also has a link to the compendium of physical activities, upon which it was based.
    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/638677/exercise-calculator-calories-burned#latest

    "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."

    To me, this means the formula was only meant to be applied to periods of time in which a given intensity is held throughout the duration of the activity. So for your 61 minute ride in order to have a more accurate measurement, you would have to account for the times you were coasting and the times you were pushing with different applications of the formula using different MET values as appropriate.

    ETA: added the link to the first thread about it. I also wanted to point out that the compendium accounts for cycling expenditures at varying Wattage outputs. Maybe that will help you have some better numbers to bounce it off of.
    edited April 2016
  • Christine_72Christine_72 Posts: 16,074Member Member Posts: 16,074Member Member
    @moe0303 That's a great calculator, and gives me a bit more confidence in the numbers my fitbit gives me. Your calculator was only 30 calories lower than fitbits.
  • snikkinssnikkins Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    @moe0303 That's a great calculator, and gives me a bit more confidence in the numbers my fitbit gives me. Your calculator was only 30 calories lower than fitbits.

    I've always had good luck with FitBit, but I know some other posters have not. Extra confirmation is always good!
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    @moe0303 That's a great calculator, and gives me a bit more confidence in the numbers my fitbit gives me. Your calculator was only 30 calories lower than fitbits.
    Thanks. I'm glad it worked for you. All I really did was make a spreadsheet to easily use the MET values of the compendium. I am told that MFP does the same thing, but it seems to over estimate, or at least it used to.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,415Member Member Posts: 9,415Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Here is a link to the thread where I first made the calculator. It contains some thoughts about what I was trying to do, but it also has a link to the compendium of physical activities, upon which it was based.
    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/638677/exercise-calculator-calories-burned#latest

    "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."

    To me, this means the formula was only meant to be applied to periods of time in which a given intensity is held throughout the duration of the activity. So for your 61 minute ride in order to have a more accurate measurement, you would have to account for the times you were coasting and the times you were pushing with different applications of the formula using different MET values as appropriate.

    ETA: added the link to the first thread about it. I also wanted to point out that the compendium accounts for cycling expenditures at varying Wattage outputs. Maybe that will help you have some better numbers to bounce it off of.

    Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain this. I appreciate it. :) Will review the link with the watts vs METs map, that will be incredibly useful.
  • RGv2RGv2 Posts: 5,753Member Member Posts: 5,753Member Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    Your exercise diary says you burned 300 calories doing this workout:



    There's just no way. It's 10 minutes of stand-up crunches, walking in place, and ab rolls. If I did that workout, I'd burn maybe 80 calories.

    Seriously, you need to reevaluate your exercise burns. They are enormously overestimated.

    Have any of you tried the workouts? You are moving constantly. Regardless of how much is burned, it's great exercise and I'm going for the build she has... Plus that's not all I do. I do yoga and pilates, Sworkt, all kinds of stuff.

    Anyway, as far as what the workout plans say, it depends on the exercise. Some say they burn more and some don't say at all. I was just saying one of them burns 500. But still 300 is great! And hard but fun. I compare it to be similarly accurate because I am built similarly to her. Especially since right before she lost all the weight. Regardless of if it's off or not on the calories really doesn't matter on this forum guys. I mean that with all due respect and appreciate all advice. But I'm exercising and burning calories and eating better. That's the important thing no matter waht anyone thinks.

    I'm raising my heart rate and that's the important thing. I am trying to get more trim. Not bulk up in muscle. So cardio, calisthenics, and dieting are what I'm doing. I don't see a problem here or how it relates to the original post...

    My point of the thread was to find out about if it's ok to have negative net. I have found my answer so I'm satisfied.

    Just throwing it out there....if you are interested in learning...on the bolded, you need to learn how hard it is to bulk and getting "trim" normally includes the same exercises that people use to add muscle, just different calorie goals.

    Lifting weights doesn't make you bulk, honestly quite the opposite. Lifting in a deficit, along with your cardio if you like it, can actually help you reduce your BF% more efficiently than cardio alone.
  • JayRuby84JayRuby84 Posts: 557Member Member Posts: 557Member Member
    Pretty much the only thing I have to say here is...on occasion having a super low net isn't going to hurt you. If it's a habit, you may have an issue.
  • rileysownerrileysowner Posts: 7,851Member Member Posts: 7,851Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    "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."

    To me, this means the formula was only meant to be applied to periods of time in which a given intensity is held throughout the duration of the activity. So for your 61 minute ride in order to have a more accurate measurement, you would have to account for the times you were coasting and the times you were pushing with different applications of the formula using different MET values as appropriate.

    ETA: added the link to the first thread about it. I also wanted to point out that the compendium accounts for cycling expenditures at varying Wattage outputs. Maybe that will help you have some better numbers to bounce it off of.

    That is one of the things I like about the cycling mode with my Moov Now, it records not only total time cycling, but also the time I was actually pedaling. Far better than other apps that base whether you are working on whether you are moving. Albeit, I usually pedal downhill as well, but knowing how much time I was actually active while cycling is helpful.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,415Member Member Posts: 9,415Member Member
    Meaning you have a cadence sensor?

    So here's a question. Say you ride your bike up a hill, and you do it pretty quickly. When you get to the top of the hill, you turn around and coast down. But, at the top, your heart rate is pretty high, maybe it's near your max. It takes until the bottom of the hill (when you turn around and start going up again) for your heart rate to settle back down to normal. So, your leg muscles aren't working, but your heart muscle is working overtime. And this is cardio, so about the heart. That period where your heart rate is elevated but your legs aren't moving - does that count as exercise time? I think you can go either way on that.
Sign In or Register to comment.