Does myfitnesspal factor gender in "calories burned" from exercise?
Replies
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Do the MFP calorie estimates depend on what color clothes I'm wearing? I really don't want to get this wrong.
Not sure about calories, but as for velocity...the red ones are fastah...11 -
Gender is not irrelevant. I realize that muscle mass is not some magical man-thing. And I know how physics works.
I also know that ALL estimates of calories burned are ESTIMATES. Duh. And now I know that ALL estimates on this platform are based on men, and not on women. Yes, they are still estimates. And they are estimates that fail to account for half of the population. That means for ALL women on this platform, the estimates are less good than for ALL of the men. And yes, I believe that is a problem.
Male bodies are not the default. Men's data is not "good enough" for women, especially when it is falsely presented as "neutral". My source for the "10-30%" statistic is the book "Invisible Women: Data bias in a world designed for men", which has sources, but also does not go in depth about the specific numbers because (surprise!) those numbers are very hard to find unless you are a fitness researcher or a multi-million dollar fitness platform that has the resources to search them out.
My question was asking "how good is this data for the average women?" and it has been answered. The answer is: not very good at all. Thanks to everyone for the patronizing and mansplaining along the way.
Just out of curiousity, how do you know that "all estimates on this platform are based on men"?
This will probably result in that question not being answered, but: I agree with the others that METS-based estimates like MFP are equally workable for men vs. women, with any sex-related error being much less injurious to accuracy than other factors that limit accuracy of METS-based estimates.
If you go to the site I linked in a post above, you can dive into the rabbit-hole of research for each specific exercise in the compendium, and probably see in many cases whether men or women were studied to estimate the METS values in the first place, then look at how the math is done, and decide for yourself (by really understanding, not by starting with an assumption) whether there's gender bias.
I don't mansplain: I'm a li'l ol' lady, so I don't know how. I probably patronize sometimes, although "patron" is gender-biased in its etymology, so I reject the claim on that basis.I'm female. Can I still make all the misogynistic jokes that won't go over well but are begging to be made?
Yes, please.18 -
Gender is not irrelevant. I realize that muscle mass is not some magical man-thing. And I know how physics works.
I also know that ALL estimates of calories burned are ESTIMATES. Duh. And now I know that ALL estimates on this platform are based on men, and not on women. Yes, they are still estimates. And they are estimates that fail to account for half of the population. That means for ALL women on this platform, the estimates are less good than for ALL of the men. And yes, I believe that is a problem.
Male bodies are not the default. Men's data is not "good enough" for women, especially when it is falsely presented as "neutral". My source for the "10-30%" statistic is the book "Invisible Women: Data bias in a world designed for men", which has sources, but also does not go in depth about the specific numbers because (surprise!) those numbers are very hard to find unless you are a fitness researcher or a multi-million dollar fitness platform that has the resources to search them out.
My question was asking "how good is this data for the average women?" and it has been answered. The answer is: not very good at all. Thanks to everyone for the patronizing and mansplaining along the way.
Incorrect to bolded.
The exercise database is based on public METS database, which is based on studies with BOTH men and women included. You can pick an exercise, read the study, and see those facts.
Some types of exercise lend themselves to more or all male merely because of who would join the study.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/references
Since the calorie burn values during the exercise studies is divided by their measured BMR (which is gender related) to arrive at METS, they are included in the bell curve where the avg value is chosen from.
So women did count in the resulting values. That are then converted to mass usage for this database and others.
Fitbit for example keeps the METS values and exercise (and daily step/distance activity) is per gender BMR.
And no, gender doesn't matter where moving mass is the key factor for calorie burn.
If a less muscular female of same weight as more muscular male doing some workout at same pace in endurance style - then the muscles being called on to work harder will likely burn more carbs for the female, more fat for the male - but calorie burn would be similar. The difference in efficiency (running, biking) would bigger factor than gender.15 -
LOL. Now I feel like I'm going to disappoint.4
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Do the MFP calorie estimates depend on what color clothes I'm wearing? I really don't want to get this wrong.
Not sure about calories, but as for velocity...the red ones are fastah...
THAT'S NOT TRUE!!1! This Google search says everyone who participats is fastest!5 -
Gender is not irrelevant. I realize that muscle mass is not some magical man-thing. And I know how physics works.
I also know that ALL estimates of calories burned are ESTIMATES. Duh. And now I know that ALL estimates on this platform are based on men, and not on women. Yes, they are still estimates. And they are estimates that fail to account for half of the population. That means for ALL women on this platform, the estimates are less good than for ALL of the men. And yes, I believe that is a problem.
Male bodies are not the default. Men's data is not "good enough" for women, especially when it is falsely presented as "neutral". My source for the "10-30%" statistic is the book "Invisible Women: Data bias in a world designed for men", which has sources, but also does not go in depth about the specific numbers because (surprise!) those numbers are very hard to find unless you are a fitness researcher or a multi-million dollar fitness platform that has the resources to search them out.
My question was asking "how good is this data for the average women?" and it has been answered. The answer is: not very good at all. Thanks to everyone for the patronizing and mansplaining along the way.
The reality is that the data is pretty poor for the majority of people, regardless of gender. The WHO estimated in 2016 that 40% of adults worldwide are overweight and an estimated 70% of US adults are overweight, and therefore would have similar issues with the baseline data being non-representative and need adjustment for size and body composition. This isn't mansplaining, it's pointing out that fixing the gender bias doesn't fix the broader inaccuracy of the data.10 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Do the MFP calorie estimates depend on what color clothes I'm wearing? I really don't want to get this wrong.
Not sure about calories, but as for velocity...the red ones are fastah...
THAT'S NOT TRUE!!1! This Google search says everyone who participats is fastest!
I rebut:
12 -
Gender is not irrelevant. I realize that muscle mass is not some magical man-thing. And I know how physics works.
I also know that ALL estimates of calories burned are ESTIMATES. Duh. And now I know that ALL estimates on this platform are based on men, and not on women. Yes, they are still estimates. And they are estimates that fail to account for half of the population. That means for ALL women on this platform, the estimates are less good than for ALL of the men. And yes, I believe that is a problem.
Male bodies are not the default. Men's data is not "good enough" for women, especially when it is falsely presented as "neutral". My source for the "10-30%" statistic is the book "Invisible Women: Data bias in a world designed for men", which has sources, but also does not go in depth about the specific numbers because (surprise!) those numbers are very hard to find unless you are a fitness researcher or a multi-million dollar fitness platform that has the resources to search them out.
My question was asking "how good is this data for the average women?" and it has been answered. The answer is: not very good at all. Thanks to everyone for the patronizing and mansplaining along the way.
i've read this book and don't recall a chapter specifically discussing calorie burns with relation to exercise burn9 -
Just going to give myself 5 points for Ravenclaw since I, by the skin of my teeth, was able to craft my responses cordially.14
-
For those who I've recently been made to know may need additional explanation:
The phrase “on the rag” is a slang term for menstruation. This phrase likely originated sometime during the late 19th century. When a woman was menstruating, she was “on the rag,” a phrase that literally described the way women of the day managed their menstruation.15 -
Okay serious question though, why doesn't it? I understand that it may be too complicated to factor in things like gender and height into an exercise calorie calculator, and so MET is good enough, but men do burn through exercise (even if slightly) more calories than women, don't they? If one was doing a TDEE formula, that would be accounted for, since that is based off of BMR and multipliers. For instance, my BMR on MFP is 1,846 calories a day. But if I switch my gender to female, it is 1690. If I use a TDEE calculator to include my exercise and activity (which uses a BMR that's basically identical to MFP), I get 2,870 as man and 2,613 as a female. So it essentially adds a around 100 extra calories based on my exercise activity for me being male than female.
I understand the explanation of METS being developed with both men and women, and it working as a general "good enough" for most people. And using it doesn't mean that MFP is set up for men and not women. But the idea that men and women burn somewhat different amounts doing the same exercise doesn't seem to be a wrong idea. If it is, then BMR and TDEE calculators wouldn't factor gender in the calculations.4 -
For those who I've recently been made to know may need additional explanation:
The phrase “on the rag” is a slang term for menstruation. This phrase likely originated sometime during the late 19th century. When a woman was menstruating, she was “on the rag,” a phrase that literally described the way women of the day managed their menstruation.
This made me laugh WAY too hard.6 -
For those who I've recently been made to know may need additional explanation:
The phrase “on the rag” is a slang term for menstruation. This phrase likely originated sometime during the late 19th century. When a woman was menstruating, she was “on the rag,” a phrase that literally described the way women of the day managed their menstruation.
It's currently a way to insinuate that women are being irrational or witchy due to menstruation, so I would not use it in polite conversation, or on MFP.14 -
Okay serious question though, why doesn't it? I understand that it may be too complicated to factor in things like gender and height into an exercise calorie calculator, and so MET is good enough, but men do burn through exercise (even if slightly) more calories than women, don't they? If one was doing a TDEE formula, that would be accounted for, since that is based off of BMR and multipliers. For instance, my BMR on MFP is 1,846 calories a day. But if I switch my gender to female, it is 1690. If I use a TDEE calculator to include my exercise and activity (which uses a BMR that's basically identical to MFP), I get 2,870 as man and 2,613 as a female. So it essentially adds a bit over 100 extra calories based on my exercise activity for me being male than female.
I understand the explanation of METS being developed with both men and women, and it working as a general "good enough" for most people. And using it doesn't mean that MFP is set up for men and not women. But the idea that men and women burn somewhat different amounts doing the same exercise doesn't seem to be a wrong idea. If it is, then BMR and TDEE calculators wouldn't factor gender in the calculations.
Where gender causes the biggest difference for BMR is the size of the most metabolically active organs.
Same age, height, weight - not that huge of difference.
Those organs though ....
That fact is also why the BMR formulas (like Katch) based off LBM actually show a variation between genders even though it's not a gender specific formula.
Now that's a formula worth complaining about.
Same LBM between genders is more metabolic organ for the men, more muscle for the women.
And we all know how much little extra calories muscle actually burns.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1522233
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022732
Buried in a spreadsheet somewhere is what that difference above and below the formula resulted in for reality.
3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Do the MFP calorie estimates depend on what color clothes I'm wearing? I really don't want to get this wrong.
Not sure about calories, but as for velocity...the red ones are fastah...
THAT'S NOT TRUE!!1! This Google search says everyone who participats is fastest!
I rebut:
How can I argue with this? Google, why have you failed me???5 -
Okay serious question though, why doesn't it? I understand that it may be too complicated to factor in things like gender and height into an exercise calorie calculator, and so MET is good enough, but men do burn through exercise (even if slightly) more calories than women, don't they? If one was doing a TDEE formula, that would be accounted for, since that is based off of BMR and multipliers. For instance, my BMR on MFP is 1,846 calories a day. But if I switch my gender to female, it is 1690. If I use a TDEE calculator to include my exercise and activity (which uses a BMR that's basically identical to MFP), I get 2,870 as man and 2,613 as a female. So it essentially adds a around 100 extra calories based on my exercise activity for me being male than female.
I understand the explanation of METS being developed with both men and women, and it working as a general "good enough" for most people. And using it doesn't mean that MFP is set up for men and not women. But the idea that men and women burn somewhat different amounts doing the same exercise doesn't seem to be a wrong idea. If it is, then BMR and TDEE calculators wouldn't factor gender in the calculations.
You're co-mingling a lot here. BMR between men and women of similar proportions may be different. TDEE may be different. The goal of this topic is focused on additional energy expenditure, with an emphasis on caloric expenditure differences relating to anatomy alone (all else being equal).
I won't paraphrase what OP's written, I'll just say her posits are proven incorrect. Regardless of your genitalia, running a mile is a mile, and lifting 150lbs is 150lbs.
Sad to see name calling terms like "mansplaining" come into play, especially considering a vast amount of responders are women.11 -
Okay folks, I am not asking the question "Does gender matter for calorie estimates?" The answer to that has already been determined.
Right ... it doesn't matter.That is why I am asking the question. I want to be relatively accurate in my estimates
Estimates being the key word.
When it comes to exercise, estimate low and if you're losing weight a bit too fast, estimate a little higher.
9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions