Does Anybody Know How Accurate These Burns Are?

sefajane1

I've increased the amount of time I'm walking now so I've been using this website for a NET calorie burn calculation.

https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

Any ideas as to how accurate it may or may not be please?

amusedmonkey

I find them pretty accurate for steady state. I would pick "net" energy if you're adding them for eat back purposes.

sefajane1

amusedmonkey wrote: »

I find them pretty accurate for steady state. I would pick "net" energy if you're adding them for eat back purposes.

Yes, that's what I've been doing 👍 I just wanted to check that the burns were an ok estimate because I've increased my exercise (and eating the calories) and the exercise calories "earned" are quite a lot more than I'm used to. I was a little bit scared that I'm eating more than I want to.

Thank you for putting my mind at rest 😁

PAV8888

They are based on met values. Not sure if based on corrected met values which in your case would yield a higher, not lower, burn. In general the walking and running exrx formula were on the low side. If adding as net cal you SHOULD be eating them all!

sefajane1

PAV8888 wrote: »

They are based on met values. Not sure if based on corrected met values which in your case would yield a higher, not lower, burn. In general the walking and running exrx formula were on the low side. If adding as net cal you SHOULD be eating them all!

I am but, to me it seems rather a lot. Mind you, before I found that site I was using MFP calculations but only eating 50% of those so, with the increased exercise, it's a big jump up in calories. I'm happy to eat all the NET calories it tells me I've burnt because I'm exercising to "Walk At Home" videos so there's a lot more movement than simply walking.

Thanks for your help..... yet again! 😁

PAV8888

sefajane1 wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

They are based on met values. Not sure if based on corrected met values which in your case would yield a higher, not lower, burn. In general the walking and running exrx formula were on the low side. If adding as net cal you SHOULD be eating them all!

I am but, to me it seems rather a lot. Mind you, before I found that site I was using MFP calculations but only eating 50% of those so, with the increased exercise, it's a big jump up in calories. I'm happy to eat all the NET calories it tells me I've burnt because I'm exercising to "Walk At Home" videos so there's a lot more movement than simply walking.

Thanks for your help..... yet again! 😁

Cough, cough... so make sure you are actually choosing an entry reflecting the effort. If you're doing more than walking at a steady pace... you're probably burning more than what that would take into account by its lonesome.

sefajane1

PAV8888 wrote: »

sefajane1 wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

They are based on met values. Not sure if based on corrected met values which in your case would yield a higher, not lower, burn. In general the walking and running exrx formula were on the low side. If adding as net cal you SHOULD be eating them all!

I am but, to me it seems rather a lot. Mind you, before I found that site I was using MFP calculations but only eating 50% of those so, with the increased exercise, it's a big jump up in calories. I'm happy to eat all the NET calories it tells me I've burnt because I'm exercising to "Walk At Home" videos so there's a lot more movement than simply walking.

Thanks for your help..... yet again! 😁

Cough, cough... so make sure you are actually choosing an entry reflecting the effort. If you're doing more than walking at a steady pace... you're probably burning more than what that would take into account by its lonesome.

I've looked in the cardio exercise database and haven't found anything relating to the walking videos I'm doing, that's why I went to exrx.
Do you think that maybe I should log the gross calories, instead of net, seeing as though I'm working harder than a walk?