Confusion on food diary & calories burned
Options
phred_52
Posts: 189 Member
This is what confuses me...."You've earned 2,422 extra calories from exercise today"....All or most diary entries will have xxxx extra calories. Is this of any importance?
I just eat till I'm full, and do my 2hrs bike, and or treadmill, and even at 1500 cal/day, I still feel great. Just saying
160lbs is goal, currently at 180lbs...142lbs, not, be a skeleton..ouch. And my plan was to reach goal by 10/31. Oops.
4
Replies
-
Did you exercise almost 5.5 hours today?
That's what you've logged for today.
Does it not make sense to you that someone who exercises 5.5 hours in a day should eat much more than someone who doesn't exercise for ANY hours?15 -
I assume you would agree:
- A construction worker would eat more than a desk worker?
- An athlete should eat more than a sedentary person?
- An endurance athlete would eat more than a athlete who does short duration exercise?
If you do agree then what is your logic for not eating more for a very high exercise routine?
If you used a TDEE calculator wouldn't you choose an activity/exercise category that actually matches what you do or would you deliberately ignore your extensive exercise to get an artificially low calorie allowance?
If that duration is accurate and you make a habit of this exercise volume it would be ridiculous to think that you will continue "to feel great" without eating like a person who does 5 hours of exercise (I'm not including stretching as exercise).
8 -
I do notice using my apple watch and taking account of my pulse rate my calories spent are far less than any table recommends. My friend and I can be doing our spin class at what looks like the same rigourous pace but I just genetically have a lower heart rate and will register 100 less calories for the 45 minute class less then her. I am not sure how you are calculating the calories but you may be overestimating if you are in this great of shape (able to exercise 5 hours a day) your heart rate may be lower so you are burning less. My humble opinion based on no medical knowledge.1
-
Did you exercise almost 5.5 hours today?
That's what you've logged for today.
Does it not make sense to you that someone who exercises 5.5 hours in a day should eat much more than someone who doesn't exercise for ANY hours?
yes, 326 min that day. I can agree i could eat more, I just eat till full.
3 -
If that duration is accurate and you make a habit of this exercise volume it would be ridiculous to think that you will continue "to feel great" without eating like a person who does 5 hours of exercise (I'm not including stretching as exercise).
I do agree with all you said. As to the above, maybe 3 yrs makes a difference (54 to 57), but I basically felt good doing same when I originally dropped from 200 to 160.
I have this brain block going on, that if I say eat 2500 cal/day, and cut back on mainly cycling, which I love, then where would my deficit come from? Not big on weights.
4 -
Anabirgite wrote: »I do notice using my apple watch and taking account of my pulse rate my calories spent are far less than any table recommends. My friend and I can be doing our spin class at what looks like the same rigourous pace but I just genetically have a lower heart rate and will register 100 less calories for the 45 minute class less then her. I am not sure how you are calculating the calories but you may be overestimating if you are in this great of shape (able to exercise 5 hours a day) your heart rate may be lower so you are burning less. My humble opinion based on no medical knowledge.
I'm not in great shape, just a casual rider, but I do avg 18-20 mph depending. Resting HR is 80bpm. I always maintain 70% of max heart rate (114bpm), with bursts up to 90% (146). I'm usually in the 125-130 bpm. It's not always easy, but my goal is a vigorous pace.
Why waste time barely cranking pedals and only going say 10mph. I just hope my 57 yr old heart can take it, lol.
Meant as a joke, but would a Pro in the Tour De France just go 20mph? 2 -
I don't know where your deficit would come from, but my first year on MFP I lost 72.5lbs while eating ~2560 Cal a day, on average.
I was highly active by mfp's definition with a tdee of ~3255 even though i did not average anywhere even close to your level of exercise.
My only exercise was walking and I averaged just under 18K steps a day. (172.25cm, starting @ 240.6lbs, age 49-50 at the time)
You're applying a huge deficit and engaging in a lot of exercise. Faster is not always better...6 -
If that duration is accurate and you make a habit of this exercise volume it would be ridiculous to think that you will continue "to feel great" without eating like a person who does 5 hours of exercise (I'm not including stretching as exercise).
I do agree with all you said. As to the above, maybe 3 yrs makes a difference (54 to 57), but I basically felt good doing same when I originally dropped from 200 to 160.
I have this brain block going on, that if I say eat 2500 cal/day, and cut back on mainly cycling, which I love, then where would my deficit come from? Not big on weights.
No-one suggested cycling less - just eating more to keep your calorie deficit sensible.
Tour de France is just starting. Those skinny fellows are going to be struggling to maintain their weight on 5,000 to 7,000 cals a day, or even more for a bigger rider on an extreme stage.
BTW....
That you may have a low exercise HR doesn't mean your aren't burning a lot of calories, it just means your heart is pumping well. There is no direct correlation between HR and calories.
e.g. I burn approx 25% more cals at the same exercise HR now compared to when I was less fit. I've seen three people burning at the same calorie rate (measured by power) with heartrates 50% different.
Those super fit TdF riders will have relatively normal exercise HRs compared to the general population but will be capable of burning twice as many cals at the same HRs as mere mortal club riders.
7 -
If that duration is accurate and you make a habit of this exercise volume it would be ridiculous to think that you will continue "to feel great" without eating like a person who does 5 hours of exercise (I'm not including stretching as exercise).
I do agree with all you said. As to the above, maybe 3 yrs makes a difference (54 to 57), but I basically felt good doing same when I originally dropped from 200 to 160.
I have this brain block going on, that if I say eat 2500 cal/day, and cut back on mainly cycling, which I love, then where would my deficit come from? Not big on weights.
No-one suggested cycling less - just eating more to keep your calorie deficit sensible.
Tour de France is just starting. Those skinny fellows are going to be struggling to maintain their weight on 5,000 to 7,000 cals a day, or even more for a bigger rider on an extreme stage.
BTW....
That you may have a low exercise HR doesn't mean your aren't burning a lot of calories, it just means your heart is pumping well. There is no direct correlation between HR and calories.
e.g. I burn approx 25% more cals at the same exercise HR now compared to when I was less fit. I've seen three people burning at the same calorie rate (measured by power) with heartrates 50% different.
Those super fit TdF riders will have relatively normal exercise HRs compared to the general population but will be capable of burning twice as many cals at the same HRs as mere mortal club riders.
I'm curious about this... I usually track via HR (I had a Polar and recently got an Apple watch), how else would someone track their calories burned? Would it be vo2 max test? Also, as you get fitter, is it harder to reach the same high heart rate that you would get earlier in your fitness journey?1 -
If that duration is accurate and you make a habit of this exercise volume it would be ridiculous to think that you will continue "to feel great" without eating like a person who does 5 hours of exercise (I'm not including stretching as exercise).
I do agree with all you said. As to the above, maybe 3 yrs makes a difference (54 to 57), but I basically felt good doing same when I originally dropped from 200 to 160.
I have this brain block going on, that if I say eat 2500 cal/day, and cut back on mainly cycling, which I love, then where would my deficit come from? Not big on weights.
No-one suggested cycling less - just eating more to keep your calorie deficit sensible.
Tour de France is just starting. Those skinny fellows are going to be struggling to maintain their weight on 5,000 to 7,000 cals a day, or even more for a bigger rider on an extreme stage.
BTW....
That you may have a low exercise HR doesn't mean your aren't burning a lot of calories, it just means your heart is pumping well. There is no direct correlation between HR and calories.
e.g. I burn approx 25% more cals at the same exercise HR now compared to when I was less fit. I've seen three people burning at the same calorie rate (measured by power) with heartrates 50% different.
Those super fit TdF riders will have relatively normal exercise HRs compared to the general population but will be capable of burning twice as many cals at the same HRs as mere mortal club riders.
I'm curious about this... I usually track via HR (I had a Polar and recently got an Apple watch), how else would someone track their calories burned? Would it be vo2 max test? Also, as you get fitter, is it harder to reach the same high heart rate that you would get earlier in your fitness journey?
Why do you think an HR meter tracks calories? It only tracks heartrate, and what your heartrate is is easily changed by differences in temperature, in time of the month, in feeling a bit sick, thyroid meds not spot on, not slept well, lots of external factors. Plus, for anything else than steady state training (running, cycling, etc at mostly constant speed) they tend to overstate. Imagine you do a max attempt at deadlifting. You lift, your heartrate goes up big time. Then you rest. It takes a while for your heartrate comes down again. The whole time such a device counts crazy calories while you do nothing. And don't get me started on individual maxHR. 220-age, which most of those devices use don't work for about 50% of the population. Those have a lower or higher maximum heartrate, resulting in much lower or higher 'burns'.2 -
If that duration is accurate and you make a habit of this exercise volume it would be ridiculous to think that you will continue "to feel great" without eating like a person who does 5 hours of exercise (I'm not including stretching as exercise).
I do agree with all you said. As to the above, maybe 3 yrs makes a difference (54 to 57), but I basically felt good doing same when I originally dropped from 200 to 160.
I have this brain block going on, that if I say eat 2500 cal/day, and cut back on mainly cycling, which I love, then where would my deficit come from? Not big on weights.
No-one suggested cycling less - just eating more to keep your calorie deficit sensible.
Tour de France is just starting. Those skinny fellows are going to be struggling to maintain their weight on 5,000 to 7,000 cals a day, or even more for a bigger rider on an extreme stage.
BTW....
That you may have a low exercise HR doesn't mean your aren't burning a lot of calories, it just means your heart is pumping well. There is no direct correlation between HR and calories.
e.g. I burn approx 25% more cals at the same exercise HR now compared to when I was less fit. I've seen three people burning at the same calorie rate (measured by power) with heartrates 50% different.
Those super fit TdF riders will have relatively normal exercise HRs compared to the general population but will be capable of burning twice as many cals at the same HRs as mere mortal club riders.
I'm curious about this... I usually track via HR (I had a Polar and recently got an Apple watch), how else would someone track their calories burned? Would it be vo2 max test? Also, as you get fitter, is it harder to reach the same high heart rate that you would get earlier in your fitness journey?
@naomi8888
HR is easy to measure so is used as a rough proxy for oxygen uptake during cardio exercise (which is difficult to measure outside a lab).
Which is fine if you happen to have an "average exercise HR". But many, many people are not average in terms of RHR, exercise HR, max HR.
Cycling is an exercise where power measurements can be used to very closely estimate calorie burns.
Power meters are great training tools but have happy benefit of also estimating net calorie burns very well.
RHR changes a lot as you get fitter (mine dropped 20% from being fairly fit to very fit) but I don't believe your actual max HR changes that much but someone better qualified than me might like to comment (calling @Azdak )
Personally I got more comfortable approaching my true (tested) max HR as I got fitter, getting there and not dying boosted my confidence I suppose!
It still feels just as hard but in the physics sense I'm doing more work to get there (hence increased power, better performance at the same HR).
1 -
If that duration is accurate and you make a habit of this exercise volume it would be ridiculous to think that you will continue "to feel great" without eating like a person who does 5 hours of exercise (I'm not including stretching as exercise).
I do agree with all you said. As to the above, maybe 3 yrs makes a difference (54 to 57), but I basically felt good doing same when I originally dropped from 200 to 160.
I have this brain block going on, that if I say eat 2500 cal/day, and cut back on mainly cycling, which I love, then where would my deficit come from? Not big on weights.
No-one suggested cycling less - just eating more to keep your calorie deficit sensible.
Tour de France is just starting. Those skinny fellows are going to be struggling to maintain their weight on 5,000 to 7,000 cals a day, or even more for a bigger rider on an extreme stage.
BTW....
That you may have a low exercise HR doesn't mean your aren't burning a lot of calories, it just means your heart is pumping well. There is no direct correlation between HR and calories.
e.g. I burn approx 25% more cals at the same exercise HR now compared to when I was less fit. I've seen three people burning at the same calorie rate (measured by power) with heartrates 50% different.
Those super fit TdF riders will have relatively normal exercise HRs compared to the general population but will be capable of burning twice as many cals at the same HRs as mere mortal club riders.
I'm curious about this... I usually track via HR (I had a Polar and recently got an Apple watch), how else would someone track their calories burned? Would it be vo2 max test? Also, as you get fitter, is it harder to reach the same high heart rate that you would get earlier in your fitness journey?
Why do you think an HR meter tracks calories? It only tracks heartrate, and what your heartrate is is easily changed by differences in temperature, in time of the month, in feeling a bit sick, thyroid meds not spot on, not slept well, lots of external factors. Plus, for anything else than steady state training (running, cycling, etc at mostly constant speed) they tend to overstate. Imagine you do a max attempt at deadlifting. You lift, your heartrate goes up big time. Then you rest. It takes a while for your heartrate comes down again. The whole time such a device counts crazy calories while you do nothing. And don't get me started on individual maxHR. 220-age, which most of those devices use don't work for about 50% of the population. Those have a lower or higher maximum heartrate, resulting in much lower or higher 'burns'.
Good question... I have always assumed that the calories counts on the watches calculated from something... I do usually go with the 220-age formula because I wouldn't know what else to do. I don't tend to use HR for anything other than cardio but I do some interval training. I suppose there's probably no easy way to track your calorie burns though.0 -
If that duration is accurate and you make a habit of this exercise volume it would be ridiculous to think that you will continue "to feel great" without eating like a person who does 5 hours of exercise (I'm not including stretching as exercise).
I do agree with all you said. As to the above, maybe 3 yrs makes a difference (54 to 57), but I basically felt good doing same when I originally dropped from 200 to 160.
I have this brain block going on, that if I say eat 2500 cal/day, and cut back on mainly cycling, which I love, then where would my deficit come from? Not big on weights.
No-one suggested cycling less - just eating more to keep your calorie deficit sensible.
Tour de France is just starting. Those skinny fellows are going to be struggling to maintain their weight on 5,000 to 7,000 cals a day, or even more for a bigger rider on an extreme stage.
BTW....
That you may have a low exercise HR doesn't mean your aren't burning a lot of calories, it just means your heart is pumping well. There is no direct correlation between HR and calories.
e.g. I burn approx 25% more cals at the same exercise HR now compared to when I was less fit. I've seen three people burning at the same calorie rate (measured by power) with heartrates 50% different.
Those super fit TdF riders will have relatively normal exercise HRs compared to the general population but will be capable of burning twice as many cals at the same HRs as mere mortal club riders.
I'm curious about this... I usually track via HR (I had a Polar and recently got an Apple watch), how else would someone track their calories burned? Would it be vo2 max test? Also, as you get fitter, is it harder to reach the same high heart rate that you would get earlier in your fitness journey?
Why do you think an HR meter tracks calories? It only tracks heartrate, and what your heartrate is is easily changed by differences in temperature, in time of the month, in feeling a bit sick, thyroid meds not spot on, not slept well, lots of external factors. Plus, for anything else than steady state training (running, cycling, etc at mostly constant speed) they tend to overstate. Imagine you do a max attempt at deadlifting. You lift, your heartrate goes up big time. Then you rest. It takes a while for your heartrate comes down again. The whole time such a device counts crazy calories while you do nothing. And don't get me started on individual maxHR. 220-age, which most of those devices use don't work for about 50% of the population. Those have a lower or higher maximum heartrate, resulting in much lower or higher 'burns'.
Good question... I have always assumed that the calories counts on the watches calculated from something... I do usually go with the 220-age formula because I wouldn't know what else to do. I don't tend to use HR for anything other than cardio but I do some interval training. I suppose there's probably no easy way to track your calorie burns though.
A maxHr test to see if this equation makes sense is very strenuous, and only works if you're really fit. Maybe you could go with doing cardio at different paces for a while and note down your heartrate ranges.
slow: you can go on for ages and talk to someone while doing so, or singing along with your music
fast: nope, you can't talk anymore at all
middle: somewhere inbetween
I'm sure @sijomial has a better idea than this though
0 -
If that duration is accurate and you make a habit of this exercise volume it would be ridiculous to think that you will continue "to feel great" without eating like a person who does 5 hours of exercise (I'm not including stretching as exercise).
I do agree with all you said. As to the above, maybe 3 yrs makes a difference (54 to 57), but I basically felt good doing same when I originally dropped from 200 to 160.
I have this brain block going on, that if I say eat 2500 cal/day, and cut back on mainly cycling, which I love, then where would my deficit come from? Not big on weights.
No-one suggested cycling less - just eating more to keep your calorie deficit sensible.
Tour de France is just starting. Those skinny fellows are going to be struggling to maintain their weight on 5,000 to 7,000 cals a day, or even more for a bigger rider on an extreme stage.
BTW....
That you may have a low exercise HR doesn't mean your aren't burning a lot of calories, it just means your heart is pumping well. There is no direct correlation between HR and calories.
e.g. I burn approx 25% more cals at the same exercise HR now compared to when I was less fit. I've seen three people burning at the same calorie rate (measured by power) with heartrates 50% different.
Those super fit TdF riders will have relatively normal exercise HRs compared to the general population but will be capable of burning twice as many cals at the same HRs as mere mortal club riders.
I'm curious about this... I usually track via HR (I had a Polar and recently got an Apple watch), how else would someone track their calories burned? Would it be vo2 max test? Also, as you get fitter, is it harder to reach the same high heart rate that you would get earlier in your fitness journey?
@naomi8888
HR is easy to measure so is used as a rough proxy for oxygen uptake during cardio exercise (which is difficult to measure outside a lab).
Which is fine if you happen to have an "average exercise HR". But many, many people are not average in terms of RHR, exercise HR, max HR.
Cycling is an exercise where power measurements can be used to very closely estimate calorie burns.
Power meters are great training tools but have happy benefit of also estimating net calorie burns very well.
RHR changes a lot as you get fitter (mine dropped 20% from being fairly fit to very fit) but I don't believe your actual max HR changes that much but someone better qualified than me might like to comment (calling @Azdak )
Personally I got more comfortable approaching my true (tested) max HR as I got fitter, getting there and not dying boosted my confidence I suppose!
It still feels just as hard but in the physics sense I'm doing more work to get there (hence increased power, better performance at the same HR).
Interesting thanks! Maybe one day I'll test my power output cycling as I do cycle about four hours per week.0 -
If that duration is accurate and you make a habit of this exercise volume it would be ridiculous to think that you will continue "to feel great" without eating like a person who does 5 hours of exercise (I'm not including stretching as exercise).
I do agree with all you said. As to the above, maybe 3 yrs makes a difference (54 to 57), but I basically felt good doing same when I originally dropped from 200 to 160.
I have this brain block going on, that if I say eat 2500 cal/day, and cut back on mainly cycling, which I love, then where would my deficit come from? Not big on weights.
No-one suggested cycling less - just eating more to keep your calorie deficit sensible.
Tour de France is just starting. Those skinny fellows are going to be struggling to maintain their weight on 5,000 to 7,000 cals a day, or even more for a bigger rider on an extreme stage.
BTW....
That you may have a low exercise HR doesn't mean your aren't burning a lot of calories, it just means your heart is pumping well. There is no direct correlation between HR and calories.
e.g. I burn approx 25% more cals at the same exercise HR now compared to when I was less fit. I've seen three people burning at the same calorie rate (measured by power) with heartrates 50% different.
Those super fit TdF riders will have relatively normal exercise HRs compared to the general population but will be capable of burning twice as many cals at the same HRs as mere mortal club riders.
I'm curious about this... I usually track via HR (I had a Polar and recently got an Apple watch), how else would someone track their calories burned? Would it be vo2 max test? Also, as you get fitter, is it harder to reach the same high heart rate that you would get earlier in your fitness journey?
@naomi8888
HR is easy to measure so is used as a rough proxy for oxygen uptake during cardio exercise (which is difficult to measure outside a lab).
Which is fine if you happen to have an "average exercise HR". But many, many people are not average in terms of RHR, exercise HR, max HR.
Cycling is an exercise where power measurements can be used to very closely estimate calorie burns.
Power meters are great training tools but have happy benefit of also estimating net calorie burns very well.
RHR changes a lot as you get fitter (mine dropped 20% from being fairly fit to very fit) but I don't believe your actual max HR changes that much but someone better qualified than me might like to comment (calling @Azdak )
Personally I got more comfortable approaching my true (tested) max HR as I got fitter, getting there and not dying boosted my confidence I suppose!
It still feels just as hard but in the physics sense I'm doing more work to get there (hence increased power, better performance at the same HR).
Interesting thanks! Maybe one day I'll test my power output cycling as I do cycle about four hours per week.
I used a power meter equipped indoor trainer to fine tune the settings on the HRM I used back then and got it to the point where for steady state riding it was pretty close, for intervals though its estimates were still a long way off.2 -
All good replies and explanations, thanks. Accurate or not, I do the 220 less 57(age), max heart rate 163. Being I love to cycle, I try to get in 2hrs daily with HR at least at 75-80% (114 to 130bpm), I'm cheap, so I use what bike says, the do finger test.
From Naomi8888: "Also, as you get fitter, is it harder to reach the same high heart rate that you would get earlier in your fitness journey?
When I did spin classes (1hr) 3 yrs ago, i was fit, 68", 160lb, 16% BF if that matters. During intervals, I could get my HR up to 160 + for maybe 45 second burst. Just up up tension, crank at 90 plus rotations, then pray my heart wouldn't burst .
As far as cal burned, distance, etc, just numbers to look, not gospel so to speak.
Lastly, I just googled the Tour or Pro cyclists just to see, though I had a good idea. All is good
0 -
'Vigorous' riding isn't usually sustainable. Unless you're out of the saddle frequently putting 3-4 watt per kg through the pedals non stop for over 2 hours than you're probably overestimating the effort level.
Unless of course you're Mark Cavendish or Peter Sagan
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions