If exercise calculators aren't accurate and HRMs aren't accurate, then what the heck is?!?
Options
Replies
-
CICO works in a general way. There are just so many variables. Some can be solved with food scales, heart monitors, body weight scales, fit bit and similar devices. But still, one person walking moderately at the same hieght, age and weight for 30 minutes will burn either more or less than another. One apple of the same grams in wieght will be of a different caloric value than an apple next to it.
Practice what you learn about CICO as closely as your life and motivation permits. Adjust, adapt, if its not working.
and most of all, be happy, at last you ar doing things to make yourself more fit physically.
Moreover, apparently some people extract more calories than others from the same apple, because digestion is affected by gut bacteria. Calories extracted from food are also affected by its preparation and even the amount its chewed.
It's not that CICO doesn't work. Its that both CI and CO are estimates at best. Estimates that are affected by a bunch of factors that vary widely between individuals. It "works" when you find the estimates that are closest to your personal situation.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Nothing in life is truly accurate.
Nothing.
One of the things which most gets in the way of weight loss is a belief that if something is right, it must also be absolutely accurate all of the time. I'm not sure where this comes from but it is what underlies all these arguments where people say "a calorie is not a calorie" or "calorie counting doesn't work" (or "eating back exercise calories is a total sham").
Calories in, calories out is based on one of the most sound and unassailable scientific principles there is. Conservation of energy is on a better footing scientifically than gravity. If your body moves, it uses energy, and the only way it can get that energy is through food or from its own tissues.
So eating back exercise calories is absolutely not a sham. It is a simple fact, and so is calorie counting and caloric deficits - your fat stores contain a certain amount of energy and the only way to reduce them is to intake less energy or burn more.
It is literally as simple as that, and it is not a matter of opinion. If there were any doubt about this principle, we could not have put a man on the moon. It is the most basic of basic physics.
Now, what throws people is the fact that, although we understand the basic principle and it is absolutely proven, and simple, we cannot accurately calculate how much energy the body uses or how much energy is contained in food. Neither of these are easy to do, both are highly complex, and we have no accurate way to do them. All we have are estimates.
So people, acting out of the belief that if something is true it must also be simple and absolutely accurate, declare that calorie counting doesn't work and there's no point doing it, or give up eating back exercise calories because they can't calculate them with absolute accuracy.
Life is messy, and many things which are true are neither simple, nor capable of being calculated with absolute accuracy. The weight of a new ship before launch. The drag on an aeroplane. The fuel consumption of a car. The energy in a sandwich. The energy burned by running a mile. The weather tomorrow. We can calculate all these things, but none of the calculations are completely accurate. If we wait for perfect accuracy, we'll be waiting a long time, and if we threw up our hands every time something couldn't be accurate, we'd still be living in trees.
Take your best estimates and then watch your weight for a few weeks. If you're losing too fast or slow, adjust the estimates. That's the best any of us can do.
Answer to so many threads right here.
Truth.
OP as others have said, it's all estimates. Each provides a data point. If you are concerned about accuracy for one particular method of tracking your calorie burn then monitor for several weeks compared against your true results and determine if the data is accurate for you, or if you need to adjust
For what it's worth I use a FitBit and have found it to be very accurate for tracking my calorie burn, I mostly walk and do circuit training videos. I used it to successfully lose the weight I was aiming to lose and am now maintaining that loss eating back all my calories.
Great posts and good discussion.
Even in the absence of high accuracy a systemic error in any of the estimates doesn't matter much. If one is consistent and persistent then one can use those estimates to make adjustments - in this sense the HRM or the Calorie Counting can be very useful when compared to weight loss averages over time.
The precision of these tools can be improved if you are consistent in measurement methods (use a scale vs eyeballing), or if you reduce functional variables (consistent macros or exercise methods). Even if you aren't consistent, the estimates can be good guidance.
Like @CattOfTheGarage wrote, and it's worth repeating, "If you're losing too fast or slow, adjust the estimates. That's the best any of us can do."6 -
Thanks all. I guess I am little too anal retentive over the numbers. I weigh and I log all my food down to the gram, and it feels almost like an exact science, although I realize it's not. And then I try to log my exercise, and one calculator says I burn 300 calories, another says I burn 150. If the inaccuracies of not weighing your food can eat up your week's deficit, just imagine what would happen if you also had an inaccurate exercise calorie estimate! I understand that everything is an estimate, but it would be nice to know that at least one of those estimates is close to the truth... I don't know which one to believe. I have used an HRM in the past and relied on it's estimates, although I never ate any of the exercise calories back as I should have. It's frustrating to now find out that the HRM wasn't as accurate as I thought it was. Here I was imagining that the HRM could tell how many calories your body was burning based on how fast your heart was beating! Ooops.
Thanks for the advice everyone.2 -
I have a polar HRM with a chest strap. Compared to most of my friends here (who use other methods) my calories burned seems low. I just log it and and up eating anywhere from half to all of them back. When I'm diligent about measuring and logging food (well ... as accurately as possible) and I log my measly 200 calories (as reported by the HRM) I lose weight. I consider that a success and that's about as much as I want to obsess over it.
3 -
What is accurate? Honestly time and data points. MFP is a tool and really a blunt one at that. I'm finding it useful as a food diary and calorie calculator, but only if time is taken to ensure the products entered are correct.
I started changing up my diet on May 13 and logging here on the 24th. Following the MFP calorie suggestion of 1590 daily and logging exercise calories but only maybe eating back 10%-20% at most. After losing 21lbs since May 13 and 15 in the last 16 days, I'm pretty sure my calories in is too low, even though I'm not finding myself hungry. I don't however really trust the MFP exercise calories numbers.
I'm going to try changing my setting from sedentary, as I have a desk job, to lightly active as I'm powerlifting 3x a week and doing a pretty good 30min uphill walk daily but pretend exercise calories don't exist as theoretically they are already accounted for. Just eat to the next "activity" level suggested at 1850 cals and see what happens over the next couple weeks.
Really only way I can see to get accurate data is use MFP or some other food diary as the raw "input" of calories in and track scale/measurement changes over time to see if that calories in number needs tweaking based on activity levels.2 -
emmylootwo wrote: »Getting really annoyed...
I'm looking into purchasing a new Polar heart rate monitor with a chest strap. I understand that calculators such as the one on MFP and other websites (as well as on machines like a treadmill) are not accurate and tend to overestimate. I did some searching in previous discussions on MFP, however, and found plenty of comments saying that an HRM with a chest strap was also inaccurate, especially for anything other than steady state cardio. So, 1.) What counts as steady state cardio? I know this doesn't include strength training but my HRM can't even handle a workout video? Or anything with any sort of intervals? And 2.) If online calculators do not give reasonable estimates of calories that I can safely use to eat back on MFP and neither does an HRM, then what the heck does? Is MFPs entire premise of eating back exercise calories just a total sham? Even if I were to eat back 25-50% of exercise calories, who's to say that still not an overestimation?
A few things:
(1) An HRM isn't for estimating calories, that's more of a neat side effect. It's for measuring your heart rate. There are plenty of great reasons you want to do that for exercise purposes. You can use it to pace yourself on a run, to measure the effectiveness of a workout, to have a training target, etc.
(2) Not knowing exactly how many calories you've burned through exercise doesn't make the concept of needing fuel a sham.
(3) A power meter will get you to within 5 % of the truth for calorie burn on a bike.
(4) Over time, a detailed log of what you ate, what you weighed, and how/how much you exercised will tell you how many calories you burned.2 -
I get a 600 calorie difference between TDEE calculators, and I also think my fitbit slightly overestimates too. So my answer is, who the *kitten* knows!!
The scale is the only thing that will give you the best estimate if your calories in and out are on point.3 -
Everything is an estimate.
Have you checked how accurate your scale is? Put a 10kg weight on there to make sure it actually reads 10kg?
