Over- and underestimating

PJilly

I see this a lot. People say they overestimate how any calories are in what they've eaten and/or underestimate how many calories they've burned "just to be safe." That doesn't make sense to me. I think if people are going to go to the trouble of tracking these numbers, they should should do it accurately. Why assume the numbers are wrong, and why assume if they're wrong that you know which way they're off? If we're shooting for a specific deficit, then shouldn't the goal be to hit it as closely as possible? How is it any more "safe" to be under a bunch than it is to be over?

eillamarie

Sometimes it's just not possible to be exact-I don't have a food scale, just measuring cups and spoons. I also haven't yet figured out how to get to the "calories burned" mode on my HRM...sometimes you have to make an educated guess.

melaniecheeks

Because the numbers can never be accurate. One slice of ham is different to another - it might have a milligram more fat, or not be exactly 1/2 oz. Losing weight isn't that exact a science, our bodies aren't robotic machines.

mielikkibz

My favorite restaurant (Stoney River) does not have nutritional information available(I did email them and tell them how much I loved their food, but that I wish they had that available so those of us who are trying to watch what we eat are able to eat there more often), and I do have to estimate or guess on things like their poppy seed rolls(Yum), or if I splurge and get their chocolate ganache cake(which we split between 3-4 of us, and still take half of it home). I'm not going to punish myself by not going there, I just picked the highest calorie ganache cake in the system and use that, and researched the poppy seed rolls to try to find the best fit. Same with the cake that we have available for special occasions at work, I take a small piece and put a 300 calorie cake piece in the diary.

But then, I also dont believe in denying yourself anything you like, to eat in moderation.

Sometimes you've got to do the best you can. It's working so far for me. . .with my HRM I no longer have to hope MFP's calorie burn is right. . .(sometimes too low, sometimes too high)

RMinVA

I am one of those people and here is why.

I don't own an HRM and I don't trust calorie burns from machines or MFP: some of them are ridicuously high. I'm planning to get one soon, but for now, that's just the way it is.

Food is another issue entirely. Unless you are weighing every single thing you are putting in your mouth you can be way off, especially with calorie dense foods. This video is a great illustration why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY. I do measure the calorie dense foods, but not everything.

By law, nutrition labels on food, can be off by as much as 20% so even if you are weighing/measuring everything, you could still be eating more than you think. Eating out is another story entirely...no regulations regarding nutrition claims there at all. Assuming the nutrition information is available, it assumes no variation to recipe. And numerous studies have shown that those foods come in 25-30% higher when analyzed. Most everyone I know eats out @ least once a week.

So...burn a little less than you think + eat a little more than you think = no weight loss or maybe even some gain (100 extra cals a day is a 10# gain over a year).

That's why I stick to a range of calories instead of worrying about eating each and every exercise calorie. If I stick to that range, I lose weight, if I don't, or if I make poor choices within that range, the scale doesn't move. The low end is what MFP gives me for 1#/week loss and the high end accounts for eating some, but not all of my exercise calories.

Mindful_Trent

I see this a lot. People say they overestimate how any calories are in what they've eaten and/or underestimate how many calories they've burned "just to be safe." That doesn't make sense to me. I think if people are going to go to the trouble of tracking these numbers, they should should do it accurately. Why assume the numbers are wrong, and why assume if they're wrong that you know which way they're off? If we're shooting for a specific deficit, then shouldn't the goal be to hit it as closely as possible? How is it any more "safe" to be under a bunch than it is to be over?

I agree. I log what I eat and log what I burn, without padding/adjusting the numbers, and with the understanding that more likely that not one or both of those numbers are off a little; there's no real way to know *exactly* how many calories one is consuming and one is burning - it's all a matter of estimation. They could be off in either direction. Rather than messing with what I'm logging, I simply try not to eat back 100% of my exercise calories - I stick to the 50-75% range, though I do go higher than that fairly regularly. Leaving some calories uneaten at the end of the day (but not too many!) gives me a small cushion in case I've overestimated my burn or underestimated what I've consumed. I figure that some days I'll need that cushion, and other days I won't. Some days I'll end up with a deficit a little less than planned, some days a little more than planned... in the end it evens out as long as I'm sticking fairly close to my calorie goals.

That said, I think it's important to do what you can to try and minimize estimation error - investing in digital food scale and a chest-strap style HRM are the best two "gadget" recommendations I have. The kitchen scale is pretty inexpensive, and you can find no-frills HRMs for a reasonable price. If the objective is to estimate as accurately as possible, it makes sense to 1) log what you actually eat/burn without "messing" with the numbers, and 2) invest in the tools (like a scale & HRM) that will allow you to estimate calories eaten & burned more accurately.