Calorie Burn Overestimation...?

Options
13»

Replies

  • sh0ck
    sh0ck Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    All-in-all, I think we go with our best guesses because nothing is perfect and adjust from there.


    Precisely.

    I usually try to lean more towards underestimation for what I burn during exercising and overestimation for what I eat just to be safe.
  • zoom2
    zoom2 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    For now I changed my setting to give me the food calorie recommendation to arrive at a loss of 1.5#/week, instead of just 1. That should make up for any overinflation of calorie-burn.
  • arc918
    arc918 Posts: 2,037 Member
    Options
    All I ever log is my running. This site estimates lower than my Garmin, so I just go with the site. Seems about right for running as someone of my size (~ 180 lbs.) should be burning ~ 125 kcals or so per mile.
  • zoom2
    zoom2 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    Ooh...I found something that might explain part of my struggle. Since the site defaults to no lower than 1200 net, it's not really giving me a 500 calorie deficit each day, since that would sometimes go below 1200. I thought I would simply set my loss goal down to 1.5, but it didn't change the calorie recommendations any. As it is, the most I can lose in a week is .9#s if I follow the MFP recommendations to the letter.
  • dwellsouth
    dwellsouth Posts: 158 Member
    Options
    I just read a blog post somewhere that MFP isn't taking into account your normal calorie burn per day in your exercise either, so for me, divide my 1940 calories burned per day (base) by 24 hours = 81 calories per hour I burn doing nothing... So in other words, subtract out 81 calories per hour from any exercise calories I burn because MFP is already counting them. Make sense?

    That doesn't handle the wrong exercise burn amounts but it does skew how many calories you GET BACK from exercise on the high side...
  • zoom2
    zoom2 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    I just read a blog post somewhere that MFP isn't taking into account your normal calorie burn per day in your exercise either, so for me, divide my 1940 calories burned per day (base) by 24 hours = 81 calories per hour I burn doing nothing... So in other words, subtract out 81 calories per hour from any exercise calories I burn because MFP is already counting them. Make sense?

    That doesn't handle the wrong exercise burn amounts but it does skew how many calories you GET BACK from exercise on the high side...

    That does make sense. Given I work out an average of an hour+ every day...that adds up, especially if some of my workout burns are being overestimated on top of that.
  • georgiajuly
    georgiajuly Posts: 126
    Options
    As others have pointed out, fitness level and intensity cause variability. For a cyclist, your equipment makes a big difference also. MFP estimated a ride (just under 2 hours at 12-14 mph) more than 50% over my HRM. That might be true if I had been on a Walmart hybrid instead of my Lynskey.
    Also, at your age you will not notice this so much, but my maximum heart rate is somewhere in the low 160's, so at my age I can't generate the same level of intensity as a 20 year old could to burn more calories.
  • zoom2
    zoom2 Posts: 934 Member
    Options
    As others have pointed out, fitness level and intensity cause variability. For a cyclist, your equipment makes a big difference also. MFP estimated a ride (just under 2 hours at 12-14 mph) more than 50% over my HRM. That might be true if I had been on a Walmart hybrid instead of my Lynskey.
    Also, at your age you will not notice this so much, but my maximum heart rate is somewhere in the low 160's, so at my age I can't generate the same level of intensity as a 20 year old could to burn more calories.

    Ahhh...yes. I have often wondered if the bike estimates are assuming road bike or mtn...or hybrid...? My bike is about 17#s, which would burn fewer calories than the same speed/distance on a 20+# frame, much less an even heavier steel mountain bike or hybrid. Nevermind position on the bike. My bike has relatively aggressive geometry (particularly since we swapped up a couple of spacers and a longer stem). My guess is the calorie count assumes a more upright position, which is less efficient and would burn more calories/time.
  • dwellsouth
    dwellsouth Posts: 158 Member
    Options
    I just read a blog post somewhere that MFP isn't taking into account your normal calorie burn per day in your exercise either, so for me, divide my 1940 calories burned per day (base) by 24 hours = 81 calories per hour I burn doing nothing... So in other words, subtract out 81 calories per hour from any exercise calories I burn because MFP is already counting them. Make sense?

    That doesn't handle the wrong exercise burn amounts but it does skew how many calories you GET BACK from exercise on the high side...

    That does make sense. Given I work out an average of an hour+ every day...that adds up, especially if some of my workout burns are being overestimated on top of that.

    EXACTLY!
  • georgiajuly
    georgiajuly Posts: 126
    Options
    Oooh, something else just bubbled up to the surface of my memories...
    I remember reading years ago about a study of calories expended, and the findings were something about how obese women were burning far fewer calories walking than expected, because they had modified their gait so they were lifting their feet less, and circumducting (swinging the feet around to the front) more because of their size. This speaks to the issue of attempting to come up with a general estimate of calorie expenditure for a given activity.
    Unfortunately, this memory is tangled up in my brain with something about women walking that way while carrying pots of water on their heads, so I'm not sure what facts there are in there, if any....
    Oh, well.

Categories