For me a slightly inaccurate estimate beats guessing.3 -
NM
0 -
Everything is an estimate.
Have you checked how accurate your scale is? Put a 10kg weight on there to make sure it actually reads 10kg?
For me a slightly inaccurate estimate beats guessing.
Just to throw one more wrench in the works, how do you know that a 10kg weight actually weighs 10kg? Is your scale wrong, or is the weight lighter/heavier than it claims to be?*
* Not that it matters. All that matters is if the overall trend is downward, daily/weekly fluctuations notwithstanding. Who cares if your actual weight is 157 lbs. or 159 lbs.? What matters is that whatever weight is shown on the scale is progressively trending lower over time.5 -
Everything is an estimate.
Have you checked how accurate your scale is? Put a 10kg weight on there to make sure it actually reads 10kg?
For me a slightly inaccurate estimate beats guessing.
Just to throw one more wrench in the works, how do you know that a 10kg weight actually weighs 10kg? Is your scale wrong, or is the weight lighter/heavier than it claims to be?*
* Not that it matters. All that matters is if the overall trend is downward, daily/weekly fluctuations notwithstanding. Who cares if your actual weight is 157 lbs. or 159 lbs.? What matters is that whatever weight is shown on the scale is progressively trending lower over time.
Fill a 2 litre bottle with water and put that on the scale. Should read 2 kg.
1 -
emmylootwo wrote: »Getting really annoyed...
I'm looking into purchasing a new Polar heart rate monitor with a chest strap. I understand that calculators such as the one on MFP and other websites (as well as on machines like a treadmill) are not accurate and tend to overestimate. I did some searching in previous discussions on MFP, however, and found plenty of comments saying that an HRM with a chest strap was also inaccurate, especially for anything other than steady state cardio. So, 1.) What counts as steady state cardio? I know this doesn't include strength training but my HRM can't even handle a workout video? Or anything with any sort of intervals? And 2.) If online calculators do not give reasonable estimates of calories that I can safely use to eat back on MFP and neither does an HRM, then what the heck does? Is MFPs entire premise of eating back exercise calories just a total sham? Even if I were to eat back 25-50% of exercise calories, who's to say that still not an overestimation?
Exactly OP! and that is why I don't have/want a fitness tracker and I don't eat my exercises calories unless I am hungry or losing more weight.
If the scale gives me a satisfactory number and my clothes fit good, I am happy camper. 2 -
Everything is an estimate.
Have you checked how accurate your scale is? Put a 10kg weight on there to make sure it actually reads 10kg?
For me a slightly inaccurate estimate beats guessing.
Just to throw one more wrench in the works, how do you know that a 10kg weight actually weighs 10kg? Is your scale wrong, or is the weight lighter/heavier than it claims to be?*
* Not that it matters. All that matters is if the overall trend is downward, daily/weekly fluctuations notwithstanding. Who cares if your actual weight is 157 lbs. or 159 lbs.? What matters is that whatever weight is shown on the scale is progressively trending lower over time.
Fill a 2 litre bottle with water and put that on the scale. Should read 2 kg.
That's what I was going to suggest.
But how do you know the bottle is accurate?
And around and around we go
But like it was said early, doesn't matter, just look at trends over time.0 -
Just to throw one more wrench in the works, how do you know that a 10kg weight actually weighs 10kg?
If it's an actual calibrated weight then it was weighed on a scale which is itself regularly calibrated with reference to international weight standards. Your home scale, on the other hand, may not have been properly calibrated when it was made (this is the maybe difference between cheap scales and good ones), and even if it was, has probably wanderedsincethen, as all scales do. So a calibrated weight will be much more accurate than your own scale.
If you want a really accurate weight, use water in a lightweight container that you can easily calculate the volume of. One cubic centimetre of fresh water weighs a gram. Of course, the container itself is a source of error, but how accurate are we trying to be here? I personally don't bother checking the scale, I just always use the same one so the error is constant.
OP, one thing to remember is that when you are taking a lot of inaccurate estimates and combining them, quite a lot of the errors will cancel out. I think you're imagining a big cumulative error which will cause you to drastically over- or underestimate calories, but unless there is a specific reason for the errors to all lie in one direction, it's not that likely to happen that way. If it does, you'll see it in your weight loss, which will stall or be too rapid.
But in general, a large number of small guesses can give a surprisingly accurate final result.
2 -
emmylootwo wrote: »Thanks all. I guess I am little too anal retentive over the numbers. I weigh and I log all my food down to the gram, and it feels almost like an exact science, although I realize it's not. And then I try to log my exercise, and one calculator says I burn 300 calories, another says I burn 150. If the inaccuracies of not weighing your food can eat up your week's deficit, just imagine what would happen if you also had an inaccurate exercise calorie estimate! I understand that everything is an estimate, but it would be nice to know that at least one of those estimates is close to the truth... I don't know which one to believe. I have used an HRM in the past and relied on it's estimates, although I never ate any of the exercise calories back as I should have. It's frustrating to now find out that the HRM wasn't as accurate as I thought it was. Here I was imagining that the HRM could tell how many calories your body was burning based on how fast your heart was beating! Ooops.
Thanks for the advice everyone.
Regarding the bold - go on then, let's imagine what would be the result.....
Assuming your food logging is accurate (pre-packaged foods are allowed a significant variance, fresh ingredients aren't at all uniform in calories.....).
Assume that your RMR estimate is accurate (to what degree for you? It's a population average).
Assume that your activity setting is accurate (it's not just your average activity over a period of time, it's a population average).
And then assume your HRM, or machine, or formula, or METS table, or guesstimate of your exercise expenditure is out by 150 cals or so.
And then let's assume it's an over estimate not an under estimate (contrary to popular opinion under estimates also happen!).
Maybe you do that exercise three times a week and your over estimate comes to 500 cals a week variance.
So approximately every seven weeks you lose about 1lb less than you expected.
After all that is that really such a big deal?
2 -
emmylootwo wrote: »Thanks all. I guess I am little too anal retentive over the numbers. I weigh and I log all my food down to the gram, and it feels almost like an exact science, although I realize it's not. And then I try to log my exercise, and one calculator says I burn 300 calories, another says I burn 150. If the inaccuracies of not weighing your food can eat up your week's deficit, just imagine what would happen if you also had an inaccurate exercise calorie estimate! I understand that everything is an estimate, but it would be nice to know that at least one of those estimates is close to the truth... I don't know which one to believe. I have used an HRM in the past and relied on it's estimates, although I never ate any of the exercise calories back as I should have. It's frustrating to now find out that the HRM wasn't as accurate as I thought it was. Here I was imagining that the HRM could tell how many calories your body was burning based on how fast your heart was beating! Ooops.
Thanks for the advice everyone.
I guarantee you I am highly anal retentive about the math and the numbers. (Heck, I wrote a data analysis package for this - see my profile's first link.) I also have several HRMs, GPS units and bike computers. I like data.
However, here is a method, where the actual exercise calorie estimates don't matter.
Just control what you eat, exercise regularly and eat an estimate extra of say 200 cals per 1hr session, track weight loss. If weight loss is larger than expected eat more cals. Adjust.5 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »emmylootwo wrote: »Thanks all. I guess I am little too anal retentive over the numbers. I weigh and I log all my food down to the gram, and it feels almost like an exact science, although I realize it's not. And then I try to log my exercise, and one calculator says I burn 300 calories, another says I burn 150. If the inaccuracies of not weighing your food can eat up your week's deficit, just imagine what would happen if you also had an inaccurate exercise calorie estimate! I understand that everything is an estimate, but it would be nice to know that at least one of those estimates is close to the truth... I don't know which one to believe. I have used an HRM in the past and relied on it's estimates, although I never ate any of the exercise calories back as I should have. It's frustrating to now find out that the HRM wasn't as accurate as I thought it was. Here I was imagining that the HRM could tell how many calories your body was burning based on how fast your heart was beating! Ooops.
Thanks for the advice everyone.
I guarantee you I am highly anal retentive about the math and the numbers. (Heck, I wrote a data analysis package for this - see my profile's first link.) I also have several HRMs, GPS units and bike computers. I like data.
However, here is a method, where the actual exercise calorie estimates don't matter.
Just control what you eat, exercise regularly and eat an estimate extra of say 200 cals per 1hr session, track weight loss. If weight loss is larger than expected eat more cals. Adjust.
I am also a data person ... been working with databases for years, slogging my way toward a masters in IT specialising in databases (not the program's exact title).
And personally, I've kept a log of every single kilometre I've cycled since April 29, 1990.
But I agree ... just make your best guess estimates, stick with it absolutely and completely for a month ... and see where you are at the end of the month. That's all I did and I've lost my weight.- I weighed most of my food, although I do go with the calories on the package if that's available.
- I've logged meticulously, consistently and regularly during the weeks I've been on the diet (16 weeks on, 1 month off, 16 weeks on, 6 weeks off, etc.), and I do not go over my calories when I'm on the diet.
- I do eat some or all of my exercise calories back depending on how much exercise I've done, or how hungry I am, or if I want to speed up the process a little or whatever.
- I'm a cyclist, so I use the formula 100 cal for every 5 kilometres.
- I walk and I log approx. 200 cal/hour.
- I climb stairs and according to a chart at the bottom of the stairs in the last place I worked, I burn 6 calories per flight.
- As for the rest of my activity (swimming, kayaking, rowing, running, etc.), I select the "light" or "easy pace" version available on MFP.
- And I don't count walking around the office, walking around at home, standing in meetings, doing housework, walking around grocery stores, walking through parking lots on the way to the grocery store, taking the two flights of stairs to the library, taking the three flights of the stairs to the women's clothing section of one of the local stores, pacing at the bus stop, etc. etc. etc. ... I figure all those little bits and pieces are bonus calories burned to compensate for any miscalculations I might have made along the way.
4 -
Any tracker is just a guideline for calorie burn, they aren't usually too far away but that will change from person to person. You'll know yourself within a few weeks of data of tracking calories/weighing yourself how accurate they are for you and you can adjust calories up/down as necessary.0
-
Consistent results over time are accurate. Log your meals and your exercise for 4 weeks. If you are getting the results you want then great. If not adjust your calories and/or exercise from there.
If you tracking is off they'll be off fairly consistently and the error will be offset by the adjustment in calories and/or exercise.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »emmylootwo wrote: »Thanks all. I guess I am little too anal retentive over the numbers. I weigh and I log all my food down to the gram, and it feels almost like an exact science, although I realize it's not. And then I try to log my exercise, and one calculator says I burn 300 calories, another says I burn 150. If the inaccuracies of not weighing your food can eat up your week's deficit, just imagine what would happen if you also had an inaccurate exercise calorie estimate! I understand that everything is an estimate, but it would be nice to know that at least one of those estimates is close to the truth... I don't know which one to believe. I have used an HRM in the past and relied on it's estimates, although I never ate any of the exercise calories back as I should have. It's frustrating to now find out that the HRM wasn't as accurate as I thought it was. Here I was imagining that the HRM could tell how many calories your body was burning based on how fast your heart was beating! Ooops.
Thanks for the advice everyone.
I guarantee you I am highly anal retentive about the math and the numbers. (Heck, I wrote a data analysis package for this - see my profile's first link.) I also have several HRMs, GPS units and bike computers. I like data.
However, here is a method, where the actual exercise calorie estimates don't matter.
Just control what you eat, exercise regularly and eat an estimate extra of say 200 cals per 1hr session, track weight loss. If weight loss is larger than expected eat more cals. Adjust.
Exactly.
Does anyone have any experience with real-life control systems? You base your feedback model on your understanding of the physical phenomena that drive the system, but you don't base the actual system performance on blind trust that the inputs will affect the output as you expect. You measure the output and you adjust the inputs as needed.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 394 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions