I think we might ALL be off on calories for exercise

daddyratty

A thought dawned on me and I wonder if anyone has thought of this. It might be a minimal effect, but every little bit counts.

Whenever we log an exercise, we use a database or an HRM that has - as its root - a calculation of how hard the heart worked during that time.

For me, still in the 240's, when I run for an hour I am burning well over 1000 calories. This is good. Really good. And the calorie calculation is based on how much my heart pumped during 60 minutes of aerobic exercise.

However, this is where I think it's wrong. Had I NOT exercised during that hour, I still would have burned some calories. My basal metabolic rate is about 2900 per day, which works out to about 120 calories per hour.

This means if I sit on the couch, I burn about 120 calories per hour just living.
Again, if I run for that hour, I burn about 1100 calories.

And I say it's the DIFFERENCE between these two numbers that we should be counting. Otherwise, during that hour of exercise, I'm building in my BMR AND then counting the calories burned again when I exercise.

For me it means the difference of probably 500 calories or so per week. Easily overcome by other decisions, but I'm wondering (A) if MFP factors this in at all and (B) if anyone else has thought of this and what they've done to overcome it.

staciekins

good question

pittsblue99

hmm...that is a litle too much math for me

jeff261159

I think you'll find its factored in by the MFP sofware

kristarablue

Baby, I always subtract what I would normally burn from my HRM reading. MFP exercise estimates for calories are almost double what my HRM says...just a note

NanoReefDiver

When I counted in what I would normally be burning during that time my body revolted as it was too low. Not sure how to really approach it.
Edit: I use a Polar HRM.

usmcmp

No, you are burning the exercise calories including everything it takes to make your body function. Those 1100 calories are instead of the 120 calories. 120 calories is what your body would burn just to breathe, provide brain function, digestion and pump blood. Your HRM is actually a more accurate way of measuring exactly what your body is burning during the hour including all of the above and your exercise.

darrcn5

I subtract what I would have burned anyway from my HRM reading.

ambercole

I subtract what I would have burned anyway from my HRM reading.

Me too, always have.

AZTrailRunner

You also need to consider that you are burning calories at a slightly higher rate for a few hours after exercise.... calories you don't 'count', but still burn at a higher rate than just sitting on the couch.

NuttyBrewnette

all of this is just an estimate-educated guesses as to how much we take in and how much we burn. It will never be 100% accurate.

When I use a machine and my hrm and get 2 different numbers...I usually choose a number in between the two, to be somewhat more conservative. I tend to round down on calories burned....

melizerd

The thing is your basal metabolic functions are still happening when you exercise so while you would have burned X amount of calories on the couch you're still burning that PLUS what you're burning exercising so it works out that the HRM burned calories is still appropriate.

FunkBunny

I have a Body Media Fit and it tracks my calories burned 24-7. including when i sleep, eat, sit on my but or sweat my butt off. i know what you are saying with the "idle" calories being in there and are they counted or not.
I guess I would say if you are losing with the numbers you are working with now, stick with it. But if you plateau or aren't losing at all, adjust your food down a bit (not much! 100 calories a day maybe) and see if that helps after a week or two.
last thing you want to do is UNDER eat and defeat the purpose.

pauljsolie

You also need to consider that you are burning calories at a slightly higher rate for a few hours after exercise.... calories you don't 'count', but still burn at a higher rate than just sitting on the couch.

I agree. Occasionally I will watch my HRM until my heart rate is out of the fat burning zone, I could log an extra 5-7 minutes of calories burned (the slow recovery time shows you how out of shape I still am) not to mention the increased BMR for up to 24 hours from doing HIIT workouts. I wouldn't worry about it.

FairyMiss

hmm...that is a litle too much math for me

my thoughts exactly

squishyjenn

I've stopped counting my exercise since I don't have a car, I have to bicycle in 100+ degrees to get anywhere. I just eat my daily amount of calories but if I get a significant burn, I'll count it but will hardly eat any of it since it's prolly off anyway and I'm too cheap to purchase a HRM. I also can't make it to a gym because I'm a single mom. If I was going to a gym I'd count it but otherwise, I get plenty of exercise anyway.

unmitigatedbadassery

I have heard many people comment on the fact that MFP my be off on exercise calculations - I have found them to be on par with most other online calculators. An HRM is going to be the most accurate though.

That being said, I don't find it conducive to worry about every calorie. Your body isn't a binary system where a ONE or a ZERO changes everything - even if you are off by 100 calories it will most likely provide the same end result as if you were on the nose with the calculations.

I say keep up the good work - don't worry too much about the numbers - focus on how you feel.

_Sally_

I subtract what I would have burned anyway from my HRM reading.

The same thought occured to me and I started doing this (substracting out my BMR, which is about 55 calories/per hour from the HRM exercise calories I log into MFP) about a week ago.

I was going to post this idea, so I'm glad to see there are others out there who think about these things, too!

Regarding MFP calories being off, MPF can look at age, gender and weight, but it also really depends on your intensity during the exercise as well as your fitness level (the more fit you are, the slower your heart rate at the same level of intensity). I believe this is why there are lots of folks who say MFP is accurate for them and lots of folks who say it is not accurate for them.

nyctraveler

Yes you subtract your BMR rate fir the time of exercise you did before logging

kalelwifey

I think you'll find its factored in by the MFP sofware

MFP...calculated the average calories we burn doin nuttin which is where it comes up with how many we should eat since the goal is to burn more calories then you eat..which is why we end up having to eat back exercise calories because its got us buring more calories than we eat just doing nuthingg...like..says i burn like 2700 Calories a day doing reg activities like work and goin to the bathroom..has be only eating 2000....that negative 700 calories ..deficit i think its called? times 5 and thats 3500 calories which is a point....or wudever....i think i explained this right loll someone tell me if im on the right track

UpToAnyCool

And I say it's the DIFFERENCE between these two numbers that we should be counting. Otherwise, during that hour of exercise, I'm building in my BMR AND then counting the calories burned again when I exercise.

(B) if anyone else has thought of this and what they've done to overcome it.

I try not to double-count, as well. So I also subtract my BMR/24 to find the hourly burn regardless of exercise;
and then take that number and subtract from hourly burn on my HRM.

(It would have taken me awhile to figure it out, but fellow MFPer BinaryJester posted about this in the past.)