Don't believe estimated calorie burn

typicallyjazzy

I've been working out in some form every day now for 2 weeks. I usually use the Fitness Blender channel on Youtube and do their squat, cardio and ab workouts. In addition, about 3 days a week I walk on the treadmill for about an hour at 3.5 mph. The problem is I never believe that I've burned as many calories as MFP tells me I've burned. Even the Fitness Blender videos have the lowest amount of calories potentially burned and highest, yet I can't even believe I've come near the lower level of calories burned. And I am sure I am doing the exercises mostly correct. I guess I feel that if I'm not sweating super hard and unable to even walk I haven't burned 100 calories. BUT I do have a fan blasting when I do those workouts... Maybe I am in denial.

I'm currently 122 pounds, 5'3 and my estimated calorie burn walking at 3.5 mph for an hour on a treadmill is over 200 everywhere I look it up. For some reason I just can't believe I burn that much. I've probably looked at 10 different websites, as well as MFP's estimate yet I still can't believe it. Am I thinking too much into this or do I have reason to constantly doubt?

BrianSharpe

Runners World formula for net calories (ie calories directly attributed to the activity performed) burned walking:

.30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

so..........30 x 122 x 3.5 = 128.1 net calories expended

(still an approximation, the only way to know with certainty is to go to a performance lab and be tested but I suspect the RW formula - which is based on testing a reasonable number of subjects - is close enough)

Zx14chick

From what I can tell from your message, you aren't using a heart rate monitor or anything like that to measure, correct, but you are going off MFP's "estimate." I wear my heart rate monitor when I work out and sometimes I'm over and sometimes I'm under MFP's calculation, so I use my monitor.

gimpygramma

I just tried Brian's formula and it showed I had burned 246 calories walking 6.56 miles. My Fitbit gave me credit for 311 calories. I will be watching this thread to hear what others have found.

_Terrapin_

Holy guacamole; here I've ben providing a rule of thumb i.e. guideline of 1 mile=100 calories whether it's walking or running. Brian, which Runner's World month and year please.

nordeast_yah

If you want one that's way out of whack, look at "judo, karate, kick boxing tae kwan do."

It's giving me 1174 calories for 60 minutes.

Now don't get me wrong, judo practice is tough, but it's not 1174 calories worth of tough.

I generally put myself down for 500-800 depending on how many rounds I fight, but yeah -- MFP has some really miscalibrated stuff for cardio.

favoritenut

bump

meaganmna

I wear my HR monitor for all of the activities that I can, and my calorie burn is usually a lot lower than what MFP would estimate for my size. I trust the HR monitor and recommend investing in one of those! Mine doesn't work while swimming, so I use MFP's estimates for that, but I'm guessing they're a bit high...

BrianSharpe

Holy guacamole; here I've ben providing a rule of thumb i.e. guideline of 1 mile=100 calories whether it's walking or running. Brian, which Runner's World month and year please.

Here's a link to the article...........

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

_Terrapin_

If you want one that's way out of whack, look at "judo, karate, kick boxing tae kwan do."

It's giving me 1174 calories for 60 minutes.

Now don't get me wrong, judo practice is tough, but it's not 1174 calories worth of tough.

I generally put myself down for 500-800 depending on how many rounds I fight, but yeah -- MFP has some really miscalibrated stuff for cardio.

Right, but the cool thing is you can customize your numbers; best of luck.

QuietBloom

If you use MFP estimates, best to reduce them by 50 to 75% as they don't seem to differentiate between GROSS and NET burned calories.

SaberEsPoder

I think you're right...I finally got a heart rate monitor and I typically burn less than HALF what MFP says An HRM would be a good investment, or maybe only log a certain % of the calories as another person recommended.

_Terrapin_

Holy guacamole; here I've ben providing a rule of thumb i.e. guideline of 1 mile=100 calories whether it's walking or running. Brian, which Runner's World month and year please.

Here's a link to the article...........

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

Thanks Brian. Calorie burn versus net calorie burn at the end of the article is where the discrepancy was for me. As much cardio as we do I found walking 5 mph (and no I do not walk this quickly) burns more calories then running at 5 mph. Be well.

