Excercise calories accurate?
Options
carmatiz
Posts: 124 Member
Just seems like how the calories get added with exercise,
seem a little high!
seem a little high!
0
Replies
-
which is why most people do not eat them all back. i at back if im hungry, but otherwise ignore it2
-
Agreed, I will try at most to keep eating back to around 50% unless I am really hungry and don't log steps counted at home/work, just when I am walking to/from places. It seems to have evened out since I started doing it this way.1
-
depending on the person the exercise calories may be spot on ...they were for me when I first started...
Eat back 50-75% and if you are losing too fast eat more back...to slow lower the number.
But the key here is to eat at least some of them as you need to fuel your next work out.1 -
I think walking is pretty accurate, because there are a number of entries for various speeds and situations. For everything else, I'd take those high burns with a grain of salt. Particularly exercise machines.
Despite many database everyone's overestimating calorie burns, my observation is that the MFP database entries for winter activities fall very short of the mark. My guess is snow depth and condition, and the effects of variable ambient temperatures, are impossible to standardize1 -
The calorie burns are overestimated significantly on here. My personal calorie/step value is about 50% of the value that MFP gives.1
-
I used to question the accuracy of the calories burned but I've found that a bicycle with a power meter reports similar effort to what is in the database. Now I suspect that problems with accuracy have more to do with people being overly generous when reporting their activity. A person might report an hour of riding a bicycle when part of that time was spent stopped at stop signs or getting ready to ride. A person at the gym might report an hour of effort without considering that they spent several minutes setting up the equipment or moving between machines.2
-
trigden1991 wrote: »The calorie burns are overestimated significantly on here. My personal calorie/step value is about 50% of the value that MFP gives.
not for everyone.
I found them to be quite accurate for me for most things...maybe I am one of those who is "average" and who these calculations are based on but can't argue with results.0 -
I choose the light/slow/easy choices for most of the exercise I do, and that seems to be reasonably accurate. It matches what Strava says.
Even so, when I was really actively losing weight, I only ate a portion of it back.1 -
I choose the light/slow/easy choices for most of the exercise I do, and that seems to be reasonably accurate. It matches what Strava says.
Even so, when I was really actively losing weight, I only ate a portion of it back.
Same with me...however the only time I ever ate part back instead of the full amount was when I started lifting...
But when I was doing circuit training and trying to lose 1lb a week my calories were 1460...calories given were 140 so 1600 and I lost 1lb a week...so they were accurate as I use a food scale etc.0 -
I choose the light/slow/easy choices for most of the exercise I do, and that seems to be reasonably accurate. It matches what Strava says.
Even so, when I was really actively losing weight, I only ate a portion of it back.
Same with me...however the only time I ever ate part back instead of the full amount was when I started lifting...
But when I was doing circuit training and trying to lose 1lb a week my calories were 1460...calories given were 140 so 1600 and I lost 1lb a week...so they were accurate as I use a food scale etc.
If you are selecting a lighter/slower/easier choice then your response to me is contradictory.
If you log that you walked at 2.0mph for 60 mins when in reality you walked at 3.0mph for 60 mins then you are by default acknowledging that calorie burns are too high?
Not eloquently worded but I am interested in your logic.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »The calorie burns are overestimated significantly on here. My personal calorie/step value is about 50% of the value that MFP gives.
So is mine.
I'd eat back half or less.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »I choose the light/slow/easy choices for most of the exercise I do, and that seems to be reasonably accurate. It matches what Strava says.
Even so, when I was really actively losing weight, I only ate a portion of it back.
Same with me...however the only time I ever ate part back instead of the full amount was when I started lifting...
But when I was doing circuit training and trying to lose 1lb a week my calories were 1460...calories given were 140 so 1600 and I lost 1lb a week...so they were accurate as I use a food scale etc.
If you are selecting a lighter/slower/easier choice then your response to me is contradictory.
If you log that you walked at 2.0mph for 60 mins when in reality you walked at 3.0mph for 60 mins then you are by default acknowledging that calorie burns are too high?
Not eloquently worded but I am interested in your logic.
I wouldn't do that...I mean if given an option of "easy" or "hard" I will choose easy as effort is very subjective...but that isn't on MFP a lot.
If I walk 4.5mph I log a walk at 4.5mph
If I do circuit training for 30 mins I log 30mins
If I am canoeing (where I am given a few options like light effort, moderate effort, on a camping trip or crew ) I will choose light effort for the duration that I canoed.0 -
I found the calorie burns worked for me. I eat back all my exercise calories and lost a pound a week in 9 weeks (and reached my goal). I only enter intentional exercise, not steps. I walk every day and run 5 days a week. The running calories are a bit lower than my Garmin since they don't include the hills that are a part of my runs but they are pretty close. The exercise bike calories are also a bit lower than shown on the bike, because 60 minutes can be very easy or very intense and MFP doesn't really differentiate. (i.e. in 30 minutes, I ride 11-12 miles while my husband rides 6)1
-
It kind of depends on what you use to measure them. Some sources are better than others. Online calculators & machines tend to be high. Heart rate monitors are fairly accurate, assuming we're talking about steady state cardio.Just seems like how the calories get added with exercise,
seem a little high!
1 -
I wouldn't really trust any database...I never took my calorie burns from MFP's database.1
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »I wouldn't really trust any database...I never took my calorie burns from MFP's database.
Unless you're using a power meter all of these guys are pulling from the same database in one way or another.0 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 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
- 976 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions