Please, will someone help me to work out my calories burned?
Options
Replies
-
Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.7 -
Good insight but...cmriverside wrote: »Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.
I wouldn't try to use slightly exaggerated walking calories to fix a fundamental problem with setting an inappropriate daily goal. Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic springs to mind.
Just the same as I wouldn't try to use deliberately under-estimated exercise calories to fix a food logging problem that many seem to try to do.
I've always eaten all my fairly spectacularly high amount of exercise calories and would encourage people just to see them as just a regular part of their calorie needs, not special or a bonus or a safety net....
Maybe having confidence in their estimates helps some people do that.
In the end all we can offer is guidance and support.4 -
Good insight but...cmriverside wrote: »Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.
I wouldn't try to use slightly exaggerated walking calories to fix a fundamental problem with setting an inappropriate daily goal. Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic springs to mind.
Just the same as I wouldn't try to use deliberately under-estimated exercise calories to fix a food logging problem that many seem to try to do.
I've always eaten all my fairly spectacularly high amount of exercise calories and would encourage people just to see them as just a regular part of their calorie needs, not special or a bonus or a safety net....
Maybe having confidence in their estimates helps some people do that.
In the end all we can offer is guidance and support.
...and yet - the Exercise calories were spot-on for me with my walking, and using a food scale.
It's always about using one's own numbers over Time to establish Trends. Not relying on a website or some talkers on a forum thread. (I'm talking about not-listening-to-me-as-well-as-you.)
Where's that hug emo...?
6 -
Personally, I don't usually eat my exercise calories, so I just use what the site gives me as a guideline. I know if I've worked extremely hard during the day and need some extra calories to keep my muscle, and I just adjust accordingly. But if you use one site only, even if the numbers are wrong, you'll learn that system and eat accordingly. My suggestion... don't jump from site to site looking for the "correct" numbers... I don't think there are any, each body is different. Just use what you're given and work with that.1
-
leonoraoropesa wrote: »MyFitnessPal app has the answer for you. You input what you desire either losing weight or gaining muscle it automatically computes it once you input your exercises. That’s a better option for you rather than computing it yourself. The app tells you how much weigh you will lose with a computation of food caloric intake, height and caloric deficit to get your desired weight. Hope that help. It’s easy and convenient too.
Thanks but I understand all that. It's just I'm losing more weight than I want to (5.2lbs in the last 14 days, for example) so I thought it may have something to do with exercise.
You are making the mistake of thinking a formula will give you the "right" number, and if you don't align with that number there is something wrong with you. But you have it backwards.
A TDEE is guesstimating your total calorie burn based on a few general stats. An exercise calculator is guesstimating your exercise calorie burn based on a few general stats. They are just guessing to give you a place to start, then you adjust based on how your body actually responds. There are all sorts of highly personalized things going on inside of you, and no calculator can tell you what is correct for each individual on the planet. Your data, your logging and your weight loss, ARE the accurate data you should be using to decide.
You are losing more weight than you want to. So eat more. It doesn't matter what the calculators say. There is nothing wrong with you if your body is burning more calories than a random equation guesstimates. I promise
8 -
cmriverside wrote: »
Good insight but...cmriverside wrote: »Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.
I wouldn't try to use slightly exaggerated walking calories to fix a fundamental problem with setting an inappropriate daily goal. Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic springs to mind.
Just the same as I wouldn't try to use deliberately under-estimated exercise calories to fix a food logging problem that many seem to try to do.
I've always eaten all my fairly spectacularly high amount of exercise calories and would encourage people just to see them as just a regular part of their calorie needs, not special or a bonus or a safety net....
Maybe having confidence in their estimates helps some people do that.
In the end all we can offer is guidance and support.
...and yet - the Exercise calories were spot-on for me with my walking, and using a food scale.
It's always about using one's own numbers over Time to establish Trends. Not relying on a website or some talkers on a forum thread. (I'm talking about not-listening-to-me-as-well-as-you.)
Where's that hug emo...?
But that's a false assumption.
Your calorie balance worked out - that does not validate all the component parts of estimating CI and CO.
2+2+2+2 = 8 and so does 1+1+3+3
None of us know our exact and changing BMR, activity and exercise precisely - nor to we need to in reality.
I fully support adjustments based on long term results though.