Commander_Keen

get a good HRM.

fsucrack

I have found that it really depends what machine I am doing and were I am at. My treadmil at home is not accurate with MFP, but I always rely on my HRM to give me accurate calorie burn.

moveitserenity

Recommendations for good HRMs, please?

WalkingAlong

A rough estimate of what you burn is your body weight in pounds for every 30 minutes of exercise. If you weigh 120, then maybe 240 an hour for (harder than walking 3.5mph) exercise. If you weigh 300, maybe 600 an hour.

typicallyjazzy

Thanks everyone I'll definitely look into getting a heart rate monitor. I want to be as accurate as I can. I'm down to my last 2 pounds and don't want to mess anything up.

Soo I'm looking at around 130 calories burned for an hour walk at 3.5 mph. Guess I have to up it a bit for more of a burn

MoreBean13

A rough estimate of what you burn is your body weight in pounds for every 30 minutes of exercise. If you weigh 120, then maybe 240 an hour for (harder than walking 3.5mph) exercise. If you weigh 300, maybe 600 an hour.

Nope. I weigh 145 and I can run 6.5-7 miles in an hour. 290 calories is WAY off. You can't make generalizations about exercise without taking in to account level of effort.

fleetzz

A rough estimate of what you burn is your body weight in pounds for every 30 minutes of exercise. If you weigh 120, then maybe 240 an hour for (harder than walking 3.5mph) exercise. If you weigh 300, maybe 600 an hour.

This does not take into account intensity so can be off by too much. I wouldn't use this.

Good heart rate monitors: polar monitors with a chest strap. I have the RS100, many people like the FT4. My sister has a fancy one that cost a ton and syncs with a web site and gives her pretty graphs. But get one with a chest strap, one that you can enter your age, gender, weight, height, resting heart rate and max heart rate, or even better, is able to calculate those along with your V02max (mine can't, but still works well).

I am sure there are other good heart rate monitors out there, others can comment on this.

runner359

Runners World formula for net calories (ie calories directly attributed to the activity performed) burned walking:

.30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)

so..........30 x 122 x 3.5 = 128.1 net calories expended

(still an approximation, the only way to know with certainty is to go to a performance lab and be tested but I suspect the RW formula - which is based on testing a reasonable number of subjects - is close enough)

This is correct. Old school thinking was walking and running burned the same amount. But revised estimates now estimate in accordance with this formula. Lots of places still have the old formula but the reason running burns more calories is that you are actually propelling yourself off the ground when you run. When you walk one foot is always on the ground.

ashlando

You can't put too much stock into calorie estimates. They definitely help in trying to gauge how much you should be eating daily to achieve your weight loss goals, but they are not exact.

I've been using MFP for 6+ months and have had great success with tracking food intake and calorie expenditure as it relates to my weight loss. Use the calorie tracker loosely and with a grain of salt.

I use the Nike Fuelband to help me track my overall energy expenditure throughout the day and it helps me to know where I am at for the day and if I should move more. I really like it and highly recommend it to anyone who wants a little more of a push to stay consistently active.

WalkingAlong

A rough estimate of what you burn is your body weight in pounds for every 30 minutes of exercise. If you weigh 120, then maybe 240 an hour for (harder than walking 3.5mph) exercise. If you weigh 300, maybe 600 an hour.

Nope. I weigh 145 and I can run 6.5-7 miles in an hour. 290 calories is WAY off. You can't make generalizations about exercise without taking in to account level of effort.

Every estimate comes from generalizations about effort, unless you're undergoing direct calorimetry testing during your run.

That estimate is rough and conservative and talking about an average workout, like with a warm up and cool down period and moderate effort. It's not going to apply well to sprinting for an hour or curling 3 lbs dumbbells in your chair.

knra_grl

I checked calories burned with this yesterday and I think it's more accurate than MFP

http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calories_burned.htm

MFP credited 411 for my very fast paced walk of 50 mins this site gave me 296 which I think would be more accurate

I entered the MFP credit cause I am lazy but kept in mind that it was likely off when I ate so that I wouldn't go over.