Do you ever comment on unrealistic logging by friends?
Replies
-
NorthCascades wrote: »
Oh yeah? Well CarvedTones burned 1200 in 9 seconds after walking through a spider web.
15 -
CarvedTones wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
Oh yeah? Well CarvedTones burned 1200 in 9 seconds after walking through a spider web.
That one I believe.15 -
You can have friends on here? There's a news feed?
(my apologies to both of my friends)
I don't think I would say anything though unless someone actually asked me for help. If what they are doing is working, yeah them! If not, well, they will probably figure it out or ask for help.4 -
Really depends on the nature of your friends list too. If you collect friends, then I can see commenting on someone's feed, when you've never really spoken to them otherwise, as intrusive, rude, whatever. But for those of us with a few, who we speak to a lot, it's different. Of course, tact should always be involved.5
-
annaskiski wrote: »I saw someone log 1000 calories for 'mowing the lawn'.
But, nope, not my business.
How long? Takes 7 hours to do my mother's lawn.
Context like time spent and the size of the person doing the activity matters.10 -
I see unrealistic calorie burns all the time - I give everyone on MFP a participation trophy just for being here, it doesn't really matter, they are miles ahead of people who don't even try.11
-
CarvedTones wrote: »How does one decide what is unrealistic and what isn't? This whole idea of this conversion seems a bit presumptuous to me.
Calorie burns that would go over 1000 per hour for moderately intense (and sometimes not even intense) exercise. 150+ calories per mile for miles computed from daily steps. My original question was sincere, not wanting to ridicule people. I see posted activity that would wipe out a daily deficit of 500 calories sometimes. It is entirely possible that some of these people don't know.
I've done that before.. 1000 cals (ish) for an hour of cycling, moderate or whatever the equivalent is. It's because it was auto-logged when my garmin synced... but there was nothing moderate about it that ride, I promise you.
And that was more my point. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of hugely erroneous entries made every single day. But I also think that there are just as many (if not more) variables, unknowns, variations, etc that reading a simple diary entry and assuming it's wrong is just as likely to be arrogant and unhelpful as it is considerate and beneficial.
But that's me, and I don't people very well... so maybe this is just something else I'm overly jaded about.
This annoys me, and I've ranted about it before. MFP decides how to label the intensity just purely on your average speed. So the harder a ride is, the easier MFP says it was. Do hill repeats and it says leisurely cycling. Even when the data you sync has the intensity factor in it. Just riding around...6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Part of the issue is with the MFP calorie estimators for exercise, which seem to be in active conflict with their activity multipliers. For instance, lets take a 30 year old, 5'4, 160 pound woman. BMR would be 1431, which means that if someone defined themselves as Sedentary, they would have a normal burn of 1717. Now lets say that person does house cleaning for a living. They have 2 options. They could choose their activity level as either "active" or "highly active", which would give them another 500-700 calories per day of budgeting. Or they could log 480 minutes of "Cleaning, light, moderate effort", which would likely say that they burned about 3x the calories than if they included that as part of their activity level.
So I think a big issue with calorie logging is that logging basic household activities greatly overestimates the number of calories burned. Exercise is not meant to be done for hours. If a person finds themselves doing hours of a life related exercise on the regular, they should raise their activity level, rather than logging it as exercise. Exercise should be for specific acts of exercise outside of normal daily activity.
Huh? Why not? And who didn't mean for us to exercise for hours?
Yesterday I spent about 3.5 hours riding my bike up and down Sherman Pass. The day before I rode Loup Loup Pass, which coincidentally also took me about 3.5 hours. I work as a software engineer so sedentary is the correct activity level. Today it's stormy and the weekday riding is over.
I'd find it very difficult to train for a marathon without exercising for hours.
I *wish* distance training didn't take hours. Love the races, hate the training runs.2 -
If they post something asking for advice/suggestions then maybe. If they don't say anything then no.0
-
Hmmm.
NVM0 -
I only did once when a user insisted she burned 3000+ calories on a 45 minute walk.
She gave me hell and then deleted me.
That was the only time...
No one will recognize something isn't working more than the individual themselves over time.3 -
CarvedTones wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »How does one decide what is unrealistic and what isn't? This whole idea of this conversion seems a bit presumptuous to me.
Calorie burns that would go over 1000 per hour for moderately intense (and sometimes not even intense) exercise. 150+ calories per mile for miles computed from daily steps. My original question was sincere, not wanting to ridicule people. I see posted activity that would wipe out a daily deficit of 500 calories sometimes. It is entirely possible that some of these people don't know.
I've done that before.. 1000 cals (ish) for an hour of cycling, moderate or whatever the equivalent is. It's because it was auto-logged when my garmin synced... but there was nothing moderate about it that ride, I promise you.
And that was more my point. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of hugely erroneous entries made every single day. But I also think that there are just as many (if not more) variables, unknowns, variations, etc that reading a simple diary entry and assuming it's wrong is just as likely to be arrogant and unhelpful as it is considerate and beneficial.
But that's me, and I don't people very well... so maybe this is just something else I'm overly jaded about.
The Mayo clinic compiled a big list of exercise burns for activities and for a person weighing 200 pounds, the two activities they found that were over 1,000 calories per hour were running 8 miles in an hour and, believe it or not, jumping rope.
And even then I wouldn't trust someone who logs jumping rope for 60 minutes. That *kitten* is hard!
6 -
I try not to but the other day on FB I couldn't help myself and had to comment. I had a friend selling BB who was claiming she burnt over 900 calories dancing for 30-45 minutes. This woman is not morbidly obese and there is just no way. While I love the BB workouts for when I can't hit the gym I'm not ok with false claims like this being used to trick friends into buying stuff so I made a comment about how she must be magic since I burnt less than half of that running a 5k the day before at a 9:20 mile pace and averaged around 450 cals burned for a full hour of boxing (which is one of the highest cal burners out there)
I see this as a whole different situation. People kidding themselves is one thing, intentional trying to kid others is another.5 -
Participation trophies!... Bry_fitness.
I have all those notifications/push posts to my feed disabled.
I don't see why people need to share that info, and I never comment on that or Diary closings...or any of the other auto-generated things like weight loss.
6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »How does one decide what is unrealistic and what isn't? This whole idea of this conversion seems a bit presumptuous to me.
Calorie burns that would go over 1000 per hour for moderately intense (and sometimes not even intense) exercise. 150+ calories per mile for miles computed from daily steps. My original question was sincere, not wanting to ridicule people. I see posted activity that would wipe out a daily deficit of 500 calories sometimes. It is entirely possible that some of these people don't know.
I've done that before.. 1000 cals (ish) for an hour of cycling, moderate or whatever the equivalent is. It's because it was auto-logged when my garmin synced... but there was nothing moderate about it that ride, I promise you.
And that was more my point. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of hugely erroneous entries made every single day. But I also think that there are just as many (if not more) variables, unknowns, variations, etc that reading a simple diary entry and assuming it's wrong is just as likely to be arrogant and unhelpful as it is considerate and beneficial.
But that's me, and I don't people very well... so maybe this is just something else I'm overly jaded about.
This annoys me, and I've ranted about it before. MFP decides how to label the intensity just purely on your average speed. So the harder a ride is, the easier MFP says it was. Do hill repeats and it says leisurely cycling. Even when the data you sync has the intensity factor in it. Just riding around...
I don’t have an indoor trainer-just a plain regular exercise bike. So I have to manually enter the distance - but not until after Garmin has altready synced my leisurely 0mph ride. It already has my cycling vo2max as “did you actually pedal?”. Clearly, Garmin is unimpressed with my cycling prowess.
2 -
No, I think most people don't want you to tell them1
-
Mine syncs from my Garmin, usually with the HRM Run, so it should be pretty close. Nonetheless, it is automatic and I can't control it even if I wanted to.
I don't think many / any of my friends actually are aware of or understand my current strategy, though. If they did, they would be talking about how many calories I eat, not how many I burn.0 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »How does one decide what is unrealistic and what isn't? This whole idea of this conversion seems a bit presumptuous to me.
Calorie burns that would go over 1000 per hour for moderately intense (and sometimes not even intense) exercise. 150+ calories per mile for miles computed from daily steps. My original question was sincere, not wanting to ridicule people. I see posted activity that would wipe out a daily deficit of 500 calories sometimes. It is entirely possible that some of these people don't know.
I've done that before.. 1000 cals (ish) for an hour of cycling, moderate or whatever the equivalent is. It's because it was auto-logged when my garmin synced... but there was nothing moderate about it that ride, I promise you.
And that was more my point. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of hugely erroneous entries made every single day. But I also think that there are just as many (if not more) variables, unknowns, variations, etc that reading a simple diary entry and assuming it's wrong is just as likely to be arrogant and unhelpful as it is considerate and beneficial.
But that's me, and I don't people very well... so maybe this is just something else I'm overly jaded about.
This annoys me, and I've ranted about it before. MFP decides how to label the intensity just purely on your average speed. So the harder a ride is, the easier MFP says it was. Do hill repeats and it says leisurely cycling. Even when the data you sync has the intensity factor in it. Just riding around...
I don’t have an indoor trainer-just a plain regular exercise bike. So I have to manually enter the distance - but not until after Garmin has altready synced my leisurely 0mph ride. It already has my cycling vo2max as “did you actually pedal?”. Clearly, Garmin is unimpressed with my cycling prowess.
I love it!
I'm thinking about getting rollers. Last November it rained every day and I didn't want to deal with it in the cold and dark, and I don't think any of that will be any different this year.0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »cheryldumais wrote: »I stay out of it. Sometimes they know it but it is their fitness band or whatever and most people who are losing know how much they can eat and lose. I know what you mean tho. 1000 calories for a walk? I get 125.
cleaning and cooking are my favourite ones... and anything from mapmywalk or mapmyrun
I edit my burns from mapmyfitness by at least 50%0 -
CarvedTones wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »How does one decide what is unrealistic and what isn't? This whole idea of this conversion seems a bit presumptuous to me.
Calorie burns that would go over 1000 per hour for moderately intense (and sometimes not even intense) exercise. 150+ calories per mile for miles computed from daily steps. My original question was sincere, not wanting to ridicule people. I see posted activity that would wipe out a daily deficit of 500 calories sometimes. It is entirely possible that some of these people don't know.
I've done that before.. 1000 cals (ish) for an hour of cycling, moderate or whatever the equivalent is. It's because it was auto-logged when my garmin synced... but there was nothing moderate about it that ride, I promise you.
And that was more my point. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of hugely erroneous entries made every single day. But I also think that there are just as many (if not more) variables, unknowns, variations, etc that reading a simple diary entry and assuming it's wrong is just as likely to be arrogant and unhelpful as it is considerate and beneficial.
But that's me, and I don't people very well... so maybe this is just something else I'm overly jaded about.
The Mayo clinic compiled a big list of exercise burns for activities and for a person weighing 200 pounds, the two activities they found that were over 1,000 calories per hour were running 8 miles in an hour and, believe it or not, jumping rope.
And even then I wouldn't trust someone who logs jumping rope for 60 minutes. That *kitten* is hard!
I will go on record and say if you ever see me log jumping rope for more than about 30 seconds, I am lying. I have good coordination with a lot of activities but trying to do the little hops with the skinny exercise jump ropes just seems impossible. Even if I manage to get my rhythm, I am so tense I can't manage it long at all. I have bad knees, so I can't do it grade school style either (slower with big hops).3 -
It's possible the estimated calories burned is incorrect.
I just started using this a couple days ago: my new doc recommended it to track calories and activity.
I question some of the calories burned; For example I went bow hunting yesterday; I had a total of 1 hour walking approximately 1/3 mile from my vehicle to and from my hunting spot, 4 hours standing and sitting. When I chose hunting general, it said I burned like 2,700 calories!!! Really!?
There's no way I would burn that many in four hours of waiting, even if I was pushing game for others I'd question the amount.
Mind you I'm stationary, hunting 100 - 150 lb white tail deer and black bear not 1000+ lb moose, so even if I had to drag anything out would that be accurate? BTW I went home without any fresh lean protein
If so then I'm a calorie burning machine LOL.1 -
Unless a person is asking for help I get a giggle and move on as it is really none of my business. That being said, some might scratch their heads with my diary at times because I do what works for me.
I sync Map My Walk here so my walks are automatically synced. I also have Pacer synced. I know that Pacer gives me a much more accurate calorie count but like Map My Walk logged so I have a record on here of how much I have walked in a day. When I go for a walk I just do a quick add of the calories burned in my food diary and at the end of the day edit my walks to 1 calorie and delete the quick adds. It works for me but could leave some people perplexed if they look at my diary during the day.0 -
I log every lifting session as 45 minutes of strength training. I even call some heavy landscaping work 45 minutes of strength training. I do the same for a 3 hour dirtdining (motorcycle) session. I know none of those are 275 cals (the dirt biking and landscaping may be more, the lifting less). I set my TDEE one setting lower than it actually is, and log everything as 45 min strength training because it splits the difference between the 2 TDEE settings. So far, I have been right on target with my cal calculations for 3 months.
Don't be so quick to judge. Sometimes people are more on point than your assumptions would give them credit for.3 -
I saw on a news report this morning that they did some testing and found that people watching horror movies burned an average of 138 more calories than their normal sedentary burn rate. I really hope no tax dollars went toward that study.3
-
wolftrucking08 wrote: »It's possible the estimated calories burned is incorrect.
I just started using this a couple days ago: my new doc recommended it to track calories and activity.
I question some of the calories burned; For example I went bow hunting yesterday; I had a total of 1 hour walking approximately 1/3 mile from my vehicle to and from my hunting spot, 4 hours standing and sitting. When I chose hunting general, it said I burned like 2,700 calories!!! Really!?
There's no way I would burn that many in four hours of waiting, even if I was pushing game for others I'd question the amount.
Mind you I'm stationary, hunting 100 - 150 lb white tail deer and black bear not 1000+ lb moose, so even if I had to drag anything out would that be accurate? BTW I went home without any fresh lean protein
If so then I'm a calorie burning machine LOL.
It took an hour to go 1/3 mile?!
When I hunt, I prefer moving... obviously the burn you see is based on if you were hiking. If you are heavy enough, 5 hours of hiking might get close to that many calories.3 -
I turned off the automatic post for exercise from my Apple Watch.
Why? Pokémon Go. It’ll submit every time I turn it on as walking, 2.0. I’d flood people’s feeds with it.
Pair that with after the watch update it seems much more generous on calorie burn, I’ve been pretty suspicious of any active calories.
So, when I see it from other people I don’t judge because I know my own exercise logs look extremely weird. As long as they’re meeting their goals and happy, that’s good enough for me0 -
No.
Unless they specifically asked for my opinion.
This is an educational process for many of us. If they are truly serious about becoming a healthy weight, they will learn.5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »How does one decide what is unrealistic and what isn't? This whole idea of this conversion seems a bit presumptuous to me.
Calorie burns that would go over 1000 per hour for moderately intense (and sometimes not even intense) exercise. 150+ calories per mile for miles computed from daily steps. My original question was sincere, not wanting to ridicule people. I see posted activity that would wipe out a daily deficit of 500 calories sometimes. It is entirely possible that some of these people don't know.
I've done that before.. 1000 cals (ish) for an hour of cycling, moderate or whatever the equivalent is. It's because it was auto-logged when my garmin synced... but there was nothing moderate about it that ride, I promise you.
And that was more my point. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of hugely erroneous entries made every single day. But I also think that there are just as many (if not more) variables, unknowns, variations, etc that reading a simple diary entry and assuming it's wrong is just as likely to be arrogant and unhelpful as it is considerate and beneficial.
But that's me, and I don't people very well... so maybe this is just something else I'm overly jaded about.
This annoys me, and I've ranted about it before. MFP decides how to label the intensity just purely on your average speed. So the harder a ride is, the easier MFP says it was. Do hill repeats and it says leisurely cycling. Even when the data you sync has the intensity factor in it. Just riding around...
I don’t have an indoor trainer-just a plain regular exercise bike. So I have to manually enter the distance - but not until after Garmin has altready synced my leisurely 0mph ride. It already has my cycling vo2max as “did you actually pedal?”. Clearly, Garmin is unimpressed with my cycling prowess.
I love it!
I'm thinking about getting rollers. Last November it rained every day and I didn't want to deal with it in the cold and dark, and I don't think any of that will be any different this year.
Rollers scare me. I'm probably the only person who would crash her bike in her own basement while literally at a standstill. We have Kickrs and Zwift. Makes it a little like playing a video game when we're stuck cycling inside.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Part of the issue is with the MFP calorie estimators for exercise, which seem to be in active conflict with their activity multipliers. For instance, lets take a 30 year old, 5'4, 160 pound woman. BMR would be 1431, which means that if someone defined themselves as Sedentary, they would have a normal burn of 1717. Now lets say that person does house cleaning for a living. They have 2 options. They could choose their activity level as either "active" or "highly active", which would give them another 500-700 calories per day of budgeting. Or they could log 480 minutes of "Cleaning, light, moderate effort", which would likely say that they burned about 3x the calories than if they included that as part of their activity level.
So I think a big issue with calorie logging is that logging basic household activities greatly overestimates the number of calories burned. Exercise is not meant to be done for hours. If a person finds themselves doing hours of a life related exercise on the regular, they should raise their activity level, rather than logging it as exercise. Exercise should be for specific acts of exercise outside of normal daily activity.
Huh? Why not? And who didn't mean for us to exercise for hours?
Yesterday I spent about 3.5 hours riding my bike up and down Sherman Pass. The day before I rode Loup Loup Pass, which coincidentally also took me about 3.5 hours. I work as a software engineer so sedentary is the correct activity level. Today it's stormy and the weekday riding is over.
This is taking one sentence of a long post out of the context that was in the rest of the post. I was referring to basic daily activity that is recorded as exercise on the site, greatly overexaggerating the number of calories burned. Of course you can do real exercise for hours. But the exercise logging tool isn't effective for that for most people. Sure if you are marathon training or a distance cycler or an elite athlete, then the burn amounts may be more accurate. But a very small percentage of people ever burn thousands of calories from exercise a day. Which is a number that MFP will tell people if they log their basic activity as exercise.1 -
I did comment once when a co-worker told me he burned off the Snickers bar he just ate by walking the stairs of our 5 story building "up and down, twice".
I just said, "well, I typically burn about 200 calories running for a half hour". He didn't believe me, and went and googled 'calorie burns'.
Lets just say that he found it eye-opening.
I guess people really just don't know...6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions