You burnt how many calories?!

ashtonvv

I totally agree...today I burned around 1200 calories based off what the machines told me, but I only put in 1090, I did this in 90 minutes and that was very hard running on the arc trainer and elliptical. I definitely think people WAY over estimate their exercise..and you see things like "burned 200 calories doing 45 minutes of cleaning"....I don't think you should log that, that's just general everyday stuff. Under estimating your caloric intake and over estimating your usage is a sure way to fail.

AGREE 100% I saw on someones profile "burned x number of calories DRIVING" I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. Maybe those people haven't really gotten to that point where they realize what is going to work and what isn't.

End of rant.

blueandigo

My understanding has been that running at a fast jog burns more calories than just about any other aerobic activity. Treadmills tend to tell me I'm burning about 1100 calories. For some reason elliptical machines really like to lie. They sometimes tell me I'm burning 1200+ calories, but there is no way. They are too easy and so if my body doesn't feel the work, there's no way its burning calories like that.

It depends on how hard you're pushing it. If you've done it for a while, then it becomes easy and like an everyday thing, but if you're a newcomer you won't be able to just jump on there and burn 1200 calories a day like I do. The difference between running and on the elliptical is the fact that you're using more muscles and you have to build those muscles up. Before using the elliptical I was exposed to terrible hurting from being a newbie on the machine, now I make the machine my *****. Running on the treadmill doesn't give me the kick that the elliptical does. Different strokes for different folks.

I barely ever run on ellipticals because I'm so accustomed to running. I will sometimes run to failure during an interval, so it can get pretty intense. On the elliptical though it always feels pretty easy and alot lower-intensity than running, despite the insanely high calorie readings. On a treadmill you don't have a choice as to how much energy you exert because if you don't keep up with the tread, you will fly right off, whereas on the elliptical you are in control of the energy you expend by how fast you choose to go. I have major doubts that I could ever out-burn on an elliptical what i burn on a treadmill.

Raise the incline to 20 and the resistance to 15-17 and tell me how that works for you. That's what I do everyday.

FrostyBev

I used that calculator for swimming and it was within 100 of what MFP tells me. I don't eat back all my calories though so I'm not worried about the variance.

Anybody have a good suggestion for a HRM for swimming? Message me details please.

bherbie

I usually try to stay under my intended calories for the day and use the workout as extra weight i could be losing. I think that over logging calorie burns will set up some for failure.

pg1girl

I have a garmin 405cx. Love it. I also bought the footpod for indoor track and treadmill running and the bike cadence for biking on my trainer. So much more accurate!

NikkiP80

I've burnt over 2000 calories in a single workout before, mind you I was rowing and that seems to be the most calorie intensive thing for me to do because I can sustain a high heart rate for a long time when I do it.

I use a HR monitor though to keep track.

Marks281172

I think im lucky in that everyone i have as a friend is pretty dedicated and not looking to cheat themselves by claimimg every last bit of body movement as activity.

I did use to use MFP cals but realise now a lot of it was overestimating, especially on walking and static bike (for me at least, im around 250lbs), ive since got a HRM and tend to go by what that says in the absence of a truly accurate estimation, however, i deduct 2 cals per minute to allow for the cals i would have burned sitting around anyway as this is part of my daily allowance.
I tend to train 90mins to 2 hours a day so it does add up.

xMedullaOblongatax

I totally agree...today I burned around 1200 calories based off what the machines told me, but I only put in 1090, I did this in 90 minutes and that was very hard running on the arc trainer and elliptical. I definitely think people WAY over estimate their exercise..and you see things like "burned 200 calories doing 45 minutes of cleaning"....I don't think you should log that, that's just general everyday stuff. Under estimating your caloric intake and over estimating your usage is a sure way to fail.

AGREE 100% I saw on someones profile "burned x number of calories DRIVING" I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. Maybe those people haven't really gotten to that point where they realize what is going to work and what isn't.

End of rant.

Maybe it was a riveting car chase through crowded city streets while they were under fire by enemy forces, followed by a daring roof-top martial arts battle atop a runaway train with their most hated nemesis that threatened the future of mankind as we know it... ;P

Oh wait. They left out the daring martial arts battle. Nevermind ;P

lacroyx

I acknowledge that people differ in the amount of energy they will exert during exercise, I generally like to be conservative in my estimates. Is it really possible to burn 2000 calories in 90 minutes? Here is a generic calculator I came across, and it seems to be more in the ball park of what I think is correct.

What are peoples thoughts on this?

I did it in 91 minutes...
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/lacroyx?month=201201

hmm but 90 minutes...... CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! next holiday weekend I'm doing it!

meltygarden

I've got my suspicions about the MFP calculator exaggerating a bit, too. But I read on the boards that it takes into account not only the calories burned during the actual workout, but the increased metabolic burn that lingers for a few hours afterwards, which makes it seem more reasonable.

Gotta say, too, that when I'm following the numbers on MFP I am losing weight...and when I go back to mental estimates, the weight stays the same. So there's that.

caramkoala

The fitter you are, the less calories you burn doing the same activity at the same intensity for the same time. 'Fitter' means more efficient at exercise.

The fatter (heavier) you are, the more calories you will burn doing the same activity, at the same intensity for the same time. Just like if the fit person had to do the same activity with 100 pounds strapped to them. you would burn more doing it.

Also, I see a lot of judgement on this site about peoples activity logged.

"Why would someone log cleaning?That's normal activity anyway"

"Why do people log a slow walk? that's not cardio."

How do you know these people haven't already downgraded the activity they are doing, to get a more accurate burn???

For example, When I walk at a medium pace, I log it as slow. When i walk fast, I log it as medium. When I log 'cleaning', it's usually heavy duty stuff, like scrubbing the bathroom or re-arranging furniture, not standing at the sink doing dishes.

People are not dumb. When the scale stops moving in the downward direction, they usually go back and re-assess themselves, or ask for help on the forums. When I see people calling out like this "Cleaning is not exercise!" rest assured, i form a judgement about you.

auticus

I think MFP is good for the "average person". It should not be taken as gospel though.

Whether to eat back your calories or not is up to you and what works. It does not work for me. I have to restrict my diet to 2000 calories total to see any results.

MFP's calories burned is also very optimistic for me. Meaning that it's always off in the high area, as determined by an HRM. It will state I burn X calories when my HRM will say I burned X - ? calories, so that's another thing to be wary of.

Good luck.

kimsciolino

I agree that you should not guess or use an online tool to determine the amount of calories you burn. I do burn lots of calories but I use a HRM and I am currently doing 2 HIIT workout programs one in the early afternoon and one in the evening.
Plus it does depend on How overweight you are, your age, and your fitness level.
So in my opinion the best tool would be a good HRM....

chodgi06

This is why I don't eat back all the cals it says I burned. I don't fully trust the estimate from here. One day I will get a HRM but until then it is just a "guess." I log stuff on here to keep track of what I am doing more then anything.

Me too. MFP exercises seem to be exaggerated. Not as much as some other sites I've been to (sparkpeople calculated that my 45 min Zumba class burned 535 cals; so i went about 100 under to be safe) but still if you're trying to eat to the right calorie count it can be confusing. I also wish MFP would expand their exercise list to include more activities. Zumba wasn't on there for example, and I felt the "dance" category just wasn't' quite the right fit.

Just a note, i wear an HRM while working out, and during my Zumba class, i regularly burn over 700 calories. I dont necessarily eat them all back, but i'm working out hard, somewhere between 80-90% of peak HR on avg.

ukjake3

The machines at the gym usually overestimate the amount of calories that I do based on the HRM that I wear. My HRM is a Polar FT4, which is not VO2. Given my age, weight, & HR, is my HRM accurate enough to go by or should I reduce what it actually says? I'm 6'2 & weigh 260. My HRM says for me playing basketball for 50-60 minutes is around 900 calories; do you think this is accurate enough to enter on MFP?

vjrose

I use an HRM with a strap and in an hour I can burn up to 800 calories, but I am working super hard, so rowing, treadmill, etc. My heart rate is around 128 - 135 for most of it. So yeah you can burn a lot of calories in an hour, unless of course you also don't believe in technology like a HRM.

jiggs31

Excellent topic! For example, I was using cross training, general for calculating my 30 day shred workouts @ 251 calories burned. I purchased a HRM and when I did my work out for today, it's only 168! Oops! I'm sure it's different for everyone but this was my experience!

Good luck to everyone!

I found the same problem - until I started using the HRM I was logging things over and under.
Now I am logging exactly what I do so fingers crossed it starts to make a difference!

Aperture_Science

I was a member of another calorie/food tracking site and like MFP it overestimated the calories expended for many activities.

I noticed it most with running.

So, I now routinely only log 2/3 or my running time. A 45 mins run would be logged as 30mins.

tracyruz

I see a lot of you use a HRM...I was thinking about getting one for myself before I read this topic. Any suggestions on brands and what I should look for in one? My treadmill always comes in higher than MFP and I generally do not eat my workout "calories" - I just use them for when I slightly go over...it would be nice to know more accurately what I am burning...

spitfire1962

I use a heart rate monitor to help me keep on track. It was the best $80 investment I have ever made. It allows me to keep track of previous caloric burns for workouts so I can try to out do the last. I would recommend a hrm to anyone.

curiodal

I have read the same thing.

fjrandol

don't over think things. this is weight loss, not rocket surgery. no need to be so precise.

Lol! Rocket surgery. Love it! :laugh:

That's pretty much how I feel about the whole calories burned argument. I take pilates classes, and MFP has it at 185 calories for an hour. Seems low to me (especially since I'm sweating like crazy during my workout) but I log it the same anyway. My work out should help combat the stress in life, not to add to it.

Barneystinson

I estimate running at about 90 calories per mile. I had an HRM for some time and it gave a little higher calorie burn per average (9:00) mile.

I raise a bit of an eyebrow when I see smaller women close to goal weight logging 60-90 minute elliptical sessions at over 1000 calories burned. Don't really care what you do but don't delude yourself thinking you're burning ridiculous amounts of calories over and over again. Your body adapts, gets more fit and efficient, and you burn less.

Evarell

OP, Thanks for the calculator link.

1WorkoutAtATime

I find in my training that MFP usually over estimates how many cals I have burned. I logged what the machine or HRM states...

MaximalLife

It's total BS.
Those numbers are way out of line, and it won't be long before the ones recording such numbers come back crying the blues about how they're doing everything they're supposed to do but can't get results.:sad:

I recall somebody wanting to argue that point once, and instead of admitting they were wrong, they just deactivated their account.
I WISH I could burn that much in 90 minutes.
I workout 2 hours a day, and for 2 whole hours, I burn about 1000 calories.

TrailRunner61

Just an fyi on the example of 600 calories after cleaning deal. I noticed that after I had logged my 110 minutes on the treadmill it stated what I burned while doing that. Later I went for a short walk with my dog and MFP added it to my cardio minutes with no mention of walking the dog at a slower pace. . I think that is one way that posts are showing too many calories burnt for the activity. For example if someone logged house cleaning for 45 minutes, then ran 4 miles and logged again, it would show up as all the calories burnt for cleaning house. I myself would never add house cleaning since it's something I do anyway, not for exercise.

csparon

I have a hard time believing that people burn 800 calories doing 30 minutes of walking their dog. Keyword, WALKING lol

CallmeSbo

bump

sms1986

If I go to the gym, I usually rely on what the machine says, although that's not the most accurate way of doing things. If I go for a walk, I use a pedometer to calculate calories burned (an six mile walk in around two hours usually burns 700 to 800 calories according to the pedometer). Using the pedometer seems enough for walks, but I'm thinking of buying a HRM as they are more accurate.