Why doesn't MFP subtract your "regular" burn from activites?

TheFunBun

Considering your regular burn is part of most calorie calculations, why doesn't it subtract the number?

Like, if I usually burn 100 calories per hour, why doesn't it subtract that from the 600 calories per hour I burn doing hard exercise? Is there some reason for this or am I not understanding it correctly?

The last calorie counting program I used would just alter your mets for the amount of time spent exercising (instead of 1.2, it would boost it up to 6.2 for an hour, or whatever) ... but MFP doesn't seem to account for the usual burn at all.

jesusHchris

I've wondered this same thing, actually... Not sure that it makes a huge difference, but also curious.

_snw_

ha.

when excercise is only an hour or two - i don't think it matters since it's only like 70cal/hr (for me) but it bothers me when someone is doing something "easy" for like 6 hours and then i think it ads up.

my HRM ~only~ gives calorie burns based on the rise in HR, so doesn't include basal.

Jo2926

Its been discussed here a couple of times - with no real consensus of opinion, but 2 things:

1) MFP exercise logs tend to be a little bit high on the estimating side, so I use a heart rate monitor
2) Its probably quite a small difference in the long run, when you take into account after burn (if you did any strength training for example)

Also, lots of people have had success using MFP so it does work even without this fine tuning, but if you want to make it a bit more accurate then don't eat back 100% of your exercise calories.

TourThePast

Considering your regular burn is part of most calorie calculations, why doesn't it subtract the number?

Sloppy design, I guess. Easier to just give a one size fits all figure and not take into account things like weight and what your regular burn would be anyway.

I have a HRM and manually remove regular burn for anything over an hour.

nigel061

I'm also confused by this - I went brisk walking for about 20 minutes and logged the exercise - MFP said "*You've earned 184 extra calories from exercise today" - is this 184 calories more than I would have used up sitting on my butt if I had not walked, or 184 in total? (I reckon on using 100 KCal/hour at BMR so would have used 33 calories sitting down)

TheFunBun

HMM! That's interesting! How do you tell if your Heart Rate Monitor accounts for your BMR?

Though I bet you all are right- I bet it matters very little in the long run. 100 calories here or there, that I probably don't even really have from those extra two hours spent languishing in bed instead of being awake like the rest of the world.

Definitely all evens out!

TourThePast

I'm also confused by this - I went brisk walking for about 20 minutes and logged the exercise - MFP said "*You've earned 184 extra calories from exercise today" - is this 184 calories more than I would have used up sitting on my butt if I had not walked

No, it's 184 calories period, which is why it's so annoying.

To the person who said it's only 100 calories, if you're doing a long hike for say eight hours, and eating back your exercise calories, those 8 x BMR comes to a LOT more than 100 calories, especially as you usually burn more during the day anyway so it's not a simple case of eight twenty-fourths of your BMR, and the difference could be enough to wipe out your entire deficit for that day!

TourThePast

HMM! That's interesting! How do you tell if your Heart Rate Monitor accounts for your BMR?

If it's not in the full user manual, which it should be, consult the manufacturers website.

Toddrific

I suppose the bigger numbers help motivate people.

it's very disheartening to do 30 minutes on a stairmaster and only burn 240 calories.
It's not nearly as bad to get 350.

I've seen it suggested that you don't eat back all of your exercise calories, regardless of how you arrive at them.

I read today that my heart rate monitor is only 75% accurate (Polar)

luvmybaby333

I was wondering the same thing when I first started. I didn't get a clear answer on whether or not you should "eat back" the full amount... So I just decided not to think about it. I eat back my calories if I feel like it. I'm often over anyway, so it's not like I made a special choice to eat them back. If I do make an active decision to eat them back, I might not eat all of them back. That's not really so much because I'm worried about eating more than I burned, but rather because I was probably over the day before and I'd like to even it up some. (I focus on weekly totals, rather than daily...) But some people do choose to only eat back a portion (50-80%) of their exercise calories for this reason. On average, accounting for all the overs and unders, I probably eat back 100% of mine, and I haven't seen it negatively impact my loss. In fact, I've lost way more than I "should" have according to MFP. So I think it's just one of things you have to play with and see what works for you. I honestly wouldn't recommend stressing out about it, though. Eat back what MFP says you're entitled to. If you're not losing fast enough, then maybe cut back and only eat a portion of them. But either way, just realize this isn't an exact science. If something doesn't work for you, then it's okay to change it up later.

TourThePast

I suppose the bigger numbers help motivate people.

it's very disheartening to do 30 minutes on a stairmaster and only burn 240 calories.
It's not nearly as bad to get 350.

I know... For me, weighing 119 lb, I only burn around 150 calories in 30 minutes - and that's before I take my BMR off!

YassSpartan

Isn't MFP already calculating your "regular" activities with a general number when you answered your daily activity level at the time you fill out your profile information?

When you go to Settings > Update diet/fitness profile, you'll see you can pick one of the followings:

How would you describe your normal daily activities?
Sedentary: Spend most of the day sitting (e.g. bank teller, desk job)
Lightly Active: Spend a good part of the day on your feet (e.g. nurse, salesman)
Active: Spend a good part of the day doing some physical activity (e.g. waitress, mailman)
Very Active: Spend most of the day doing heavy physical activity (e.g. bike messenger, carpenter)

With the answer you pick, MFP will use a number as your "regular" burn and along with how many lbs are you wanting to lose per week will give you your Goal Calories with a deficit that already has deducted the "regular" activities burn.

Now, this is far from being accurate, which means, MFP could be way off your true "regular" burn. So the best way is to use any devices that you can carry with you to find out how many calories you burn through out the day.

TourThePast

Isn't MFP already calculating your "regular" activities with a general number when you answered your daily activity level at the time you fill out your profile information?

Yes it is.

But this topic is about the fact that BMR is not taken off exercise calories.

bennypearls

Isn't MFP already calculating your "regular" activities with a general number when you answered your daily activity level at the time you fill out your profile information?

Yes it is.

But this topic is about the fact that BMR is not taken off exercise calories.

I guess i am confused by what you mean. the way i understood it was based off the way it is set up if you are at or below your calories then you will do at least as well as well what you set it up to be... ( for me two pounds a week loss). So why would it matter if the BMR was calculated in exercise.

For exact RMR and BMR you are going to need something more precise than an online tool. I use the program as a calorie guide and a trainer watch with a heart rate monitor for precise calorie burn.

I would think that under estimating workout burn and over estimating food calories would promote a bigger shock and get people to make a serious life change.

TourThePast

So why would it matter if the BMR was calculated in exercise.

On an eight hour hike, I burn two thousand calories according to my HRM. If I had entered those calories and eaten them, as instructed by this site, I would have cancelled out my progress for two days.

This is why.

I would have been burning 62 calories an hour anyway for those 8 hours, 8x62=496, and as someone who is 4' 10" with not a lot to lose, I'm working on a half a pound a week (250 calories a day) deficit.

Those 496 calories would have wiped out my deficit for two whole days.

No the calculations aren't entirely accurate, and no for just an hour's exercise it doesn't make enough difference to make it worth accounting for, BUT for longer periods of exercise it does make a significant difference, so I believe that is good reason for accounting for it in the figures.

Even though there are inaccuracies, there is no point in ignoring the factors we DO know to exist, such as the fact that we'd be burning calories anyway if we didn't exercise.

I realise that's a bit rambling, but hopefully it makes it clear what the issue is that we're concerned about.

BeautyFromPain

Considering your regular burn is part of most calorie calculations, why doesn't it subtract the number?

Like, if I usually burn 100 calories per hour, why doesn't it subtract that from the 600 calories per hour I burn doing hard exercise? Is there some reason for this or am I not understanding it correctly?

The last calorie counting program I used would just alter your mets for the amount of time spent exercising (instead of 1.2, it would boost it up to 6.2 for an hour, or whatever) ... but MFP doesn't seem to account for the usual burn at all.

why not do the math yourself?

TourThePast

Considering your regular burn is part of most calorie calculations, why doesn't it subtract the number?

Like, if I usually burn 100 calories per hour, why doesn't it subtract that from the 600 calories per hour I burn doing hard exercise? Is there some reason for this or am I not understanding it correctly?

The last calorie counting program I used would just alter your mets for the amount of time spent exercising (instead of 1.2, it would boost it up to 6.2 for an hour, or whatever) ... but MFP doesn't seem to account for the usual burn at all.

why not do the math yourself?

I do, and so do many other members who understand their bodies, how weight loss works, and who are generally well educated in issues of nutrition and human biology.

However, this website sets itself up as a simple way to track calories and lose weight. Accounting for the calories you'd burn anyway if not exercising would be an improvement.

Many people have blind faith in the figures this site tells them to use, there are many members on here who appear not to understand the figures, clearly some have not been able to achieve anything other than a very basic standard of education and many people cannot do even simple maths.

dlaplume2

I wouldn't worry about it. Maybe they are giving you credit of the afterburn. When you exercise you will continue to burn calories at a faster rate for a few hours. The tecnicality on that would get to the best math wizzes, so it's easier to just leave it alone. It works the way it is, so no need to fix a not broken wheel.

Best wishes

TourThePast

It works the way it is, so no need to fix a not broken wheel.

As you can see from my eight hour hike example above, within certain parameters (low daily deficit, lengthy period of exercise) clearly it does not currently work.

In a system which is intrinsically prone to inaccuracies, surely it makes sense to remove those errors which are known and quantifiable?