Confused...

littlelexical
littlelexical Posts: 146 Member
edited February 10 in Health and Weight Loss
Im possibly missing something really obvious here -

My MFP profile, if i set it to 'maintain current weight' says i need 2200 calories per day.

My new HRM does 'quick calories' using height/weight/Heart rate to determine calories expended... Doing 'nothing' sitting/walking around the house etc today for 4 hours - i 'burnt' 600 calories... So in 24 hours (one day) - one would think, doing the math, potentially i would need 3600 calories to maintain my weight.

My average heart rate doing 'nothing' is 75 - but it is not uncommon for it to be in the mid 50s - mid 90's (heart issues)
5ft2.5 & 107kg ish.

What are your thought?

at the moment I have my daily calorie set for 1400 to lose weight based on MFPs guides. Should i be recalculating this based on my HRM information?

Replies

  • lawlorka
    lawlorka Posts: 484 Member
    A HRM will not be accurate sitting around doing nothing - it is designed for use during steady state cardio with a sustained elevated heart rate. Do not use your HRM to try and figure out your BMR.
  • GeekAmour
    GeekAmour Posts: 262
    What have you got your activity level set to for MFP? Personally, I have MFP set to sedentary and if I had it set to give me maintenance calories, the number it would give me would be based on exactly that, a sedentary level of activity; now, I am not sedentary at all, but my fitbit tells MFP how many extra calories I have "earned" in a day through step based activity, so that original number would grow quite a bit throughout the day.

    If you do not have some sort of activity tracker, you need to set your activity level to the appropriate setting or log absolutely all the activity you do if you keep it on sedentary.

    As for your HRM, it is my understanding that they aren't intended for use when you aren't doing some sort of exercise/activity, although I could be corrected here?
  • animatorswearbras
    animatorswearbras Posts: 1,001 Member
    Agreed I have a HRM and it's not very accurate until you get into the "cardio zone" I've heard fitbits are better for general sedentary cals burned calculations. :)

    Taking into account your gender, height and weight I would say 2200 definitely seems more accurate as your maintenance. (from my amateur dieters knowledge and the fact I've found MFP fairly accurate personally ;P)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories