The calories burned counter on here looks overly optimistic

lemurcat12

1500 non exercise TDEE for a woman does not seem reasonable to me unless you're in a coma for 75% of the day

She's 5'3, 133. It's what the calculators give for someone of her age. I'm older than her, and the same height, and if I were to hit my goal weight sometime after my next birthday, the estimate for my TDEE without exercise would be 1391! That's based on a BMR of 1160. Even with 5 times a week of intense exercise it's only 1797. Sigh, now I'm depressed.

cyberlucy

As long as you are accurate with your calories (weighing portions) AND realistic about the effort expended, you should be able to eat back the caloires - I have eaten back my calories and lost 42lb with no trouble at all.

But you MUST weigh everything, and you must be realistic about effort - have you really walked briskly, or are you worn out and sweaty because you are out of condition? was it vigourous aerobics or was it your first ever class?

It's vigorous for people who are obese although probably not that vigorous for people who are fit. You have to remember it from that perspective.

bexcobham

So, the fact that a woman needs 2000 calories a day is wrong, which I have suspected for ages.

no wonder so many people are overweight.

So, you don't know the definition of the word "average" then?...as in on "average" females need roughly 2,000 calories....meaning there will be individuals who fall below and go above that average?

My wife is 5'3" and 39 y.o. and maintains on roughly 2300 calories per day. The "average" male needs around 2500 calories to maintain...without exercise I need around 2300 - 2400...with my exercise I need around 2800 or so...right now, it's actually around 3000 - 3200 because I'm training like a boss.

The point I was trying to make is that the NHS states that 2000 calories a day is what women should be eating. People are just going to follow the advice that their GP or nurse gives them and they will wonder why they are gaining weight if they aren't 'average'. All their literature recommends 2000 cals a day for a woman to maintain weight.

It's also interesting to find out that sedentary doesn't mean you do a desk job. I thought it would mean someone who sits at a desk all day, drives everywhere and doesn't exercise.

bexcobham

1500 non exercise TDEE for a woman does not seem reasonable to me unless you're in a coma for 75% of the day

She's 5'3, 133. It's what the calculators give for someone of her age. I'm older than her, and the same height, and if I were to hit my goal weight sometime after my next birthday, the estimate for my TDEE without exercise would be 1391! That's based on a BMR of 1160. Even with 5 times a week of intense exercise it's only 1797. Sigh, now I'm depressed.

You know where I'm coming from. We shorties don't seem to need as much food as taller people. It only gets worse as you get older. I imagine I will have to survive on one apple and a slice of bread per day by the time I'm 60. ;-)

Mrsbeale11

Can you please stop talking about endomorphs I don't beleive in that stuff and don't even know what it means anyways and won't read to find out. If you describe it here I won't bother either but will just exit the thread.

I think you need a bowl of ice cream because I don't think you realize just how petulant that sounded. Is this your normal demeanor or are you having a bad day?

Probably will only make sense to those in the UK "around a certain age" ..... but this was always the best morph....

I got this )

heybales

For example - a 5km run with my polar reports around 400 calories. MFP / Runkeeper etc reports closer to 750.

Now .... I'm quite a big guy .... 225lbs (down from 281) and 180cm tall. All of these apps know my age (42), height and weight .... but only the HRM takes account of my usual resting heart rate.

Despite my size, I run a lot ...... 4-5 times per week and my resting HR is 59bpm. My cardio fitness is therefore (I guess) better than the average 225lbs 180cm 42 year old male.

For me therefore, I take the Polar as being the likely most accurate...... heck, I've even sat in my armchair for an hour wearing it to see the reported calorie burn at rest (90kcals). If I multiply that "sitting on my butt time" by 24 hours, ir indicates a 2160kcals per day.

Now - if I'm running for an hour, I'll just subtract 90 of the reported calories from what the HRM shows (since I'd have burned 90 anyway by doing nothing) ... and will just record the "additional benefit" from the workout.....

Several points that might be interesting for others too.

For getting NET calorie burn, above and beyond what would be burned resting - that is correct method to handle the Gross burn given by almost everything.
But interestingly, while in a diet watching calories, and your eating goal is based on your daily burn, you have a bigger number that you are already accounted and expected to burn every hour.
MFP - Home - Goals - calories burned in daily activity. That figure / 24 = calories already expected to be burned. Subtract that from what the HRM says for what you might say is truly above and beyond.
Since non-exercise TDEE is bigger than BMR, that can make a difference if large, and/or long workouts. Really hits those that walk only for exercise for long stretches.

The formula for calorie burn related to HR is only related to the required supply of oxygen in an aerobic exercise state. Below a point called Flex-HR it no longer applies, so below exercise zone the formula is wrong. And above lactate threshold in to anaerobic exercise is wrong too.
Now Garmin uses FirstBeat algorithms as does Suunto, and they switch to an RMR estimate under 90 (which has been found to be Flex-HR for men and women), so wearing while resting is decent estimate, though likely a tad low.
Not sure if Polar does that on some models, I've not seen it commented on. But usually calorie counts outside steady-state aerobic exercise are invalid. May luck out and appear correct, may not at all.

I'm going with the Runkeeper and HRM both being off I'm betting and real is in between.
I'm betting you are fitter than your size, or BMI range for healthy, would indicate, and HRM is underestimating.
But even at your weight, the normal accurate formula's used for running can't get that high for a 5K run.

And the cheaper Polar's use BMR (height & weight) and a formula related to that being good to bad (age & gender) to determine VO2max. assumed bad BMI is bad fitness and VO2max. Not always a great assumption.

HRmax is 220-age, which is huge estimate, and more likely 10 bpm off than right.

But you mention your Polar has restingHR, which is good, that is used in formula to estimate VO2max a tad better along with BMI, along with user selected Fitness Activity Level - did you select how frequent exercise is?
That formula for me gives a VO2max 10 ml/kg/min lower than tested. Which is kind of major, 18% error.
And since it's the HRmax and VO2max that are used to calculate calories, all those extra stats help narrow margin for error for that.
It's also assumed the lactate threshold is 80-85% of HRmax, which isn't true either.
But there has been shown to be a straight line function for calorie burn from HR-flex to lactate threshold, and that's what is happening basically in the watch. Most the stats being used to estimate VO2max.

Does your HRM have VO2max self-test?

And here's how to test yours if curious on calorie accuracy.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

Mrsbeale11

So, the fact that a woman needs 2000 calories a day is wrong, which I have suspected for ages.

no wonder so many people are overweight.

So, you don't know the definition of the word "average" then?...as in on "average" females need roughly 2,000 calories....meaning there will be individuals who fall below and go above that average?

My wife is 5'3" and 39 y.o. and maintains on roughly 2300 calories per day. The "average" male needs around 2500 calories to maintain...without exercise I need around 2300 - 2400...with my exercise I need around 2800 or so...right now, it's actually around 3000 - 3200 because I'm training like a boss.

The point I was trying to make is that the NHS states that 2000 calories a day is what women should be eating. People are just going to follow the advice that their GP or nurse gives them and they will wonder why they are gaining weight if they aren't 'average'. All their literature recommends 2000 cals a day for a woman to maintain weight.

It's also interesting to find out that sedentary doesn't mean you do a desk job. I thought it would mean someone who sits at a desk all day, drives everywhere and doesn't exercise.

Im from the UK.

Here is the NSH link to calories....

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/1126.aspx?categoryid=51

Note that is clearly states AROUND 2000 it is not cut in stone.

ETA the link also gives advice on many factors that would indicate why it mght be above/below the 2000 cal mark

heybales

Does anyone else think so?

It says I have burned 900 cals today from 40 mins of brisk walking and 95 minutes of circuit training. I'm a 5'3" 133 pound woman. I don't think this stacks up.

135 min of exercise, even if some is walking.

if you walked 4 mph flat you would have burned 230 cal.

That leaves 670 for 95 min of hopefully intense stuff.

But 7 cal/min isn't that intense for what was left, that actually sounds low-ball.

Did it feel more intense than just walking 4.5 mph?
I hope so.
Because you could have burned 670 calories also walking that speed for 95 min.

bexcobham

I'm going to have to go back to school and study maths again now! All that TDEE and HR business is more complicated than I thought.

bexcobham

Does anyone else think so?

It says I have burned 900 cals today from 40 mins of brisk walking and 95 minutes of circuit training. I'm a 5'3" 133 pound woman. I don't think this stacks up.

135 min of exercise, even if some is walking.

if you walked 4 mph flat you would have burned 230 cal.

That leaves 670 for 95 min of hopefully intense stuff.

But 7 cal/min isn't that intense for what was left, that actually sounds low-ball.

Did it feel more intense than just walking 4.5 mph?
I hope so.
Because you could have burned 670 calories also walking that speed for 95 min.

The 95 mins circuit training was a couple of Jillian Michaels DVDs. I found them intense, my face looked like a beetroot and I was a sweaty mess by the time I'd finished, but that might just be because I'm a soft lass. That obviously contains the warm up and cool down though.

If you can use 670 cals up in 95 mins of walking, no wonder I feel ravenous after going for a good hike!

DavPul

1500 non exercise TDEE for a woman does not seem reasonable to me unless you're in a coma for 75% of the day

She's 5'3, 133. It's what the calculators give for someone of her age. I'm older than her, and the same height, and if I were to hit my goal weight sometime after my next birthday, the estimate for my TDEE without exercise would be 1391! That's based on a BMR of 1160. Even with 5 times a week of intense exercise it's only 1797. Sigh, now I'm depressed.

You know where I'm coming from. We shorties don't seem to need as much food as taller people. It only gets worse as you get older. I imagine I will have to survive on one apple and a slice of bread per day by the time I'm 60. ;-)

the primary reason it gets worse as you get older is that you tend to move less, not the magical slowing of metabolisms that people like to cite. as we age, we do less and less and less. and the less we do, the less we are inclined to do, because as we get deconditioned everything feels taxing and the cycle repeats until we spend 16 hours per day in our recliners watching the telly.

but it seems you're dead set on eating the smallest amount possible so go right ahead. if 1500 is your maintenance than you must be extremely sedentary so my advice would be to move more...but that would mean eating more, and all roads on this thread lead to you eating 1500 calories a day or something like that. So eat the 1500 and eat 1/2 of the optimistic exercise calorie estimate after doing 2.5 hours of cardio in a day. hell, eat none of them back if you like.

bexcobham

the primary reason it gets worse as you get older is that you tend to move less, not the magical slowing of metabolisms that people like to cite. as we age, we do less and less and less. and the less we do, the less we are inclined to do, because as we get deconditioned everything feels taxing and the cycle repeats until we spend 16 hours per day in our recliners watching the telly.

but it seems you're dead set on eating the smallest amount possible so go right ahead. if 1500 is your maintenance than you must be extremely sedentary so my advice would be to move more...but that would mean eating more, and all roads on this thread lead to you eating 1500 calories a day or something like that. So eat the 1500 and eat 1/2 of the optimistic exercise calorie estimate after doing 2.5 hours of cardio in a day. hell, eat none of them back if you like.

1500 isn't my actual maintenance calories, but it would be if I was sedentary. Well, that's according to the calculator. Based on my current activity levels, it is more like 1700 to 1800.

For some reason the weight loss tool on here has put my calories at 1200 per day, without exercise. That's not very much, so I'm ignoring that, going by portion sizes and doing more exercise.