What I'm trying to convey is that putting some effort into making the component estimates more reasonable increases the chances of getting the right outcome rather than deliberately skewing some of the estimates to compensate for others. It also tends to account for changes better.4 -
cmriverside wrote: »
Good insight but...cmriverside wrote: »Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.
I wouldn't try to use slightly exaggerated walking calories to fix a fundamental problem with setting an inappropriate daily goal. Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic springs to mind.
Just the same as I wouldn't try to use deliberately under-estimated exercise calories to fix a food logging problem that many seem to try to do.
I've always eaten all my fairly spectacularly high amount of exercise calories and would encourage people just to see them as just a regular part of their calorie needs, not special or a bonus or a safety net....
Maybe having confidence in their estimates helps some people do that.
In the end all we can offer is guidance and support.
...and yet - the Exercise calories were spot-on for me with my walking, and using a food scale.
It's always about using one's own numbers over Time to establish Trends. Not relying on a website or some talkers on a forum thread. (I'm talking about not-listening-to-me-as-well-as-you.)
Where's that hug emo...?
But that's a false assumption.
Your calorie balance worked out - that does not validate all the component parts of estimating CI and CO.
2+2+2+2 = 8 and so does 1+1+3+3
None of us know our exact and changing BMR, activity and exercise precisely - nor to we need to in reality.
I fully support adjustments based on long term results though.
What I'm trying to convey is that putting some effort into making the component estimates more reasonable increases the chances of getting the right outcome rather than deliberately skewing some of the estimates to compensate for others. It also tends to account for changes better.
you say potatoes.
I suspect we are just coming at this from slightly different angles but saying sort of the same thing. I don't for one minute think I had perfect numbers. I just worked it as best I could based on results. The actual numbers are (surprisingly) not that important within a range.
My concern is that she admits to having almost died several times due to anorexia and you suggest getting the numbers just so.
Numbers/control/exactitude/perfectionism/anxiety are all major players in Eating Disorders. Worrying about exactitude is precisely like those deck chairs on that sinking unsinkable ocean liner you mentioned.
6 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »
Good insight but...cmriverside wrote: »Walking at 4mph for 48mins would be 3.2 miles.
Using physics (mass X distance X efficiency ratio) would give you a net calorie (note not gross calories that many apps and databases give you) would be 112lbs X 3.2miles X 0.3 efficiency ratio = 108cals.
BTW the efficiency ratio found by @shadow2soul sounds like it is a running formala (running is approximately twice as inefficient a movement as walking).
So about 50% of MFP's calculation? I halve all exercise calories already so I'll keep doing that. Thank you 👍
I wouldn't advise halving ALL exercise calories as few are double reality. If you believe that a particular estimate is double then, and only then, does halving make sense in a mathematical sense.
Better to work on making your personal selection of regular exercise estimates reasonable.
The difference between net and gross calories is far more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.
You're calculation was close to half the MFP estimation and as walking is the only exercise I can get at the moment it seems I'm right to halve the MFP calorie burn, as I have been doing.
I thought that maybe I'm burning more calories (via exercise) than I realised but, it seems I'm not.
Then as walking is your only exercise it makes sense for you.
But it wouldn't make sense for other people who do a selection of different exercises each of which may potentially have a set of different personal and generic inaccuracies.
e.g. if walking is double reality it doesn't follow that the "strength training" database entry has the same degree of inaccuracy.
Except she's losing faster than she thinks she should be, she has a history of disordered thinking and besides, maybe 200 is right.
Here is a post she made in another thread:Ex anorexic here (more times than I care to remember at death's door) - believe me, starvation mode is not real.
I used the MFP numbers for food AND Exercise calories. I didn't use 50% of them, I ate every single delicious exercise calorie MyFitnessPal gave me when I was actively losing my 70+ pounds. They worked for me. The NEAT method that MFP uses (I believe) has a slightly higher calorie burn allotment. No need to undercut that even more if one is losing too quickly. I don't think the 200 calories is that far off. I always suggest people use the MFP numbers for a couple months and see what happens. For just as many people as not they are accurate.
sefajane1, you're teetering. Eat, eat more than 1200 and eat the exercise calories, all 208 of them.
I wouldn't try to use slightly exaggerated walking calories to fix a fundamental problem with setting an inappropriate daily goal. Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic springs to mind.
Just the same as I wouldn't try to use deliberately under-estimated exercise calories to fix a food logging problem that many seem to try to do.
