Which one to believe? Treadmill or fitness watch?

Psaksenatovris
Psaksenatovris Posts: 13 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
With both devices I enter my weight and height and after a 40 min session of a combination walking and jogging, watch says I burned 250 calories and treadmill days 350..

I don't know what to believe! Any advice?

Replies

  • AllanMisner
    AllanMisner Posts: 4,140 Member
    Neither. They are estimates and both are likely to overstate calorie burn.
  • Psaksenatovris
    Psaksenatovris Posts: 13 Member
    AllanMisner wrote: »
    Neither. They are estimates and both are likely to overstate calorie burn.

    Why do you say that?
  • Psaksenatovris
    Psaksenatovris Posts: 13 Member
    mrsincados wrote: »
    don't eat back your calories burned.

    So how many calories have I burned?

    I'm eating way less calories anyway and even without exercise I'm in a deficit.

    But how do I calculate calories burned? How do you know they are wrong - ie what are you measuring against?
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    Based on the numbers, I'd say the watch.
    Based on the device, Id' say the treadmill.

    You mention you were on it for about 40 minutes - do you know how far you walked/jogged?
  • Psaksenatovris
    Psaksenatovris Posts: 13 Member
    4.1km
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    Frappedaki wrote: »
    4.1km

    Then definitely the lower number.
  • kami3006
    kami3006 Posts: 4,979 Member
    edited October 2018
    As they are all estimates, the only way to know is with actual data over time. Start with one, I'd pick the lower, and use that consistently. Evaluate your progress over 4-6 weeks and adjust as needed.
  • kami3006
    kami3006 Posts: 4,979 Member
    edited October 2018
    Starvation mode doesn't exist. And using MFP, one should eat exercise calories. Not losing weight doesn't mean that eating them doesn't work, it means your numbers were off. I eat 100% of mine and have had no issue losing or maintaining.

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10503681/exercise-calories-do-i-eat-these-a-video-explanation/p1

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Lot of weird answers in here.

    The answer depends on your weight. I'm ~210 and burn ~400 running for 30 mins (5K). Watch gives me 393 so I just use that.

    The "ballparK' formulas for walking and running are:

    Walking Weight (lbs) * Distance(Miles) *.3
    Running Weight (lbs) * Distance(Miles) *.63

    You'll have to put your weight in and "guess" how far you walked and ran. Total distance was ~2.55 miles, but the split is your guess.

    I use the watch to figure out how much to eat. Maybe eat back 75% of those until you get a better feel for calorie burn.

  • Psaksenatovris
    Psaksenatovris Posts: 13 Member
    Thanks for the advice people.

    I'll eat half of the lower figure... If I get hungry.
  • Psaksenatovris
    Psaksenatovris Posts: 13 Member
    Out of curiosity are sites like this accurate?
    https://www.mydr.com.au/tools/calories-burned-calculator
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Frappedaki wrote: »
    Out of curiosity are sites like this accurate?
    https://www.mydr.com.au/tools/calories-burned-calculator

    Kinda of a weird one. As I posted above, running is more based on weight and distance. So I notice in the link that I'd have to pick either 5.5 min per km, or 6 mins 12 sec per km. I ran 6 min per km., but the distance was 5 km.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    mrsincados wrote: »
    ...and a fitness watch that measures off your wrist is inaccurate.

    What makes you say that?
    You need to figure out your needed calories and macros for the day and set MFP to those number, don't eat back your calories burned.

    Why are you suggesting not using MFP as it's designed?
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,260 Member
    Frappedaki wrote: »
    Out of curiosity are sites like this accurate?
    https://www.mydr.com.au/tools/calories-burned-calculator

    Under the covers, most of these kinds of things are using the same METS-based research that much of the MFP exercise database was initialized with. They're as accurate as anything that doesn't have any idea how intensely you're working, i.e., not very reliably accurate. FWIW, for indoor rowing for me, it appears to underestimate by nearly 50% (that's the activity I have the most reliable calorie data for).

    Other than activities that can be directly monitored for the watts you're generating, most exercise calorie estimates are fuzzy approximations. As long as they're consistent approximations, they're useful in a calorie-counting context, because you always adjust intake based on results over time (if you're doing it right).
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    mrsincados wrote: »
    ...and a fitness watch that measures off your wrist is inaccurate.

    What makes you say that?
    You need to figure out your needed calories and macros for the day and set MFP to those number, don't eat back your calories burned.

    Why are you suggesting not using MFP as it's designed?

    I deviate from the way it is designed in a different way. I use a lower goal than it calculates after adjusting from observation.

    I often get caught up in this "get it exactly right" mentality, but it really keeps coming down to watching the scale trend one way or another and really not knowing whether it is my RMR, calculated burn or consumption tracking that is off. Most likely all are at least a little bit. That's one reason I chose to use a 10 pound range for maintenance. Conservative estimates for exercise that I eat seems to be about the steadiest.

    When I was losing, I made sure none of the numbers were ridiculous, didn't eat back calories unless it was a major burn and watched the scale to make sure I was trending down at a reasonable rate.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Frappedaki wrote: »
    Out of curiosity are sites like this accurate?
    https://www.mydr.com.au/tools/calories-burned-calculator

    Under the covers, most of these kinds of things are using the same METS-based research that much of the MFP exercise database was initialized with. They're as accurate as anything that doesn't have any idea how intensely you're working, i.e., not very reliably accurate. FWIW, for indoor rowing for me, it appears to underestimate by nearly 50% (that's the activity I have the most reliable calorie data for).

    Other than activities that can be directly monitored for the watts you're generating, most exercise calorie estimates are fuzzy approximations. As long as they're consistent approximations, they're useful in a calorie-counting context, because you always adjust intake based on results over time (if you're doing it right).

    The intensity thing does make it really difficult. I know it probably sounds like an excuse as often as I mention that I have a slow SUP when I talk about paddling it, but when I go with a group where most of the others have longer thinner touring or race boards, I am pushing myself really hard while they are just tooling along. People swap boards with me every now and then to let me try theirs as I will be in the market for a touring board late this year. It's not poor technique or them being in better shape; their boards are substantially easier to paddle and they usually remark about that when trading back. Long winded way of saying when I look up SUP paddling in calories per mile, there is no way it can be right for me and for the people on long touring boards. I never know what number to use for that and when I paddle 10 miles, it is a difference of several hundred either way depending on whether I go conservative and log less than what the computed by MET values are in some table or assume that I burn more because of the board I use.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,260 Member
    mrsincados wrote: »
    They are both wrong. Treadmills tend to overestimate your calories burned and a fitness watch that measures off your wrist is inaccurate. You need to figure out your needed calories and macros for the day and set MFP to those number, don't eat back your calories burned.

    Nah.

    The current generation of wrist-based HRM read HR pretty close to as accurately as chest-belt HRM, for most activities. But HR is still an imprecise way of estimating calories burned, for quite a range of activities, so wrist or chest doesn't change that.

    If - as I think you're suggesting - you use a TDEE calculator to estimate calories, rather than MFP's NEAT + exercise approach, then the TDEE estimator uses an even more vague and imprecise estimate of your exercise calorie burn than MFP does. If someone uses MFP to get their calorie estimate, they need to eat back a reasonable estimate of their exercise calories. The one estimate of exercise calories that is guaranteed to be inaccurate is "zero".

    It's all estimates . . . which is OK as a practical matter, because we ought to be adjusting intake based on results.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    The whole process often reminds me of an old six wheel truck I had to drive part of my job many years ago. The suspension and alignment were terrible and tie rods were bent. You didn't steer it, you kind of herded it down the road constantly making adjustments to keep it aimed where you are trying to go.
  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    I trust my watch because I've learned to trust it over time. I use MFP how it was intended, using the NEAT method and eating back all of my exercise calories. In a pinch, you can use the number from the treadmill. Overall those 100 calories probably won't make a huge difference unless your weight loss stalls out. Then you can look at tightening up your logging.

Categories