did you really burn that many calories?
Replies
-
I call BS on the notion that MFP over estimates the calories burned. I have compared their numbers with 2 or 3 other calculators and sometimes MFP is lower.
Also what difference does it make if folks are losing weight? Threads like this confuse newbies. Smh
MFP and my bodymedia fit give me almost the exact same burn rates for activities... I think that the errors are more likely USER errors... like maybe calling overestimating your MPH or effort level. For example, when I go to my step aerobics class, there are some ladies there with two risers and kicking their legs way up and really killing it.. and then there are others just walking through it without breaking a sweat. They both did 45 minutes of step aerobics and may have even logged in the same intensity level but they didn't get the same workout. MFP calories burned is accurate for a person with a normal metabolism but only if the user is totally honest about duration and effort level.0 -
I call BS on the notion that MFP over estimates the calories burned. I have compared their numbers with 2 or 3 other calculators and sometimes MFP is lower.
Also what difference does it make if folks are losing weight? Threads like this confuse newbies. Smh
MFP and my bodymedia fit give me almost the exact same burn rates for activities... I think that the errors are more likely USER errors... like maybe calling overestimating your MPH or effort level. For example, when I go to my step aerobics class, there are some ladies there with two risers and kicking their legs way up and really killing it.. and then there are others just walking through it without breaking a sweat. They both did 45 minutes of step aerobics and may have even logged in the same intensity level but they didn't get the same workout. MFP calories burned is accurate for a person with a normal metabolism but only if the user is totally honest about duration and effort level.
I agree that intensity may make a difference but for the most part MFP calories burned numbers are correct0 -
I use my HRM for the calories burn tracking during cardio. But I use the mfp estimation for the swimming because my HRM is not waterproof.
Also, I try not to eat back my calories.0 -
I can burn over 1000 calories easily when I run over 7 miles. I am an avid runner and I can attest to that.0
-
thank you but when I say 108 minutes that mean 1 hour and 8 minutes. But if what I do is working for ME whats the big deal. If I put what my HRM says and Its not true then why am i almost to my goal weight. Not trying to be rude here but if I put in my diary something thats not true then it only hurts meI just got back from my 4 mile walk....I burned over 700 calories in 108 mminutes according to my HRM. Do I believe it? Yes. I reached my target heart rate. Its all a general est and I f I only burned 500 today, so be it.
See now this is where I question validity. It took you almost 2 hrs to go 4 miles which is a 2 mph pace. Unless you are very obese those numbers are off just because of the amount of time it took you to cover that distance. My HRM will give me a burn of over 150 calories an hour for laying on the couch but I know it isn't right.
EDIT to add: when I looked at your diary you logged that as walking briskly at 4.5 mph for 108 minutes. Don't care how you log or what you eat but this is the reason I question the numbers people post and take them with a grain of salt.0 -
I wear a FitBit so I don't log anything - besides I am not a big calorie burner, even if I was to work my butt off as hard as I could for 8 hours a day I don't think I'd ever get to a thousand calories or some of these other numbers people post up.
My only issue is when people complain they're doing everything right and not losing weight and they're logging 1,000 calories for 20 minutes of slow walking or something similar. Then when anyone suggests they might not be accurate they completely dismiss the fact that eating back all these exercise calories might be the problem. Saw someone's diary recently who was logging huge numbers for small things and then eating back the calories w/big macs and whole pizzas. Ummm.. whoa.0 -
thank you but when I say 108 minutes that mean 1 hour and 8 minutes. But if what I do is working for ME whats the big deal. If I put what my HRM says and Its not true then why am i almost to my goal weight. Not trying to be rude here but if I put in my diary something thats not true then it only hurts me
:huh: 108 minutes is NOT one hour and 8 minutes. One hour and 8 minutes is 68 minutes. 108 minutes is 1 hour and 48 minutes.
But as you said.. your business if you want to enter it wrong. :flowerforyou:0 -
What I am doing is obviously working for me...If my 4 miles this morning didnt really burn what my HRM says who cares at least I was outta the house trying my hardest to be more healthy.0
-
I try to under-log on exercise, although I do include cleaning. On Thursday nights I spend at minimum 2 hours deep cleaning my entire duplex from top to bottom, so I log 10 min heavy effort cleaning and 20-30 min light cleaning. If I go to the supermarket on foot and the whole trip takes 1 hour, I log 20 min walking at moderate pace. Stuff like that.0
-
My HRM works that way..
thank you but when I say 108 minutes that mean 1 hour and 8 minutes. But if what I do is working for ME whats the big deal. If I put what my HRM says and Its not true then why am i almost to my goal weight. Not trying to be rude here but if I put in my diary something thats not true then it only hurts me
:huh: 108 minutes is NOT one hour and 8 minutes. One hour and 8 minutes is 68 minutes. 108 minutes is 1 hour and 48 minutes.
But as you said.. your business if you want to enter it wrong. :flowerforyou:0 -
thank you but when I say 108 minutes that mean 1 hour and 8 minutes. But if what I do is working for ME whats the big deal. If I put what my HRM says and Its not true then why am i almost to my goal weight. Not trying to be rude here but if I put in my diary something thats not true then it only hurts me
It would make a huge difference if you were using MFP's numbers because an hour and 8 minutes is 68 minutes not 108 minutes. No big deal if it works for you.0 -
I usually use several different calculators and average the numbers. Caloric burn data consensus can vary quite a bit from activity to activity as well. I personally find that MFP estimates 10 more calories burned for a 6.4 mile run than other running calculators, but their estimate for the elliptical trainer can be anywhere from 120-150 calories more. Everything is only an estimate unless you have access to some pretty heavy duty equipment anyhow.0
-
Ive watched my watch..lol and when it gets to 60 it doesnt go to 61. I always change MFP calories anyway to reflect my HRM.thank you but when I say 108 minutes that mean 1 hour and 8 minutes. But if what I do is working for ME whats the big deal. If I put what my HRM says and Its not true then why am i almost to my goal weight. Not trying to be rude here but if I put in my diary something thats not true then it only hurts me
It would make a huge difference if you were using MFP's numbers because an hour and 8 minutes is 68 minutes not 108 minutes. No big deal if it works for you.0 -
Calories burned is actually so overrated and unimportant...the most important thing...and it took me ages to get this.. was the amount of muscle You are building. PERIOD. Burning cals is a joke. If you build lean muscle it takes care of all of your fat issues.
Elvis0 -
I do notice that MFP only picks one exercise and shows, for example, cleaning 75mins. When really I did 15mins of cleaning and the rest was running. It clumps all of your exercises under one exercise. I have never done 1000 calories but I am closer to my goal weight than some. Others I have talked to have a little more weight on them. So I would assume that it could be possible. I know a walked for me when I started (at heaviest) was around 350 calories burned and now I might burn 200. So height an weight are a factor.
MFP picks the exercise that burned the most calories, so if you cleaned for 15 minutes, ran for 60 minutes, and MFP is showing that you exercised for 75 minutes, including cleaning, that was some seriously strenuous cleaning.0 -
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.
It is more a rule of thumb than anything else. It certainly isn't a myth as it is far closer to reality in my case than any of the estimates I've seen here. Clearly when you run harder you burn more calories than if you are doing a 10 minute mile.
Everyone is different but 600 calories for a 5k seems really high, but I have no idea what the poster looks like, how difficult the race was or anything.
None of what we do here is really exact. The best thing anyone can do is be as honest with themselves. If something seems crazy and out of whack, get a 2nd opinion.0 -
Calories burned is actually so overrated and unimportant...the most important thing...and it took me ages to get this.. was the amount of muscle You are building. PERIOD. Burning cals is a joke. If you build lean muscle it takes care of all of your fat issues.
Elvis
It isn't important to you. Calorie burning is important to me. I'm female, and my potential to build muscle is more limited than yours. I'm small, and burning more calories means that I get to eat more food and get more micronutrients into my body. I lift regularly, and I do cardio so I'll be able to eat a few more hundred calories a day. Gaining 5 pounds of muscle mass won't do that for me.0 -
Point #1 - In my opinion MFP estimates calories burned higher than what is actually burned. People, however, burn at different rates based on other factors and you cannot compare the two. When my wife and I walk, she burns about 70 percent of the calories that I do simply because I weigh more and it takes more energy to perform the exercise.
Point #2 - It makes no difference what people put down for calories consumed or calories burned, logging it does not cause weight loss, actually doing it does.
Point #3 - It is best not to worry about the accuracy of others information, this is not a race or competition, just worry about what YOU do.0 -
Calories burned is actually so overrated and unimportant...the most important thing...and it took me ages to get this.. was the amount of muscle You are building. PERIOD. Burning cals is a joke. If you build lean muscle it takes care of all of your fat issues.
Elvis
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. To say burning calories is a joke is insulting to so many people. If your main focus in on lifting weights, then the amount of muscle is certainly important but even then calorie burn is relevant. Many of us on here are runners and cyclists who only lift weights periodically to mix things up. There is certainly a connection between getting fit, getting faster and getting leaner. But I really have no interest in building muscle just for the sake of doing so. The fitter I get, the better my clothes fit and the better i look. That is what I care about.0 -
thank you Well said.Point #1 - In my opinion MFP estimates calories burned higher than what is actually burned. People, however, burn at different rates based on other factors and you cannot compare the two. When my wife and I walk, she burns about 70 percent of the calories that I do simply because I weigh more and it takes more energy to perform the exercise.
Point #2 - It makes no difference what people put down for calories consumed or calories burned, logging it does not cause weight loss, actually doing it does.
Point #3 - It is best not to worry about the accuracy of others information, this is not a race or competition, just worry about what YOU do.0 -
.0
-
Thanks yeah im that stupid. So stupid that ive been doing this wrong the whole time I have been a member and look what its done for me. Thank you all for pionting this out to me. So glad you all were her to save me. No,I will continue to do it as I have always done because it works for me. I am busting my but doing c25k and walking on my other days to be more healthy and all I get is your doing it wrong..No good job or wow 46lbs gone. Thanks again for your support
Your watch goes from 59 to 100 because it's actually changing from 59 minutes to 1 hr 00 minutes. The "108" you see on your watch in not actually 108 minutes. It's 1:08, as in 1 hr 08 minutes...equivalent to 68 minutes.
Ive watched my watch..lol and when it gets to 60 it doesnt go to 61. I always change MFP calories anyway to reflect my HRM.thank you but when I say 108 minutes that mean 1 hour and 8 minutes. But if what I do is working for ME whats the big deal. If I put what my HRM says and Its not true then why am i almost to my goal weight. Not trying to be rude here but if I put in my diary something thats not true then it only hurts me
It would make a huge difference if you were using MFP's numbers because an hour and 8 minutes is 68 minutes not 108 minutes. No big deal if it works for you.
Please tell me that there's some kind of miscommunication or misunderstanding here. Because I really, REALLY hope that you're actually that stupid. :frown:0 -
I've given up rationalizing it either way. I've read hrms can miscalulate as well .. so I just
post what MFP spits at me, I'm not interested so much in the big numbersas I am the
actually duration of my efforts. Plus, I've mostly had success so no biggie.
To each their own I guess.
It's not worth overhinking it. :bigsmile:0 -
I meant "not actually that stupid"; it was a typo that I fixed, but apparently not quick enough. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt there.
Thanks yeah im that stupid. So stupid that ive been doing this wrong the whole time I have been a member and look what its done for me. Thank you all for pionting this out to me. So glad you all were her to save me. No,I will continue to do it as I have always done because it works for me. I am busting my but doing c25k and walking on my other days to be more healthy and all I get is your doing it wrong..No good job or wow 46lbs gone. Thanks again for your support
Your watch goes from 59 to 100 because it's actually changing from 59 minutes to 1 hr 00 minutes. The "108" you see on your watch in not actually 108 minutes. It's 1:08, as in 1 hr 08 minutes...equivalent to 68 minutes.
Ive watched my watch..lol and when it gets to 60 it doesnt go to 61. I always change MFP calories anyway to reflect my HRM.thank you but when I say 108 minutes that mean 1 hour and 8 minutes. But if what I do is working for ME whats the big deal. If I put what my HRM says and Its not true then why am i almost to my goal weight. Not trying to be rude here but if I put in my diary something thats not true then it only hurts me
It would make a huge difference if you were using MFP's numbers because an hour and 8 minutes is 68 minutes not 108 minutes. No big deal if it works for you.
Please tell me that there's some kind of miscommunication or misunderstanding here. Because I really, REALLY hope that you're actually that stupid. :frown:
If it works for you, then great. And honestly, as long as you follow the calories that the heart rate monitor says, you're fine. I only said what I said because you seemed pretty darn adamant that 1 hr 08 minutes is 108 minutes and that everyone else was wrong and well, I thought that was pretty silly. I wasn't making that comment in response to all of your hard work and exercise; it was in response only to the comment of yours that I quoted.
But congrats on your weight loss nonetheless, because you've clearly been working hard!0 -
Thanks yeah im that stupid. So stupid that ive been doing this wrong the whole time I have been a member and look what its done for me. Thank you all for pionting this out to me. So glad you all were her to save me. No,I will continue to do it as I have always done because it works for me. I am busting my but doing c25k and walking on my other days to be more healthy and all I get is your doing it wrong..No good job or wow 46lbs gone. Thanks again for your support
Your watch goes from 59 to 100 because it's actually changing from 59 minutes to 1 hr 00 minutes. The "108" you see on your watch in not actually 108 minutes. It's 1:08, as in 1 hr 08 minutes...equivalent to 68 minutes.
Ive watched my watch..lol and when it gets to 60 it doesnt go to 61. I always change MFP calories anyway to reflect my HRM.thank you but when I say 108 minutes that mean 1 hour and 8 minutes. But if what I do is working for ME whats the big deal. If I put what my HRM says and Its not true then why am i almost to my goal weight. Not trying to be rude here but if I put in my diary something thats not true then it only hurts me
It would make a huge difference if you were using MFP's numbers because an hour and 8 minutes is 68 minutes not 108 minutes. No big deal if it works for you.
Please tell me that there's some kind of miscommunication or misunderstanding here. Because I really, REALLY hope that you're actually that stupid. :frown:
What went wrong here? ????????????
To the original poster, you have lost 46 pounds that is tremendous!!! Well done!!! I think what the other commenter meant to say was not that you're entering in the amount of calories incorrectly but that you're entering the time incorrectly. The explanation could have been done more smoothly. For the sake of both of you being right and walking away happy here's an example, maybe done with a teeny bit more fitness...
HRM reads a time of 01:08 at the end of your walk, calories burned 400. That means that you burned 400 calories in 1 hour and 08 minutes which is the same as 68 minutes. For the sake of tracking it honestly doesn't matter if you were to put 01 minutes or 5000 minutes. The other commenter was just trying to show you the difference from the way you were reading your HRM and the way it was actually intended to be read.
Regardless, WTG on the loss and the healthy choices that you're making! ????????????0 -
I was just reading my HRM. i never really sat down and broke it down. After walking 4 miles in the heat Im pretty much toasted.. I am always very excited to enter my info and to be proud of another day that I havent given up. So i apologize if I entered the wrong time. SO I will from now on put my time in correctly. Thanks0
-
I lost 800 calories in 10 minutes--I burned a pizza in the oven. :happy:0
-
I burned 955 calories scuba diving today (2 tanks). I have checked other resources and MyFitnessPal calculates the calories accurately.0
-
I was just reading my HRM. i never really sat down and broke it down. After walking 4 miles in the heat Im pretty much toasted.. I am always very excited to enter my info and to be proud of another day that I havent given up. So i apologize if I entered the wrong time. SO I will from now on put my time in correctly. Thanks
I'm proud of you too, for getting healthy exercise and not giving up.0 -
That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.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.
Not impossible I am 228 and I did a 5k on the treadmill and my HRM stated it was 500 calories, I walk/jogged it, keeping my heart rate up and no lower than 135, if I am not pushing it I will burn about 400 with a walk/jog 5k0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions