did you really burn that many calories?

A_Fit_Mom

This is why, I use my HRM and only use that for calories. I log a custom exercise of what my HRM states.

fireflyz2

I used to burn1000 occasionally, but to do it I was on the elliptical going fast for 90 minutes or so. I don't follow the mfp estimates. They seem inconsistent to me. I wouldn't count cleaning unless it is something major. Likewise i only count a small amount of what I have on the pedometer. (I may be shopping, but I wouldn't normally walk five laps around Costco, so I figure the extra amount should count).

What is an HRM?

A_Fit_Mom

My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.

That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.

200-300 is A pretty low estimate. I average about 450 walking at an incline for 3 miles and I am not overweight. I use a Polar ft4.

So the person above may be running the whole time, I could see 600 calories burned then.

EvaB93

Sometimes it adds all the exercises together and will only show 'cleaning', and not the other things you did.. i wouldnt count cleaning unless you were doing heavy lifting

HeadsPoppingOutOfCups

I put in how much the cardio equipment claims I burn but I do assume it is inflated. I just make sure to eat a bit below (while assuming I'm also eating more calories than it claims well) to make up for it. I like to record exactly what it states on the equipment though because then I at least can tell if I am doing better than I was doing yesterday/last week etc. However between assuming I'm eating more and burning less I keep getting yelled at by MFP for eating like 200 calories less than I should.

milesvictors

My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.

This. I can burn an astonishing amount of calories as I am taller and heavier (6'4", 225 lbs) than many. In addition, I keep a high intensity throughout and am an endurance athlete. I average between 1500 and 2500 calories burned per day with my 2+ hours of exercise daily on the bike and running. It all depends on the exercise, intensity (read "heart rate"), length of time, and body type. Just because a study was done that takes a 120 lbs woman and how she burns 100 calories per mile doesn't mean a 225 lb man would burn the same.

BeachIron

I burned eleventy million eating pie

HRM confirmed?

Yes. It's metric

Nishi2013

I rely on my HRM. MFP and exercise machines are usually overly generous with calories burned compared to my HRM. The difference can be as much as 200-300 calories depending on the activity and duration.

This. Investing in a HRM was totally worth it.

Travelgal622

I don't think we should worry about what others are putting down, we all have to be honest with ourselves. I burn a ton of calories because I am very overweight. So it isn't strange for me to burn 1000 calories doing zumba for an hour per my heart rate monitor. I also put down cleaning, cooking etc, not because I want to use the calories for exercise or for more food calories, I just do it as a little reward for doing my day to day stuff, it makes it kinda of fun to keep up with steps, cleaning etc....I think use a heart rate monitor for the most accurate. Have a great day.

HollisGrant

I used to burn1000 occasionally, but to do it I was on the elliptical going fast for 90 minutes or so. I don't follow the mfp estimates. They seem inconsistent to me. I wouldn't count cleaning unless it is something major. Likewise i only count a small amount of what I have on the pedometer. (I may be shopping, but I wouldn't normally walk five laps around Costco, so I figure the extra amount should count).

What is an HRM?

HRM means a heart rate monitor.

milesvictors

My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.

That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.

Really? Impossible? A 5k is 3.1 miles, so I would say unless you are a SUPER athlete (with a resting heart rate of 40 or less) would you get close to 200 calories. I would say for the average recreational athlete, 300 would be on the lower end, even if you were skinny. 600 calories is not wildly outlandish, and the number is backed by heart rate data that takes into account weight, height, gender, elevation, and exertion. Where do you get your data from, might I ask? Where is your validation that stands behind your statement?

XTSH

I wore my HRM every workout. To be honest, I find it strange that my HRM actually gave me higher calories burnt than what shown on the equipment. The equipment brand they used at my local gym is called Technogym. I have updated my weight and height on the watch. Example, an hour on the Elliptical Trainer gave me 760 on the HRM. Equipment shows 520. I always login the machine readings. lol

I did wore my HRM to work the other day (just for research) and the calories burnt just hit 800Kcal in the whole 9 hours. I doubt my HRM is faulty. Hope so since I'm really attached to my new toy.

rodneyderrick

My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.

That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.

Really? Impossible? A 5k is 3.1 miles, so I would say unless you are a SUPER athlete (with a resting heart rate of 40 or less) would you get close to 200 calories. I would say for the average recreational athlete, 300 would be on the lower end, even if you were skinny. 600 calories is not wildly outlandish, and the number is backed by heart rate data that takes into account weight, height, gender, elevation, and exertion. Where do you get your data from, might I ask? Where is your validation that stands behind your statement?

3.1 miles will generate an approximate calorie burn between 400 to 500 calories, but it depends on the person's intensity level, weight, and duration. I'd be pretty upset if I ran 3.1 miles, and only burned 200 calories.

jmc0806

My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.

That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.

It's definitely not impossible. I burn about 550 per 5k and that is coming from my HRM

got2go2concerts

when I go to the gym I put in my weight on the machines and track calories burned by that. When I log on MFP the eliptical calorie burn is always higher than the machine so I log what the machine says. Then when I walk on treadmill MFP shows considerably lower than the machine, so again I use what the machine says. I think since there a variables when exercising or cleaning it is a little hard to get exact since so much can depend on what you are doing, such as speed, distance, incline, etc. so I just go with what my machine says. I try not to eat my calories back but some days I work out a little more because I have eat something bad that put me over on my calories. Just my 2 cents worth, LOL

watfordjc

Let's see... I jogged 2.06 miles in 25 minutes last night (during a heavy downpour so bad I had to pull my Storm beanie over my eyebrows) with an average heart rate of 155 bpm (81% of max) and a peak heart rate of 177 bpm (92.7% of max). My HRM says I burned 306 calories, my Ki Fit says I average 14 kcal/min when jogging (minus MFP base calories... 14*25 - (1,430+750)/1,440*25 = 312 calories). Jogging 3 miles at ~4.9 mph would be 36 minutes at 14 kcal/min totalling 14*36 - (1,430+750)/1,440*36 = 449.5 calories.

Your body does not work in exactly the same way as mine. My body doesn't even work in exactly the same way as it did when I was 90.8 pounds heavier, and "100 calories per mile" is a myth. I burn 7.5 kcal/min walking at 3.0 mph (8.5 kcal/min when walking over a certain distance) - 7.5*20 - (1,430+750)/1,440*20 = 120 calories per mile. I'm sure me jogging at 4.9 mph will also be different to me running at 6, 8, or 10 mph.

Oh, and I eat back 100% of my exercise calories (several hundred thousand so far) and have lost 90.8 pounds since 3rd November, with 95-105% of the weight lost between December and July being from fat. I'm 5' 6", have ~140 lb LBM, my RHR (measured yesterday) is still 48 bpm (not quite down to 43 bpm where it was 3 years ago when I was 176 lb and had finished C25K and running for 30 minutes regularly, but definitely down from the 72-92 bpm it was at in November), my 1-minute heart recovery rate yesterday was 21 bpm and 2-minute heart recovery rate 38 bpm.

If I didn't have a Ki Fit that was linked to MFP I'd probably go with data from my HRM which means although the running part would be in a separate lap I wouldn't be bothered to add the 12 minutes walking to the park, the 5 minute warm-up, the 5 minute cool-down, and the 12 minutes walking back from the park as separate, and I'd want to log the distance I ran rather than total combined distance so I could keep track of running distance that way. So on July 22nd that would be 1.72 miles and 295 calories (actually, that calorie burn is ignoring the 24 minutes of walking to/from the park... 1.72 miles and 439 calories).

Friday I burned 2,869 calories from 1 minute of Bodymedia Display and 12 calories from 1 minute of BodyMedia calorie adjustment. If I were to have logged that instead using the figures from my iPhone using my logged walks (wasn't wearing a HRM) it would be 1,941 calories walking 16.8 miles at 3.2 mph - 940 exercise calories missing. ETA: Or using MFP numbers: Walking, 3.0 mph, 315 minutes, 1,455 calories (1,426 calorie under-estimate).

andiebaco

I don't eat back the calories I burn...but I like logging my exercise.

This,


I know that my exercise cals look inflated, but I like logging them as a motivation for the next work out (if I was a bit lazy one day, I'll have to make up for it the next time).

I always include 100 cals for a weekly home to work to gym to stores walk.. Again, just for information as I don't have a HRM or fitbit so I don't know what I really do on daily basis, but it's good on paper anyway ahaha

_Zardoz_

Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that everyone is different and depending on body composition etc we will all burn different calorie amounts. Personally I don't worry about others calories just mine

dta4ever

Before I got my HRM, I thought "Wow, I'm burning a lot of calories doing exercises" because MFP was saying I burned A LOT of calories. Once I started using my HRM, I was actually only burning about 1/2 of what MFP was saying. So, I do not trust what MFP says about how many calories certain exercises burn off. For me, I NEVER log cleaning or even yard work. I think that's just silly. But everyone is different. I know some people who have logged how many calories they burn by doing dishes.

WhiteGirlWasted13

This will make me seem like a b!tch, but I've actually unfriended someone who overinflated their calories ALL THE TIME. I asked her about it, and she was all, oh yeah, I really did spend six straight hours climbing stairs with boxes in my hands. Day after day after day. It was cluttering up my newsfeed, she was delusional, and I was too annoyed by it for my own good.

For myself, I always under report the times/speed of my workout, just to be on the safe side. But this chick, I wish her all the luck in the world. Her facepalm moment is gonna hurt pretty bad.

wilsoje74

My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.

That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.

200-300 is A pretty low estimate. I average about 450 walking at an incline for 3 miles and I am not overweight. I use a Polar ft4.

So the person above may be running the whole time, I could see 600 calories burned then.

For walking that seems extremely high. And running a 5k would be 400 max unless like I said before you are very large. Heart rate monitors are not always accurate. I WISH I could burn 600 running a 5k because I run often, but that just isn't accurate.

onematch

I don't eat back the calories I burn...but I like logging my exercise.

Same here. I don't log every day activity though, like walking the dog or cleaning.

susannamarie

*shrugs* a lot of times when I log something like 2 hours of gardening, it's really a proxy for a full day's work farming.

crista_b

My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.

This. Plus it depends on the individual.

I just got back from a run a little while ago and logged my calories per my HRM. In 58 minutes, I burned 659 calories and was in "the zone" almost the entire time (at the top end of it - when I wasn't in the zone, I was over it). I'm following TDEE so I don't eat them back, but I still log them as my HRM says.

I have some people on my FL that log cleaning and work (as a cashier so it's standing the whole time). While I wouldn't log them, I don't care that they do.

Why do you care how many calories someone else is burning?

crista_b

My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.

That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.

200-300 is A pretty low estimate. I average about 450 walking at an incline for 3 miles and I am not overweight. I use a Polar ft4.

So the person above may be running the whole time, I could see 600 calories burned then.

For walking that seems extremely high. And running a 5k would be 400 max unless like I said before you are very large. Heart rate monitors are not always accurate. I WISH I could burn 600 running a 5k because I run often, but that just isn't accurate.

While HRMs aren't always accurate, some of them are pretty close. I really don't see how running the whole time for a 5k would be 400 max.... My runs, excluding the warm-up and cool down walks, are around 3-3.5 miles and I burn over 400 in them, and even though I'm overweight, I don't think I'd fall into the "very large" or "majorly overweight" categories.

nuttynetty114

BUMP!

pholbert

I don't even know how many calories I burn. My BMF syncs with MFP gives me a number and that's the end of my logging.

Me too. MY BMF gives calorie burn for 24hrs ,which is everything I do.

Shetchncn1

I have noticed that since I have been working out my cals burned doing the same exercise has gone down. So I have to work harder and longer to burn the same cals. I think it is time to start weight lifting.

It depends on their weight, age etc.. etc.. etc.

majica8

Don't really care how many calories other people burn/log/think they burned but actually didn't. If it's that far out they will fail in the end and change something.
I personally never trusted MFP's or Runtastic's estimates and usually cut some calories off what they said. I have a HRM now but still take a fair few off the number it gives (15% usually)

maegmez

100 calories per mile? thats not true...everyone burns different amounts of calories depending on their own body, weight and muscle play a factor as well. for example someone who weighs more is going to burn more calories because their body has to work harder to perform the task. mfp does over exaggerate on calories burned so its smart to use a heart rate monitor to get a more accurate burn.

No, she is right, but that is for the average weight person. I am still about 12 pounds overweight with a 47 resting heart rate and I burn about 380 calories running 5k.i look at those extra 80 calories come from me pushing myself to run faster and get my heart rate up.