I've always eaten all my fairly spectacularly high amount of exercise calories and would encourage people just to see them as just a regular part of their calorie needs, not special or a bonus or a safety net....
Maybe having confidence in their estimates helps some people do that.
In the end all we can offer is guidance and support.
...and yet - the Exercise calories were spot-on for me with my walking, and using a food scale.
It's always about using one's own numbers over Time to establish Trends. Not relying on a website or some talkers on a forum thread. (I'm talking about not-listening-to-me-as-well-as-you.)
Where's that hug emo...?
But that's a false assumption.
Your calorie balance worked out - that does not validate all the component parts of estimating CI and CO.
2+2+2+2 = 8 and so does 1+1+3+3
None of us know our exact and changing BMR, activity and exercise precisely - nor to we need to in reality.
I fully support adjustments based on long term results though.
What I'm trying to convey is that putting some effort into making the component estimates more reasonable increases the chances of getting the right outcome rather than deliberately skewing some of the estimates to compensate for others. It also tends to account for changes better.
you say potatoes.
I suspect we are just coming at this from slightly different angles but saying sort of the same thing. I don't for one minute think I had perfect numbers. I just worked it as best I could based on results. The actual numbers are (surprisingly) not that important within a range.
My concern is that she admits to having almost died several times due to anorexia and you suggest getting the numbers just so.
Numbers/control/exactitude/perfectionism/anxiety are all major players in Eating Disorders. Worrying about exactitude is precisely like those deck chairs on that sinking unsinkable ocean liner you mentioned.
I don't know and can't know the history of every poster!
It's not in my remit to fix everybody's problems.
We disagree. Lets leave it there.6 -
I'm just trying to encourage eating a lot more.
She's at 19 BMI and still losing (and saying she doesn't know what to do) and she's worried about 100 calories give-or-take on a single day's exercise.
It's a lot bigger problem than that.7 -
cmriverside wrote: »I'm just trying to encourage eating a lot more.
She's at 21 BMI and still losing (and saying she doesn't know what to do) and she's worried about 100 calories give-or-take on a single day's exercise.
It's a lot bigger problem than that.
FFS!
And adding 100 calories extra after a walk won't fix the bigger problem!
And that fix won't be universal.3 -
And she's actually at 19 BMI. 112 pounds, 5'4" - if you look at the OP of this thread we're on now.
Here's the other thread where she says she's still eating 1200 (for those reading along...)
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/43705487
3 -
leonoraoropesa wrote: »MyFitnessPal app has the answer for you. You input what you desire either losing weight or gaining muscle it automatically computes it once you input your exercises. That’s a better option for you rather than computing it yourself. The app tells you how much weigh you will lose with a computation of food caloric intake, height and caloric deficit to get your desired weight. Hope that help. It’s easy and convenient too.
Thanks but I understand all that. It's just I'm losing more weight than I want to (5.2lbs in the last 14 days, for example) so I thought it may have something to do with exercise.
It doesn't matter why. If you have a semi-consistent routine, all you need to to is eat more.
Eat more according to how much, on average, you've been losing.
Take the average number of pounds you've lost weekly over the last few weeks. Multiply that number of pounds (or fraction of a pound) by 3500 (rough number of calories in a pound). That gives you your average calorie deficit per week. Divide that by 7 to get a daily calorie deficit. Eat that many more calories every day to maintain.
If you've lost 5.2 pounds in 14 days, that would be ( (2.6 pounds per week X 3500 calories) / 7 ) = 1,300 more calories every day. Eat that much more. If that's too scary, eat 250 more every day this week, add 250 more every day next week, and keep going until you stop losing weight.
Monitor for a month or so to make sure you're maintaining. (Expect a little scale jump, maybe a few pounds, when you add a big calorie increment, from glycogen replenishment and increased average digestive system contents. Don't let that freak you out or make you back off. Expect it.)
Please, please: This is what you need to do to stay healthy. We've given you pretty much the same advice on each of your threads. Please, eat more. Please discuss with your treatment team. But eat more!
:flowerforyou:7 -
I don't know how people can even be guessing your calorie burn without even asking you if you are walking up hills or not, makes a big difference.2
-
I don't know how people can even be guessing your calorie burn without even asking you if you are walking up hills or not, makes a big difference.
I walk a street route, fairly level ground with just a few (4 or 5) slight inclines and declines. I realise that that's not much to go on but I was just after a rough idea to see if my calculations were right.
All sorted now anyway.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions