Exercise how do you know how many calories

stophiding

In the daily diary it has a section for exercise and ive been trying to work out if i have to manually add it, do i have to google activities and time and get the calories burned and add it in myself?
Im surprised i cant find a check like the food has whivh has hot me thinking perhaps its there?

lgfrie

For most activities, there's an entry in the Exercise database. For instance, if you choose "Walking 2.0 mph - slow pace" it will calculate your calories as minutes x 4.7, so you enter the minutes and it works out the calories.

However, it does let you override the calculation by entering time and calories if you want.

I used to use MFP's calorie suggestion for exercise, but lately I've been doing my own calculation - 7 calories per minute for light/moderate cardio. You are always free to accept the multiplier it offers if that works for you, but not required.

AnnPT77

lgfrie wrote: »

For most activities, there's an entry in the Exercise database. For instance, if you choose "Walking 2.0 mph - slow pace" it will calculate your calories as minutes x 4.7, so you enter the minutes and it works out the calories.

However, it does let you override the calculation by entering time and calories if you want.

I used to use MFP's calorie suggestion for exercise, but lately I've been doing my own calculation - 7 calories per minute for light/moderate cardio. You are always free to choose a multiplier that works for you, but not required.

MFP's calculation is not the same calories per minute for everyone, though. It uses METS estimating, with (mostly) research-based METS values for each exercise. The calorie count per minute varies with bodyweight. Simplistically, it's (Estimated BMR per hour) x (Bodyweight in kg) x (METS value) = calorie estimate.

It has its limitations, but it is scaled to the bodyweight you record in MFP via BMR estimate based on your MFP profile data & weight settings.

https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home

spiriteagle99

Once you've used an entry in the database, it will show up in a list the way food does, so you don't have to research each time, just enter the time spent doing the exercise. It is simple to use, once you've found the basic entries.

unstableunicorn

If you’re logging cardio it will automatically calculate an estimate based on your stats, and the type/length of activity. With that said, assume you burned half the calories MFP suggests as it is notorious for overestimating calories burned.

Strength exercise is subjected to substantially more variables, so even the most “accurate” calculator on the internet won’t give you reliable calorie numbers. MFP does not provide calorie info on strength exercise because of this. You can log it simply to monitor your progress over time if you want though.

lgfrie

AnnPT77 wrote: »

lgfrie wrote: »

For most activities, there's an entry in the Exercise database. For instance, if you choose "Walking 2.0 mph - slow pace" it will calculate your calories as minutes x 4.7, so you enter the minutes and it works out the calories.

However, it does let you override the calculation by entering time and calories if you want.

I used to use MFP's calorie suggestion for exercise, but lately I've been doing my own calculation - 7 calories per minute for light/moderate cardio. You are always free to choose a multiplier that works for you, but not required.

MFP's calculation is not the same calories per minute for everyone, though. It uses METS estimating, with (mostly) research-based METS values for each exercise. The calorie count per minute varies with bodyweight. Simplistically, it's (Estimated BMR per hour) x (Bodyweight in kg) x (METS value) = calorie estimate.

It has its limitations, but it is scaled to the bodyweight you record in MFP via BMR estimate based on your MFP profile data & weight settings.

https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home

good link tnx

MFP's estimate of my calories burned per minute of cardio has been creeping down with my weight loss, so indeed it is using a weight-based algorithm. It's just that both MFP and my various machines give me estimates that are in poignant disagreement with each other and all seem too high. When I informally averaged all the numbers and then knocked 20 % off to be on the safe side, I got 7 cals/minute; it used to be more like 8-9 cals/min when I was heavier. So I just log 420 cals/hr for general working out in the area of 0.65 - 0.7 of max HR. Of note, MFP awards me 485 cals for that same 1 hr workout for which I take 420, and my machines give me around 600 LOL Lately I've been eating back all the exercise cals, as opposed to previously when I only ate half, so I don't want the exercise logging to be excessively high or it will negatively impact my weight loss efforts. My gut sense is that 400-ish cals per hour is about right for a moderate intensity 1 hr workout, at 247 lbs. If it's off, it's likely not off by enough to materially impact my weight loss.

So I was just making the point that if the OP is struggling with the MFP exercise logging tool, there's a simplified way it could be done, although the multiplier chosen would have to be weight-specific, as you say.

Strudders67

I've found MFP to be fairly accurate on calories for walking, as long as I'm accurate about my speed. I assume the same would be true for running as that's just like walking at a faster speed.

But I definitely get fewer calories now than I did when I started on here three years ago. I now have to walk much further to earn myself a chocolate biscuit!

Neil7905

stophiding wrote: »

In the daily diary it has a section for exercise and ive been trying to work out if i have to manually add it, do i have to google activities and time and get the calories burned and add it in myself?
Im surprised i cant find a check like the food has whivh has hot me thinking perhaps its there?

hiya, I use Garmin connect, which connects to MFP.

AnnPT77

lgfrie wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

lgfrie wrote: »

For most activities, there's an entry in the Exercise database. For instance, if you choose "Walking 2.0 mph - slow pace" it will calculate your calories as minutes x 4.7, so you enter the minutes and it works out the calories.

However, it does let you override the calculation by entering time and calories if you want.

I used to use MFP's calorie suggestion for exercise, but lately I've been doing my own calculation - 7 calories per minute for light/moderate cardio. You are always free to choose a multiplier that works for you, but not required.

MFP's calculation is not the same calories per minute for everyone, though. It uses METS estimating, with (mostly) research-based METS values for each exercise. The calorie count per minute varies with bodyweight. Simplistically, it's (Estimated BMR per hour) x (Bodyweight in kg) x (METS value) = calorie estimate.

It has its limitations, but it is scaled to the bodyweight you record in MFP via BMR estimate based on your MFP profile data & weight settings.

https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home

good link tnx

MFP's estimate of my calories burned per minute of cardio has been creeping down with my weight loss, so indeed it is using a weight-based algorithm. It's just that both MFP and my various machines give me estimates that are in poignant disagreement with each other and all seem too high. When I informally averaged all the numbers and then knocked 20 % off to be on the safe side, I got 7 cals/minute; it used to be more like 8-9 cals/min when I was heavier. So I just log 420 cals/hr for general working out in the area of 0.65 - 0.7 of max HR. Of note, MFP awards me 485 cals for that same 1 hr workout for which I take 420, and my machines give me around 600 LOL Lately I've been eating back all the exercise cals, as opposed to previously when I only ate half, so I don't want the exercise logging to be excessively high or it will negatively impact my weight loss efforts. My gut sense is that 400-ish cals per hour is about right for a moderate intensity 1 hr workout, at 247 lbs. If it's off, it's likely not off by enough to materially impact my weight loss.

So I was just making the point that if the OP is struggling with the MFP exercise logging tool, there's a simplified way it could be done, although the multiplier chosen would have to be weight-specific, as you say.

I have absolutely no argument with any of that, or generally with any method anyone chooses to use for themselves, that doesn't result in unhealthy or unsustainable loss rates, or seem to be a cross-purposes to their stated objectives.

I even thought it possible/probable that you understood the basis for MFP's exercise estimating approach, but commented to clarify for the newer OP (and maybe others new) how this works.

Even some people who've been around for a while seem to believe that MFP pulled this exercise estimating methodology out of somebody's patootie, when it's actually a research-based framework. (I do suspect the METS values for some certain exercises are either outdated, or otherwise whacky. No, I'm pretty sure of that. )

I think it's useful to understand the pros and cons of different estimating approaches (yeah, I'm kind of a nerd/geek). One advantage of your "calories per minute rule of thumb" method is its simplicity, and it makes sense that you'd want to explain it to others as one option.

Like I said, the METS methodology, especially as implemented her in MFP, has limitations, in my understanding:

For one, the METS value includes BMR, when for MFP use we'd really prefer it to be net exercise calories rather than gross calories. This is no big deal for normal short and somewhat intense exercise (because the BMR is a small fraction of the total, and the total a small fraction of the person's day). But for longer, not very intense excercise (like slow walking), BMR can be a fairly large percentage of the exercise calories; and for very long (multi-hour) exercise of any sort, the BMR number can be a larger fraction of the daily calories so meaningful as an absolute value. Of course, one can back roughly estimated BMR calories out of these pretty easily, if that's desired, to get net rather than gross.

(FWIW, this is one (of potentially many) problems with some other sources of exercise estimates, too: That they give us gross rather than net calorie estimates. And some machines that don't know our demographics are making assumptions about weight/age/HR range etc., besides.)

For two, it seems to me that METS estimating is pretty squishy for anything that has either meaningful efficiency differences between people, or variable, subjective intensity . . . even when MFP offers several levels in the database. Take aerobics. The database has around 8 levels, some of which are:

Aerobics, general
Aerobics, high impact
Aerobics, low impact
etc.
(Yes, the METS values vary).

I don't know whether you've ever been in an aerobics class, but I have. I'm quite certain that some people are working way harder than others, so would burn more calories even if at the same body weight. And from talking to people over the years, I'm fairly convinced there's not a high correlation between some people's perception of their intensity, and their actual intensity. So, I'm sure that even if the METS value is a correct mean value from research, in the real world there's a lot of variation around the mean (higher standard deviation), in practice.

It kind of doesn't matter, though: Any consistent exercise estimating methodology, alongside a semi-consistent exercise schedule, can work fine for calorie counting . . . in the context where people evaluate their results and adjust their intake based on those results.

A nice thing about the Compendium site I liked is that one can delve into the basis for different estimates, or use it as a basis to create one's own personal exercise entries, with or without the BMR estimate included. I believe, once one creates a personal exercise, MRP scales it similarly to the way it does other exercises. I know it does that for duration; I'm not as certain that it adjusts for changes in estimated BMR (I haven't tested that because it's not important to me, in how I estimate exercise).

Best wishes!

AnnPT77

unstableunicorn wrote: »

If you’re logging cardio it will automatically calculate an estimate based on your stats, and the type/length of activity. With that said, assume you burned half the calories MFP suggests as it is notorious for overestimating calories burned.

Strength exercise is subjected to substantially more variables, so even the most “accurate” calculator on the internet won’t give you reliable calorie numbers. MFP does not provide calorie info on strength exercise because of this. You can log it simply to monitor your progress over time if you want though.

MFP does provide a calorie estimate for strength training. It's in the cardiovascular section, because the cardiovascular section is the part of the app that will estimate exercise calories. It assume a normal rep/set kind of strength training, with normal rest periods between sets, so you use the whole workout time.

The MFP strength training section is just for rep/set counts (and there are better apps for doing that, frankly). MFP's estimate for strength training, IMO, is one of the better things to use for estimating that . . . it doesn't give many calories.