Fitbit calories
Options
Replies
-
If she syncs a Fitbit, MFP is not estimating her exercise calories, it's just reconciling her calorie goal with what Fitbit says her total calorie burn for the day was, so it's irrelevant whether MFP is good at estimating exercise or not.
Granted. I'll restate. Fitbits are not great and estimating calorie burn very accurately in the first place.
MFP isn't trying to establish a TDEE. It's only trying to estimate NEAT.
And how do you figure that?
All it asks is 'how active are you'?. It does not try to differentiate between TEA and NEAT.
It asks the questions that would be normal for estimating NEAT.
Define 'normal'. I ask a lot more questions than that when determining NEAT, which is probably why I get so close to the actual baseline when working these things out.If one starts with a NEAT estimate, one accounts for intentional exercise separately, such as by syncing a decent fitness tracker.
Does one though? Just from reading the majority of the posts on this forum it appears 'one' correlates well to 'most' people using myfitnesspal (on this forum at least) that don't truly understand how to create a calorie deficit as they are just using what MFP spits out at them despite the fact it does not ask enough questions to calculate their TDEE.
Which is all my point was in my original one sentence comment. Which is accurate.
Also please define 'decent' fitness tracker. Because frankly they don't know enough about the user to set as accurate as possible a starting point either.If one tells MFP setup one wishes to lose X amount of weight per week, it adjusts calorie goal by enough calories below the NEAT estimate to accomplish that.
Does it though? How could it possibly get this right? It doesn't ask enough questions to get a decent NEAT estimate in the first place. It doesn't even discuss NEAT. The newbie user is going to assume it is calculating their TDEE. Not that they probably even know what that is either.One then monitors results for 4-6 weeks, and adjusts intake, if one happens to be a person for whom statistical estimates of calorie expenditure turn out to be materially inaccurate . . . which is unusual.
Does one though? Probably not. Because they don't understand the process it takes to actually lose fat. They plug all their information into these things and expect it to be steering them in the right direction. Which your statements just further highlight that this is most likely not what is happening.
Regarding statistical estimates. These are only of value provided you have calculated everything correctly from the start.
If it's not obvious by now using the data that MFP and fitbit spit out at you as a baseline is not going to get you off to a good start.
You might as well just track what you eat for 4 to 6 weeks and then set a deficit off of those results.
Which then leads into another broad range of questions to appropriately apply a deficit.
Weight, height, age, and 'how active are you'?
Just don't cut it.
So your argument amounts to saying that a process many of us have used to great success doesn't actually work. Cool.5 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »while mfp May overestimate calorie burns for some exercises, that’s not universally true nor is the mfp exercise database the only mechanism through which to estimate calorie burns.
And who said this?Duck_Puddle wrote: »I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
Not to sure what that has to do with this thread... Nonetheless what exactly do you mean by a 'TDEE method?'
That was in reply to your vague comment that suggested [my previous comment] would be wise since mfp isn’t good at estimating “this”.
My previous comment was about a using what is typically referred to as a TDEE method (for estimating calorie intake rather than MFP’s built-in NEAT + exercise method).
I assumed your “this” and “that” were in reference to the comments to which you replied.
My mistake.1 -
a process many of us have used to great success doesn't actually work. Cool.
Define 'many'. In contrast to what? I would hazard a guess there is more people that aren't successful or I wouldn't have a job.
My statement from the start was that MFP doesn't do the best job at estimating TDEE. And I stand by that. You are the one who decided to start an 'argument'.
Just because something works for 'some' doesn't mean it will work for all.
If using the MFP data allows someone to achieve their goals great. Surely my point that in order to calculate an accurate TDEE more questions need to be asked is obvious by now. If MFP just happens to fall across a calorie intake number that actually matches up to what you require and allows you to achieve your goal.
Well that is just dumb luck.
Have you checked the Success Stories section? I mean-for just some of the successful people? Maybe you’ll get lucky and find one or two?
Have you asked about the success of the people in this thread?
Have you bothered yet to figure out how mfp establishes a calorie goal (hint: it’s not TDEE)?
Mfp works remarkably well when used as intended. Really it works as well as any other calculator including whatever questions you’re asking. Perhaps even better than most calculators and questions that assume a consistent level of activity.
But maybe it all exclusively dumb luck.
4 -
The best advice I've read is to eat half the exercise calories back. The weeks I've done that, I've felt full with a decent amount of energy and have also met my weight loss goal to a "T".
If I don't eat back around half of my exercise calories I feel sluggish a day or two later.
If I eat back all of them I end up not meeting my weight loss goals.
It's good to take your activity into account when deciding how much to eat, don't be too strict on yourself because then you lose energy and become less active which slows down everything.2 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »while mfp May overestimate calorie burns for some exercises, that’s not universally true nor is the mfp exercise database the only mechanism through which to estimate calorie burns.
And who said this?Duck_Puddle wrote: »I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
Not to sure what that has to do with this thread... Nonetheless what exactly do you mean by a 'TDEE method?'
That was in reply to your vague comment that suggested [my previous comment] would be wise since mfp isn’t good at estimating “this”.
My previous comment was about a using what is typically referred to as a TDEE method (for estimating calorie intake rather than MFP’s built-in NEAT + exercise method).
I assumed your “this” and “that” were in reference to the comments to which you replied.
My mistake.
By 'this' I was referring to calculating TDEE using alternative methods as opposed to letting myfitnesspal calculate this for you. However you are describing something, not sure what, as being a 'TDEE method'.
There is no such thing. This just sounds like a blanket term you have made up to describe using a method to calculate TDEE. This is very vague.
Please provide one single reference where anybody with any credibility in this industry, or any scientific research that has ever referred to any method for calculating TDEE as 'TDEE method'.
There is many methods.
None are 'typically', as you have said, referred to as 'TDEE methods'.
This statement is extremely vague.
This is not so much a question of scientific terminology as it is of just normal English language. "TDEE method" = method utilizing TDEE.
The remarks that provoked this odd side branch about "TDEE method" seem to be these:While as a general rule I wholeheartedly endorse this, I am thinking that OP (or someone else reading this who is looking to do the same thing) may be using a TDEE method of calculating a calorie goal (including exercise at the front end).I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
Some people use a so-called "TDEE calculator" outside of MFP to get a base calorie estimate, and subtract a percentage or flat number of calories to derive a daily calorie goal. They manually input that goal into MFP, rather than letting MFP caculate a goal for them. Because TDEE averages planned intentional exercise into the daily calorie estimate, those people then do not separately log exercise. This would, in simple English, be the "TDEE method".
That is not the method that MFP is designed for, but MFP can be used that way.
MFP's help information and instructions make it reasonably clear that intentional exercise is not included in the base calorie goal it calculates for its users. Rather, daily life activity (occupation and other necessities) are what should be considered when chosing an "activity level" in one's profile. Essentially, MFP is estimating NEAT, and subtracting a flat number of calories based on target loss rate (but subject to certain minimums), to derive a starting calorie goal. It intends that one separately log intentional exercise (whether using MFP's MET-based estimates, or some other source), or sync a tracker to do a similar adjustment. In simple English, that's a "NEAT method", or others in this thread have used the term "MFP method". It is not based on average TDEE per se.
This is common terminology in the MFP forums, and I believe understood by most users who've been participating here for even a bit. If you look back through the thread, you'll see others contrasting approaches using TDEE to the "MFP method", an equivalent reference to "NEAT method" or referring to that distinction in other informal ways. In that context, it seems perfectly reasonable to say "typically referred to as TDEE method", i.e., typically used here in the MFP forums as a plain English term for the above-described process.2 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »while mfp May overestimate calorie burns for some exercises, that’s not universally true nor is the mfp exercise database the only mechanism through which to estimate calorie burns.
And who said this?Duck_Puddle wrote: »I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
Not to sure what that has to do with this thread... Nonetheless what exactly do you mean by a 'TDEE method?'
That was in reply to your vague comment that suggested [my previous comment] would be wise since mfp isn’t good at estimating “this”.
My previous comment was about a using what is typically referred to as a TDEE method (for estimating calorie intake rather than MFP’s built-in NEAT + exercise method).
I assumed your “this” and “that” were in reference to the comments to which you replied.
My mistake.
By 'this' I was referring to calculating TDEE using alternative methods as opposed to letting myfitnesspal calculate this for you. However you are describing something, not sure what, as being a 'TDEE method'.
There is no such thing. This just sounds like a blanket term you have made up to describe using a method to calculate TDEE. This is very vague.
Please provide one single reference where anybody with any credibility in this industry, or any scientific research that has ever referred to any method for calculating TDEE as 'TDEE method'.
There is many methods.
None are 'typically', as you have said, referred to as 'TDEE methods'.
This statement is extremely vague.
No one is using any terminology that isn’t commonplace in this community-the one you’ve descended upon spewing vitriol about its members and/or the tool itself in every single post you’ve made.
You must be a troll. No one is this unnecessarily antagonistic and confrontational without even making a tiny attempt to learn the norms of the community he’s attempting to become a part of unless their sole intention is to troll and create drama.
Too bad since you apparently know everything there is to know about everything.
Perhaps others are willing to continue to play with you but I’ve already done my time this life with toddlers.3 -
EatThePopcorn wrote: »The best advice I've read is to eat half the exercise calories back. The weeks I've done that, I've felt full with a decent amount of energy and have also met my weight loss goal to a "T".
If I don't eat back around half of my exercise calories I feel sluggish a day or two later.
If I eat back all of them I end up not meeting my weight loss goals.
It's good to take your activity into account when deciding how much to eat, don't be too strict on yourself because then you lose energy and become less active which slows down everything.
Eating half is just a method some people use while they're determining how accurate the overall calorie burn estimate is. If someone is eating back half and still losing more than expected, then they'll known they need to eat more. So the advice isn't (or shouldn't be) "Eat back half," the advice should be to eat a fixed number (which may be half or 75% or even 100%), pay attention to results, and adjust from there.4 -
@Duck_Puddle As a fellow runner, I am sure you're aware of the inadvisability of running 0 miles one week and 60 the next. I do take your meaning, that it would be inconvenient to recalculate TDEE every week based on expected mileage, but in general, when one is not training for a marathon or similar, there's not as much variation as you're trying to suggest.
Both TDEE and NEAT are valid, and I hadn't considered that OP might be trying to use MFP in that manner. She's got an open food diary, though - and the discrepancy between her goal and her Fitbit number suggests that either way, she's not fueling appropriately.
1 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »@Duck_Puddle As a fellow runner, I am sure you're aware of the inadvisability of running 0 miles one week and 60 the next. I do take your meaning, that it would be inconvenient to recalculate TDEE every week based on expected mileage, but in general, when one is not training for a marathon or similar, there's not as much variation as you're trying to suggest.
Both TDEE and NEAT are valid, and I hadn't considered that OP might be trying to use MFP in that manner. She's got an open food diary, though - and the discrepancy between her goal and her Fitbit number suggests that either way, she's not fueling appropriately.
I don't know if anyone is talking about 0 one week and 60 the next, but as a long distance runner, I've had weeks where I've done 40 one week and 50 the next and that's significant enough *for me*, that I prefer to use NEAT. Other people in the same circumstance may be comfortable with TDEE, but NEAT is my preference. It also prevents me from having to recalculate my TDEE when I'm in heavier training periods. In January and February, I may be averaging 30 miles a week. In July and August, it can be more like 60 or 70.
Both are valid ways to get to the same point, it's just individual preferences and circumstances.2 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »@Duck_Puddle As a fellow runner, I am sure you're aware of the inadvisability of running 0 miles one week and 60 the next. I do take your meaning, that it would be inconvenient to recalculate TDEE every week based on expected mileage, but in general, when one is not training for a marathon or similar, there's not as much variation as you're trying to suggest.
Both TDEE and NEAT are valid, and I hadn't considered that OP might be trying to use MFP in that manner. She's got an open food diary, though - and the discrepancy between her goal and her Fitbit number suggests that either way, she's not fueling appropriately.
I wasn’t implying that the 0 and 60 would be adjacent weeks. Only attempting to illustrate to a combative & belligerent poster (not you) the reasons that method may not be preferred for me (or others like me that may have varying activity levels). It seemed subtly wasn’t the way the go with that.
Both methods are indeed valid and one should choose to use whatever works best for them.
And whichever method-one should always be fueling their activity level.
2 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »@Duck_Puddle As a fellow runner, I am sure you're aware of the inadvisability of running 0 miles one week and 60 the next. I do take your meaning, that it would be inconvenient to recalculate TDEE every week based on expected mileage, but in general, when one is not training for a marathon or similar, there's not as much variation as you're trying to suggest.
Both TDEE and NEAT are valid, and I hadn't considered that OP might be trying to use MFP in that manner. She's got an open food diary, though - and the discrepancy between her goal and her Fitbit number suggests that either way, she's not fueling appropriately.
I 100% agree with your overall point, and knowing the true diary data does give a clearer picture.
This is just a side remark about TDEE vs. NEAT as a basis, as a practical matter. (And I expect it's something you already understand, but I'm commenting for general background on the question. :flowerforyou: )
As not-a-big-person (I'm 5'5", 130s), a common day's exercise is often around 15% of my total calorie expenditure. In season, my main sport is weather-dependent (I'm a rower; certain conditions create actual danger). I know how many days I plan to row, but in season I'll often skip days to get other stuff done, rather than change exercise modes. Losing a couple of days of exercise is meaningful, in maintenance (close to 5% of TDEE when averaged over the week).
For a smaller person, it doesn't necessarily take huge variations in exercise (i.e., doesn't take that 0 miles vs. 60 extreme) to make enough difference that NEAT + exercise can be a more practical fit than TDEE, for some people. Very individual choice!
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »@Duck_Puddle As a fellow runner, I am sure you're aware of the inadvisability of running 0 miles one week and 60 the next. I do take your meaning, that it would be inconvenient to recalculate TDEE every week based on expected mileage, but in general, when one is not training for a marathon or similar, there's not as much variation as you're trying to suggest.
Both TDEE and NEAT are valid, and I hadn't considered that OP might be trying to use MFP in that manner. She's got an open food diary, though - and the discrepancy between her goal and her Fitbit number suggests that either way, she's not fueling appropriately.
I don't know if anyone is talking about 0 one week and 60 the next, but as a long distance runner, I've had weeks where I've done 40 one week and 50 the next and that's significant enough *for me*, that I prefer to use NEAT. Other people in the same circumstance may be comfortable with TDEE, but NEAT is my preference. It also prevents me from having to recalculate my TDEE when I'm in heavier training periods. In January and February, I may be averaging 30 miles a week. In July and August, it can be more like 60 or 70.
Both are valid ways to get to the same point, it's just individual preferences and circumstances.
This is me too. A 10 mile (or a bit more) change isn’t at all unusual (even when not at peak marathon training mileage) since cutback weeks are a normal thing. And that works out to a significant amount (calorie wise) for me as well. So I also prefer NEAT.
But that isn’t intended to imply TDEE isn’t a good way to go. It’s fine for people that prefer it.
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
- 390 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions