Calories on treadmill question
Replies
-
One of the rare calculator that differentiates gross vs net calories.
I assume that all calories expenditures published on MFP are net?
@saintor1
No.
They are based on METS (at least the ones sourced from the Compendium, of Physical Activities) and METS are gross estimates.
How significant that is to the exercise done and the individual doing the exercise is very varied.
Am I alone to think that MFP using the gross calories is mathematically incorrect?
After all if you just sit in the next hour, you'll spend the calories of let's say average 70 calories or 1680 calories a day for your basal needs. If you go biking for an hour and it is known to be 600 calories gross, this would duplicate those calories and iwhat should be added is 530 calories, am I missing something?
I guess we go with gross because it is simpler and at top a nearly negligible difference in overall result.
Always good when you can ask and answer your own question. 👍🏻
0 -
One of the rare calculator that differentiates gross vs net calories.
I assume that all calories expenditures published on MFP are net?
@saintor1
No.
They are based on METS (at least the ones sourced from the Compendium, of Physical Activities) and METS are gross estimates.
How significant that is to the exercise done and the individual doing the exercise is very varied.
Am I alone to think that MFP using the gross calories is mathematically incorrect?
After all if you just sit in the next hour, you'll spend the calories of let's say average 70 calories or 1680 calories a day for your basal needs. If you go biking for an hour and it is known to be 600 calories gross, this would duplicate those calories and iwhat should be added is 530 calories, am I missing something?
I guess we go with gross because it is simpler and at top a nearly negligible difference in overall result.
Always good when you can ask and answer your own question. 👍🏻
What kind of #!@ reply is that. The only reference to a question was "Am I alone to think...."
0 -
weight3049 wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »https://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
This is my favorite calculator for walking and running. It will calculate gross or net calories burned, and even takes incline into account.
What are you suppose to enter for grade? I assume that means incline?
Yeah, that's your incline. I used to have some angle/incline/grade calculator links, but I experimented with various inputs to find that so long as you climb the hills you went down, it tends to even out. On the treadmill, I have a block under the hind end to allow for decline running. I had calculations all worked out to make sure I ran downhill as much as up. I haven't played with that for a long time, so I deleted my links. The block is still under the back of the treadmill, though, and level is at Incline 6. Ha!
0 -
I also have a $1000 treadmill that has no place to input weight. It says that I burn 900 calories an hour running at 6 mph. No. I've always used MFPs calculations for walking and running instead and find them pretty accurate. If anything, they understate the calories I burn because I don't include incline. I eat back 100% of my exercise calories and have maintained my weight for several years.
1 -
One of the rare calculator that differentiates gross vs net calories.
I assume that all calories expenditures published on MFP are net?
@saintor1
No.
They are based on METS (at least the ones sourced from the Compendium, of Physical Activities) and METS are gross estimates.
How significant that is to the exercise done and the individual doing the exercise is very varied.
Am I alone to think that MFP using the gross calories is mathematically incorrect?
After all if you just sit in the next hour, you'll spend the calories of let's say average 70 calories or 1680 calories a day for your basal needs. If you go biking for an hour and it is known to be 600 calories gross, this would duplicate those calories and iwhat should be added is 530 calories, am I missing something?
I guess we go with gross because it is simpler and at top a nearly negligible difference in overall result.
It is incorrect math.
Syncing a tracker negates the issue though - so perhaps that's why no desire to correct it now.
But it's not even BMR level burn that should be removed.
MFP is already accounting for a per day/hour/min burn based on your Activity level, so BMR x 1.25, 1.4, 1.6, 1.75.
What exercise adds above THAT figure would actually be correct for the exercise database to add when a workout is logged in the absence of a tracker sync.
Now that potentially higher amount of accounted for burn can make a difference.
You do a low level calorie burn workout for a long time - say walking 3mph for 1 hr in a day that burns 236 Gross calories for 150 lb person.
But MFP already accounted for in eating goal burning BMR 72 x 1.4 = 100.
Mighty close to that 50% people say to take off based on experience.
And yes - MFP has all the required figures to easily present a calorie burn from the database that includes that math already.1 -
to the OP, you could wear a heart rate monitor and figure your calorie burn based on heart rate. i use a chest belt monitor - i find them to be accurate during activity, assuming you don't get a lemon.MFP is already accounting for a per day/hour/min burn based on your Activity level, so BMR x 1.25, 1.4, 1.6, 1.75.
What exercise adds above THAT figure would actually be correct for the exercise database to add when a workout is logged in the absence of a tracker sync.
not necessarily. i choose sedentary and add my exercise. it works well for me, but everyone has their own thing that's best for them.
0 -
One of the rare calculator that differentiates gross vs net calories.
I assume that all calories expenditures published on MFP are net?
@saintor1
No.
They are based on METS (at least the ones sourced from the Compendium, of Physical Activities) and METS are gross estimates.
How significant that is to the exercise done and the individual doing the exercise is very varied.
Am I alone to think that MFP using the gross calories is mathematically incorrect?
After all if you just sit in the next hour, you'll spend the calories of let's say average 70 calories or 1680 calories a day for your basal needs. If you go biking for an hour and it is known to be 600 calories gross, this would duplicate those calories and iwhat should be added is 530 calories, am I missing something?
I guess we go with gross because it is simpler and at top a nearly negligible difference in overall result.
It is incorrect math.
Syncing a tracker negates the issue though - so perhaps that's why no desire to correct it now.
But it's not even BMR level burn that should be removed.
MFP is already accounting for a per day/hour/min burn based on your Activity level, so BMR x 1.25, 1.4, 1.6, 1.75.
What exercise adds above THAT figure would actually be correct for the exercise database to add when a workout is logged in the absence of a tracker sync.
If I got you right, instead of deducting the 70calories in the example as BMR, it would be 70 x activity level factor. It makes sense.0 -
zebasschick wrote: »to the OP, you could wear a heart rate monitor and figure your calorie burn based on heart rate. i use a chest belt monitor - i find them to be accurate during activity, assuming you don't get a lemon.MFP is already accounting for a per day/hour/min burn based on your Activity level, so BMR x 1.25, 1.4, 1.6, 1.75.
What exercise adds above THAT figure would actually be correct for the exercise database to add when a workout is logged in the absence of a tracker sync.
not necessarily. i choose sedentary and add my exercise. it works well for me, but everyone has their own thing that's best for them.
Actually, in the sense of accuracy of how workout figures should be logged - what I said is correct.
Sedentary slightly lessens the issue, not doing long slow calorie burn workouts also lessens the issue.
But it is a math issue none-the-less whether it happens to work out of the gate or not for you.
You may or may not ever be effected by it, because there is of course the other side of the equation - accuracy in logging eaten food.
And the fact you may not actually be sedentary which many aren't means you are just shifting the inaccuracy to a different place and it works for you.
I wasn't discussing what works for someone - I was replying to how it is done and what would be more accurate.1
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