We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Do any of you find that you seem to burn more calories than "typical"?
Replies
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Outrageously exaggerated calorie burns are most likely due to using inappropriate devices or misunderstanding of what those devices are telling you.
Weight loss results don't actually verify the accuracy - they just confirm that whether by luck or judgement people have stumbled across the correct energy balance. Just as probable that errors on both side of the equation have cancelled each other out.
Which is fine as that's the goal, estimating CI & CO is just the tool to achieve that goal.
BTW - heart rate is a dreadful way of comparing calorie burns between people, there's far too much variation. e.g. I have a low exercise HR and produce 30% more power (therefore burning 30% more calories) at same HR as a same age colleague who has a high exercise HR.
To me that made no sense. CI-CO obviously is right if the results are the same. It's not luck or judgment. It is accuracy when I am following what it is telling me. How else would it end up the same results it is telling me I should have? No matter how you look at it that would make it accurate because it is not like I am logging 100 calories from exercise. I am logging as much as 700+ per day and eating them back. Also, HR can vary but with SOME people HR can indicate higher oxygen consumption. Again, I said I think that is accurate for *me* because my HR skyrockets and I tend to burn more than other people I know. I did not say that is the case for everyone. I lose weight very easily 3+lb per week when the estimate is that I'd lose half of that, without doing much exercise at all and eating back the calories even when I do. I had my thyroid and all of that checked etc so I assume some people just tend to burn more calories in general day to day activity and/or during exercise.
What are your gross and net calories on an average day?
Gross vary a LOT could be 2800 could be 1200. Net varies too. 1200-1500. I add the week up calculate how much my loss should be based on what fitbit says I burned.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »Outrageously exaggerated calorie burns are most likely due to using inappropriate devices or misunderstanding of what those devices are telling you.
Weight loss results don't actually verify the accuracy - they just confirm that whether by luck or judgement people have stumbled across the correct energy balance. Just as probable that errors on both side of the equation have cancelled each other out.
Which is fine as that's the goal, estimating CI & CO is just the tool to achieve that goal.
BTW - heart rate is a dreadful way of comparing calorie burns between people, there's far too much variation. e.g. I have a low exercise HR and produce 30% more power (therefore burning 30% more calories) at same HR as a same age colleague who has a high exercise HR.
To me that made no sense. CI-CO obviously is right if the results are the same. It's not luck or judgment. It is accuracy when I am following what it is telling me. How else would it end up the same results it is telling me I should have? No matter how you look at it that would make it accurate because it is not like I am logging 100 calories from exercise. I am logging as much as 700+ per day and eating them back. Also, HR can vary but with SOME people HR can indicate higher oxygen consumption. Again, I said I think that is accurate for *me* because my HR skyrockets and I tend to burn more than other people I know. I did not say that is the case for everyone. I lose weight very easily 3+lb per week when the estimate is that I'd lose half of that, without doing much exercise at all and eating back the calories even when I do. I had my thyroid and all of that checked etc so I assume some people just tend to burn more calories in general day to day activity and/or during exercise.
It makes perfect sense.
Your exercise calorie estimates are wildly off. And something else is wildly off on the other side of the equation to even things out. It's simple maths, nothing remotely complex.
And high HR is a very poor indication of oxygen uptake. It's more likely an indicator of low fitness levels or an inefficient heart.
Normal speed walking calorie estimates are primarily a function of mass and distance - very little difference person to person. If you had continued your Kinesiology studies you would understand that. That your HR is high is an irrelevance.
All the wishful thinking in the world doesn't trump physics.
Nothing is off. Ive kept track of every little detail at home. Written down times and what I ate and Fitbits estimates of calories burned so where do you magically assume something is off? Also this is not the first time Ive done this successfully and lost more than someone like you claims is possible. You're arguing with reality and results. That's illogical. And science even tells us everyone varies. Estimates are just that - estimates. Averages are based on highs and lows. If one person burns 600 and one burns 200 then 10 more people burn 400 each the average is 400 but that doesnt mean each person burns 400. There are exceptions.0 -
Weight loss results don't actually verify the accuracy - they just confirm that whether by luck or judgement people have stumbled across the correct energy balance. Just as probable that errors on both side of the equation have cancelled each other out.
Which is fine as that's the goal, estimating CI & CO is just the tool to achieve that goal.Verity1111 wrote: »To me that made no sense. CI-CO obviously is right if the results are the same. It's not luck or judgment. It is accuracy when I am following what it is telling me. How else would it end up the same results it is telling me I should have?
Let's say I go for a walk on my lunch break. I think I burned 20,000 calories by walking for half an hour. I go reward myself with an after walk pizza, which I estimate at 22,000 calories. I would lose weight doing that, but it wouldn't prove the numbers are right.
I don't know if that's what you're doing or not. You asked how it's possible that a person could overestimate their exercise calories and still lose weight, and I hope this is a clear example. It's obviously an exaggerated one, to help you understand.1 -
Verity1111 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Outrageously exaggerated calorie burns are most likely due to using inappropriate devices or misunderstanding of what those devices are telling you.
Weight loss results don't actually verify the accuracy - they just confirm that whether by luck or judgement people have stumbled across the correct energy balance. Just as probable that errors on both side of the equation have cancelled each other out.
Which is fine as that's the goal, estimating CI & CO is just the tool to achieve that goal.
BTW - heart rate is a dreadful way of comparing calorie burns between people, there's far too much variation. e.g. I have a low exercise HR and produce 30% more power (therefore burning 30% more calories) at same HR as a same age colleague who has a high exercise HR.
To me that made no sense. CI-CO obviously is right if the results are the same. It's not luck or judgment. It is accuracy when I am following what it is telling me. How else would it end up the same results it is telling me I should have? No matter how you look at it that would make it accurate because it is not like I am logging 100 calories from exercise. I am logging as much as 700+ per day and eating them back. Also, HR can vary but with SOME people HR can indicate higher oxygen consumption. Again, I said I think that is accurate for *me* because my HR skyrockets and I tend to burn more than other people I know. I did not say that is the case for everyone. I lose weight very easily 3+lb per week when the estimate is that I'd lose half of that, without doing much exercise at all and eating back the calories even when I do. I had my thyroid and all of that checked etc so I assume some people just tend to burn more calories in general day to day activity and/or during exercise.
It makes perfect sense.
Your exercise calorie estimates are wildly off. And something else is wildly off on the other side of the equation to even things out. It's simple maths, nothing remotely complex.
And high HR is a very poor indication of oxygen uptake. It's more likely an indicator of low fitness levels or an inefficient heart.
Normal speed walking calorie estimates are primarily a function of mass and distance - very little difference person to person. If you had continued your Kinesiology studies you would understand that. That your HR is high is an irrelevance.
All the wishful thinking in the world doesn't trump physics.
Nothing is off. Ive kept track of every little detail at home. Written down times and what I ate and Fitbits estimates of calories burned so where do you magically assume something is off? Also this is not the first time Ive done this successfully and lost more than someone like you claims is possible. You're arguing with reality and results. That's illogical. And science even tells us everyone varies. Estimates are just that - estimates. Averages are based on highs and lows. If one person burns 600 and one burns 200 then 10 more people burn 400 each the average is 400 but that doesnt mean each person burns 400. There are exceptions.
There is actually a very small variation in calorie burns for normal speed walking for same weight people - your estimates are almost TREBLE what they should be.
It's mass x efficiency ratio x distance - and the small variation in efficiency ratio for walking is a few percent - not half, double or treble!
You can argue all you like but you are still wrong. Do some basic research, it will take a few minutes!
Here's a very good approximation....
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
188 x 0.30 x 3 = 169cals
Not 500cals, not ever.
That's logic - not emotion or wishful thinking or denial of what's plainly obvious.
This is getting a bit sad so I will leave this thread but hopefully other readers with an open mind will have learned something, you clearly aren't prepared to.7 -
Verity1111 wrote: »
Gross vary a LOT could be 2800 could be 1200. Net varies too. 1200-1500. I add the week up calculate how much my loss should be based on what fitbit says I burned.
I think in that case you're reading your results in a very different way that sijomial and I would read them.
You're hampered by your FitBit being a very basic device, so it's not going to break the data down in a way that gives you a complete picture.
That said, i am having to piece together your narrative from several different posts, as none of them give a complete picture of what's going on.
If you're really burning the figures you think you are, you'll make a lot of money in a research lab.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Weight loss results don't actually verify the accuracy - they just confirm that whether by luck or judgement people have stumbled across the correct energy balance. Just as probable that errors on both side of the equation have cancelled each other out.
Which is fine as that's the goal, estimating CI & CO is just the tool to achieve that goal.Verity1111 wrote: »To me that made no sense. CI-CO obviously is right if the results are the same. It's not luck or judgment. It is accuracy when I am following what it is telling me. How else would it end up the same results it is telling me I should have?
Let's say I go for a walk on my lunch break. I think I burned 20,000 calories by walking for half an hour. I go reward myself with an after walk pizza, which I estimate at 22,000 calories. I would lose weight doing that, but it wouldn't prove the numbers are right.
I don't know if that's what you're doing or not. You asked how it's possible that a person could overestimate their exercise calories and still lose weight, and I hope this is a clear example. It's obviously an exaggerated one, to help you understand.
I weigh my food. So it's not an estimate so much and it won't be off by thousands of calories. It likely wont be off by hundreds.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »
Gross vary a LOT could be 2800 could be 1200. Net varies too. 1200-1500. I add the week up calculate how much my loss should be based on what fitbit says I burned.
I think in that case you're reading your results in a very different way that sijomial and I would read them.
You're hampered by your FitBit being a very basic device, so it's not going to break the data down in a way that gives you a complete picture.
That said, i am having to piece together your narrative from several different posts, as none of them give a complete picture of what's going on.
If you're really burning the figures you think you are, you'll make a lot of money in a research lab.
I lost 3.5lbs a week at one point and 21lbs in 6 weeks. I was netting 1200 MOST days but I ate fast food for like a full 5-7 days straight which was 2000 cal a day sometimes more and only exercised for 16 days of 1hr of exercise (Zumba) during which people say I had to burn a max of 500 calories. But that would estimate I lost somewhere around 13lbs and I lost 21lbs. That's 1.5 times what I was told was "normal". My walking at the time was only about 2000-4000 steps per day TOTAL not extra. I was otherwise sedentary. I weighed my food. I started at 225 ended up at 204. Now maybe I hold a TON of water. But the lbs still are more than I'm told is expected. It's possible when I'm bigger for some reason I hold a hell of a lot of water lol that's my only other explanation.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Outrageously exaggerated calorie burns are most likely due to using inappropriate devices or misunderstanding of what those devices are telling you.
Weight loss results don't actually verify the accuracy - they just confirm that whether by luck or judgement people have stumbled across the correct energy balance. Just as probable that errors on both side of the equation have cancelled each other out.
Which is fine as that's the goal, estimating CI & CO is just the tool to achieve that goal.
BTW - heart rate is a dreadful way of comparing calorie burns between people, there's far too much variation. e.g. I have a low exercise HR and produce 30% more power (therefore burning 30% more calories) at same HR as a same age colleague who has a high exercise HR.
To me that made no sense. CI-CO obviously is right if the results are the same. It's not luck or judgment. It is accuracy when I am following what it is telling me. How else would it end up the same results it is telling me I should have? No matter how you look at it that would make it accurate because it is not like I am logging 100 calories from exercise. I am logging as much as 700+ per day and eating them back. Also, HR can vary but with SOME people HR can indicate higher oxygen consumption. Again, I said I think that is accurate for *me* because my HR skyrockets and I tend to burn more than other people I know. I did not say that is the case for everyone. I lose weight very easily 3+lb per week when the estimate is that I'd lose half of that, without doing much exercise at all and eating back the calories even when I do. I had my thyroid and all of that checked etc so I assume some people just tend to burn more calories in general day to day activity and/or during exercise.
It makes perfect sense.
Your exercise calorie estimates are wildly off. And something else is wildly off on the other side of the equation to even things out. It's simple maths, nothing remotely complex.
And high HR is a very poor indication of oxygen uptake. It's more likely an indicator of low fitness levels or an inefficient heart.
Normal speed walking calorie estimates are primarily a function of mass and distance - very little difference person to person. If you had continued your Kinesiology studies you would understand that. That your HR is high is an irrelevance.
All the wishful thinking in the world doesn't trump physics.
Nothing is off. Ive kept track of every little detail at home. Written down times and what I ate and Fitbits estimates of calories burned so where do you magically assume something is off? Also this is not the first time Ive done this successfully and lost more than someone like you claims is possible. You're arguing with reality and results. That's illogical. And science even tells us everyone varies. Estimates are just that - estimates. Averages are based on highs and lows. If one person burns 600 and one burns 200 then 10 more people burn 400 each the average is 400 but that doesnt mean each person burns 400. There are exceptions.
There is actually a very small variation in calorie burns for normal speed walking for same weight people - your estimates are almost TREBLE what they should be.
It's mass x efficiency ratio x distance - and the small variation in efficiency ratio for walking is a few percent - not half, double or treble!
You can argue all you like but you are still wrong. Do some basic research, it will take a few minutes!
Here's a very good approximation....
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
188 x 0.30 x 3 = 169cals
Not 500cals, not ever.
That's logic - not emotion or wishful thinking or denial of what's plainly obvious.
This is getting a bit sad so I will leave this thread but hopefully other readers with an open mind will have learned something, you clearly aren't prepared to.
Actually recent studies prove that height also is a huge factor in walking calories and shorter people burn more. They need to move more/take more steps.0 -
Also you're all totally off topic. If I'm losing lbs or water it's still more than the total of both listed as normal and I asked for people who have the same results to comment. I didn't ask for a debate when I have clear cut results. I weigh my food 90% of the time. If I order out, I order from places that provide calories on the food and weigh it. I know what I am eating. I track my steps in multiple ways. I know my activity level and stats. There's not too much room for error to explain a pretty large gap/difference unless like I said I tend to hold water but I'm not diabetic and I have no other known issues to explain why I would other than I could just be prone to it.0
-
Also I know people who have had RMR, VO2 and other testing and had huge gaps in what they were told is possible. One who was told she barely burned half what she should another who burned double etc despite normal activity levels so you really shouldn't act like everyone is the same. That's very innaccurate.0
-
Verity1111 wrote: »I weigh my food. So it's not an estimate so much and it won't be off by thousands of calories. It likely wont be off by hundreds.Verity1111 wrote: »I lost 3.5lbs a week at one point and 21lbs in 6 weeks. I was netting 1200 MOST days but I ate fast food for like a full 5-7 days straight which was 2000 cal a day ...
How did you accurately weigh and log your fast food? I mean, when I see a French fry, I could weight it but I couldn't tell you how much of that weight was potato vs oil, and more complex foods just make the problem worse.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »Also I know people who have had RMR, VO2 and other testing and had huge gaps in what they were told is possible.
I had my VO2max tested yesterday. That doesn't shed any light on how many calories you're burning.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Also I know people who have had RMR, VO2 and other testing and had huge gaps in what they were told is possible.
I had my VO2max tested yesterday. That doesn't shed any light on how many calories you're burning.
VO2+RMR put together plus other tests does. That's the point of them for some people.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Also I know people who have had RMR, VO2 and other testing and had huge gaps in what they were told is possible.
I had my VO2max tested yesterday. That doesn't shed any light on how many calories you're burning.
"If you know your VO2 rate, you can use your heart rate to approximate how much oxygen your activity is causing you to consume. Knowing this, you can estimate how many calories you are burning."0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I weigh my food. So it's not an estimate so much and it won't be off by thousands of calories. It likely wont be off by hundreds.Verity1111 wrote: »I lost 3.5lbs a week at one point and 21lbs in 6 weeks. I was netting 1200 MOST days but I ate fast food for like a full 5-7 days straight which was 2000 cal a day ...
How did you accurately weigh and log your fast food? I mean, when I see a French fry, I could weight it but I couldn't tell you how much of that weight was potato vs oil, and more complex foods just make the problem worse.
Did you miss what I specifically said about using places only who provide nutrition information AND weighing my fast food at home before I eat it? I do not eat in restaurants. I only order delivery. I have 3 kids. I dont even eat in restaurants when Im not dieting usually because its a pain in the *kitten*. For example we ordered from a pizza place here yesterday and I got tiramasu. They provide the calorie content/nutrition label for their in house tiramasu on the box. ETC0 -
Have you had your VO2max and RMR tested?1
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I weigh my food. So it's not an estimate so much and it won't be off by thousands of calories. It likely wont be off by hundreds.Verity1111 wrote: »I lost 3.5lbs a week at one point and 21lbs in 6 weeks. I was netting 1200 MOST days but I ate fast food for like a full 5-7 days straight which was 2000 cal a day ...
How did you accurately weigh and log your fast food? I mean, when I see a French fry, I could weight it but I couldn't tell you how much of that weight was potato vs oil, and more complex foods just make the problem worse.
I bake my fries. I dont have a fryer btw. And even if you estimate oil it wont be off by hundredS of calories most likely and you arent eating deep fried food every day I hope? So over a course of months having one order of fast food fries which I dont really eat thats completely irrelevant. Im a vegetarian and places use animal fat sometimes so I often dont eat them in general, even off diet. If I do, I call first. I order my kids fries often. I make my own at home.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Have you had your VO2max and RMR tested?
Lol. You are MISSING THE POINT. They are saying NO ONE varies everyone is the same. I have been keeping track of MY calories MY results MY activity and if you cant comprehend that then idk what to tell you except kindly exit the thread if youre here for some reason other than the main question because youre just here for conflict. I can add and anyone who can add can calculate what their results supposedly *should* be based on 3500 calories per lb...IF their exercise calories burned are the same as what people say OR if they match what their fitness watch says. Mine match what FitBit says it should be pretty much perfectly. According to you all I should be losing half what Im losing if even. So obviously you cant be all that correct. Considering I know what I eat and I know when I walk and I dont do any other exercise whatsoever.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Also I know people who have had RMR, VO2 and other testing and had huge gaps in what they were told is possible.
I had my VO2max tested yesterday. That doesn't shed any light on how many calories you're burning.
"If you know your VO2 rate, you can use your heart rate to approximate how much oxygen your activity is causing you to consume. Knowing this, you can estimate how many calories you are burning."
So, if you haven't had your VO2max tested, then why did you bring this up to begin with? It's confusing, and as far as I can figure out it doesn't tell us anything about anything?0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Also I know people who have had RMR, VO2 and other testing and had huge gaps in what they were told is possible.
I had my VO2max tested yesterday. That doesn't shed any light on how many calories you're burning.
"If you know your VO2 rate, you can use your heart rate to approximate how much oxygen your activity is causing you to consume. Knowing this, you can estimate how many calories you are burning."
So, if you haven't had your VO2max tested, then why did you bring this up to begin with? It's confusing, and as far as I can figure out it doesn't tell us anything about anything?
Because they were saying as I just stated, that everyone burns the same basically which isnt true. I said they have RMR VO2 etc testing because it varies person to person. There are typical numbers which literally means "showing the characteristics expected of or popularly associated with a particular person, situation, or thing." something expected but not set in stone. Some people have high metabolic rates and some low. Thyroid disorders, for example, will make people gain or lose weight easier. But there are tons of different reasons why someone may or may not burn more calories either in general or through exercise. I mentioned VO2 and RMR as examples to say no one would need those tests for weight loss if it was 100% when you used a calorie calculator. Those are estimates. Everyone is different.0 -
Also, this thread was meant for curiosity to ask which people burn more or less than expected which MANY people clearly do not burn the average. So it is ridiculous to say everyone is the same our math must be off (every single person's). Or maybe science isn't 100% and there are always exceptions because that's life? Also, as I said it could be water weight but it really doesn't matter because when you calculate loss it's not usually spread into water vs fat. People just say I should lose 1lb a week if I eat this much not I should lose .8lbs of fat and .2lbs of water.0
-
https://phys.org/news/2005-12-people-gain-weight-dont.html
Read that if you think no one can lose weight faster and you think it must be a math error. Because studies show some people just burn more for heaven knows what reason.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »https://phys.org/news/2005-12-people-gain-weight-dont.html
Read that if you think no one can lose weight faster and you think it must be a math error. Because studies show some people just burn more for heaven knows what reason.
I would say that I burn more than most office workers in regards to total energy expenditure...I'd say my exercise burn is about par for the course with other people of my same stats, but my overall TDEE is higher than many office workers I know...I chalk it up to being an extremely fidgety person...I can't sit still. My hands are always playing with something or typing...I'm always bouncing my legs and otherwise fidgeting around in my seat. I have difficulty sitting through more than about a 30 minute television show. When I get home from work I typically am picking something up or cleaning something or fixing something, etc because my body is just busy. I figure this is the case for most of what was discussed in that article.1 -
Verity1111 wrote: »So it is ridiculous to say everyone is the same our math must be off (every single person's).
I agree, that would be ridiculous. People are all different. Luckily, no one is saying that we're not. I think what some folks who are trying to tell you is that people are all different, but people are all people. None of us have 12 legs, most of us have 2, even though some people don't.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »
Gross vary a LOT could be 2800 could be 1200. Net varies too. 1200-1500. I add the week up calculate how much my loss should be based on what fitbit says I burned.
I think in that case you're reading your results in a very different way that sijomial and I would read them.
You're hampered by your FitBit being a very basic device, so it's not going to break the data down in a way that gives you a complete picture.
That said, i am having to piece together your narrative from several different posts, as none of them give a complete picture of what's going on.
If you're really burning the figures you think you are, you'll make a lot of money in a research lab.
I lost 3.5lbs a week at one point and 21lbs in 6 weeks. I was netting 1200 MOST days but I ate fast food for like a full 5-7 days straight which was 2000 cal a day sometimes more and only exercised for 16 days of 1hr of exercise (Zumba) during which people say I had to burn a max of 500 calories. But that would estimate I lost somewhere around 13lbs and I lost 21lbs. That's 1.5 times what I was told was "normal". My walking at the time was only about 2000-4000 steps per day TOTAL not extra. I was otherwise sedentary. I weighed my food. I started at 225 ended up at 204. Now maybe I hold a TON of water. But the lbs still are more than I'm told is expected. It's possible when I'm bigger for some reason I hold a hell of a lot of water lol that's my only other explanation.
I'll just repeat this, as it was the material point that you appear to have missed:
I think in that case you're reading your results in a very different way that sijomial and I would read them.
You're hampered by your FitBit being a very basic device, so it's not going to break the data down in a way that gives you a complete picture.0 -
Verity1111 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »Outrageously exaggerated calorie burns are most likely due to using inappropriate devices or misunderstanding of what those devices are telling you.
Weight loss results don't actually verify the accuracy - they just confirm that whether by luck or judgement people have stumbled across the correct energy balance. Just as probable that errors on both side of the equation have cancelled each other out.
Which is fine as that's the goal, estimating CI & CO is just the tool to achieve that goal.
BTW - heart rate is a dreadful way of comparing calorie burns between people, there's far too much variation. e.g. I have a low exercise HR and produce 30% more power (therefore burning 30% more calories) at same HR as a same age colleague who has a high exercise HR.
To me that made no sense. CI-CO obviously is right if the results are the same. It's not luck or judgment. It is accuracy when I am following what it is telling me. How else would it end up the same results it is telling me I should have? No matter how you look at it that would make it accurate because it is not like I am logging 100 calories from exercise. I am logging as much as 700+ per day and eating them back. Also, HR can vary but with SOME people HR can indicate higher oxygen consumption. Again, I said I think that is accurate for *me* because my HR skyrockets and I tend to burn more than other people I know. I did not say that is the case for everyone. I lose weight very easily 3+lb per week when the estimate is that I'd lose half of that, without doing much exercise at all and eating back the calories even when I do. I had my thyroid and all of that checked etc so I assume some people just tend to burn more calories in general day to day activity and/or during exercise.
It makes perfect sense.
Your exercise calorie estimates are wildly off. And something else is wildly off on the other side of the equation to even things out. It's simple maths, nothing remotely complex.
And high HR is a very poor indication of oxygen uptake. It's more likely an indicator of low fitness levels or an inefficient heart.
Normal speed walking calorie estimates are primarily a function of mass and distance - very little difference person to person. If you had continued your Kinesiology studies you would understand that. That your HR is high is an irrelevance.
All the wishful thinking in the world doesn't trump physics.
Nothing is off. Ive kept track of every little detail at home. Written down times and what I ate and Fitbits estimates of calories burned so where do you magically assume something is off? Also this is not the first time Ive done this successfully and lost more than someone like you claims is possible. You're arguing with reality and results. That's illogical. And science even tells us everyone varies. Estimates are just that - estimates. Averages are based on highs and lows. If one person burns 600 and one burns 200 then 10 more people burn 400 each the average is 400 but that doesnt mean each person burns 400. There are exceptions.
There is actually a very small variation in calorie burns for normal speed walking for same weight people - your estimates are almost TREBLE what they should be.
It's mass x efficiency ratio x distance - and the small variation in efficiency ratio for walking is a few percent - not half, double or treble!
You can argue all you like but you are still wrong. Do some basic research, it will take a few minutes!
Here's a very good approximation....
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
188 x 0.30 x 3 = 169cals
Not 500cals, not ever.
That's logic - not emotion or wishful thinking or denial of what's plainly obvious.
This is getting a bit sad so I will leave this thread but hopefully other readers with an open mind will have learned something, you clearly aren't prepared to.
Actually recent studies prove that height also is a huge factor in walking calories and shorter people burn more. They need to move more/take more steps.
If you go to the actual study you'll note that is not a particularly significant contribution.3 -
-
"Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.
It may be to do with your body composition.
"You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.
"To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."0 -
4
-
Verity1111 wrote: »"Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.
It may be to do with your body composition.
"You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.
"To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."
How much quicker...nobody is disputing that people have different metabolic rates...I've also never seen anything in my research over the past 4.5 years to suggest that it's some kind of vast difference where BMR is concerned.
Like I said in my previous post...I'm extremely fidgety...that in large part contributes to a higher TDEE than some of my office counterparts.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions