Double-Counting Calories??

mizarmadillo

This might be confusing, so bare with me..

It's come to my attention recently that when I log my exercises, I double-count calories burnt.

What I mean is: If I jog 35 mins at 6mph, MyFitnessPal calculates that I burned 304 calories.. but does that take into consideration the 73 calories I burn every half hour by not doing anything? Probably not..

So, THIS means that I really only burned 231 calories through the exercise, not 304.

Why does this matter?
Well, if my goal is to consume as many calories as I burn, I potentially eat 73 calories more than I should... That doesn't seem like a lot, but take into consideration that I exercise 5 - 6 times a week.. 6 times 73 = 438 EXTRA calories per week that I'm consuming by double- counting the 73 calories..

missmegan831

I only log 80% of my calories to keep it 'safe'... I also use a Polar HRM and still only log 80% for that margin of error and to account for things like 'what I would have burned doing nothing'.

Ive lost almost 65 pounds so far so it must be working

kerschmd

I have a similar question....I just got a fitbit flex and I use MFP. I do Zumba a few times a week and walk on the treadmill. Should I record my exercise inMFP, or just rely on the calories submitted from FB?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

_Zardoz_

This might be confusing, so bare with me..

It's come to my attention recently that when I log my exercises, I double-count calories burnt.

What I mean is: If I jog 35 mins at 6mph, MyFitnessPal calculates that I burned 304 calories.. but does that take into consideration the 73 calories I burn every half hour by not doing anything? Probably not..

So, THIS means that I really only burned 231 calories through the exercise, not 304.

Why does this matter?
Well, if my goal is to consume as many calories as I burn, I potentially eat 73 calories more than I should... That doesn't seem like a lot, but take into consideration that I exercise 5 - 6 times a week.. 6 times 73 = 438 EXTRA calories per week that I'm consuming by double- counting the 73 calories..

You're over thinking it and making it far more complicated that it need be. Yes technically you are correct but all these figures you're working on are estimates. Even if you work out your exercise via HRM that's still an estimate as are all the calculators about what you need to consume. All these estimates are designed to be used with a little common sense. You use the figures as a baseline. If it's not working you adjust accordingly.

In reality all your figures are likely to be off more than 73 calories a day just by inaccurate weighing. Dodgy entries in the database and just errors in all the estimates.

Don't make it more complicated than it need be.

InForBacon

Looks like you've been averaging around 1200 calories a day anyway. I would say your body is probably thanking you for the extra 73 calroies when you do exercise.

Kellervdb

Does it also take into account the extra calories burned in the hours after due to your boosted metabolic rate? Does it take into account whether you were fasted or fed? Does it take into account room temperature, stimulant consumption, prior activity level, the thermic effect of food, etc?

My point is, you will never hit your actual burned calories right on the head. It's not possible, there are too many variables to consider, so you use something like Myfitnesspal to make a fairly accurate measurement. If you ate 73 extra calories, you would technically gain not even half an ounce of fat, but even then, that's not completely accurate, because YOU don't even know if the maintenance calories set by myfitnesspal are even completely accurate. The only way to find that out is to sit in a laboratory and even then your maintenance calories are not a constant number.

Don't worry about it. If the scale is moving, then you know you aren't eating at maintenance.

taeliesyn

You're over thinking this in a major way.

InForBacon

Does it also take into account the extra calories burned in the hours after due to your boosted metabolic rate? Does it take into account whether you were fasted or fed? Does it take into account room temperature, stimulant consumption, prior activity level, the thermic effect of food, etc?

LOLZ

Don't worry about it. If the scale is moving, then you know you aren't eating at maintenance.

The scale is not always the best measure of progress. Measurements and photos are more accurate and meaningful than a number on a scale.

DavPul

Yeeeeeah, you're over thinking this

erickirb

Probably over-thinking, but yes in theory, assuming the calories burned are accurate you should back out maintenance calories, as that portion of cals is already accounted for in your suggested intake.