When your friend puts too many calories burned....

Jynus

Well then I must be a miracle! I just totted up 442 whilst on a 01:17:45 walk. I wore my HRM. The last 5ish mins of that was me taking off my shoes and sh1t. I always take away the number of minutes rounded up away from the total. That means I just burnt 364 calories. I burn that and more regularly on my dog walks. I find MFP underestimates (by around 100) things like walking for me, yet on the elliptical it overestimates... but maybe that's because I take it slowly for the first half, then up the intensity the second half.

No, just confused as to how calorie burn is done. You're more than welcome to look at any metabolic chamber study. But I assure you you did not burn 442 or even 364 from exercise walking. Total perhaps yes. But not from exercise. Big difference.

Determinednoob

I had a female friend that logged 1750 calories for intimate acts. LOL ya right, you do porn?

hah like chicks do any work anyway!!

That was my point to her. Yes some women will burn some calories but we arent soaked like most men after sex.

5 hrs no sweating in the spring time. srs bidness. actually i think a break came at around 4 but lets not count that.

stephvaile

How do you know it's not possible? Are you some sort of weight loss expert in calories burned for each individual person?

Unless they ask, keep your mouth shut.

because if 30min walks burning 1k calories was possible, humanity would have died out thousands of years ago.

There are things called metabolic chambers which are able to accurately measure every calorie burned. the TLDR is that people burn FARRR less from exercise than they think they burn. and far underestimate the BMR burn simply from living.

Quick examples of metabolic chamber study. first is average dude, second is competitive marathon runner.

sleeping: 0.8cal/min
awake and sitting: 2cal/min
standing: 3cal/min
fast walking: 5cal/min
slow jog: 7cal/min

Ok, do the math there. A guy is burning 2cal/min from exercise going for a walk. Take your average female and it's even less burn than that, so prob 1.5cal/min. Meaning going for an hour walk is 90calories burned is what they should be logging. This is pretty universal for most females that are average to just overweight. Yet how many log 90 calories? How many are instead logging 300-900??? The overestimation of calorie burn people have for this site is utterly laughable.

Now for a top end burn. This is a marathon runner running at a marathon pace. In other words, prob the utter max calorie burn a human can hope to accomplish for extended cardio. 16cal/min. This is also comparable to tour de france riders during stage racing. So when you subtract the 3cal/min BMR you're left with 13cal/min from exercise. So about 800 cal/hour. So the upper limit of cardio calorie burn gives a burn of 800 calories an hour. hmmm... (granted, much larger people than marathon runners also going max intensity can get greater calorie burns. So it's relative)

edit: there was another metabolic chamber study I just recalled. Average guys, average gym goers, did 45min cardio, 188bpm, 70% VO2MAX. Their calorie burn was 560/hour from exercise. It was an epoc based test though and they had an additional 180cal burned over next 48 hours. Point being, it was average guys, doing hour of exercise and logging far less than most anyone in here would log for exact same exercise. Compare your cardio stats, are you under 188bpm? If yes, and you're not over 200lbs, then guess what, you're doing under 560cal/hour calorie burn. Pretty much no question about it. Yet what are you logging?

now look through this thread. How man people here are claiming a much higher calorie burn than what the most accomplished athletes on earth are able to burn at an intensity many times higher than the people in here can only dream of.

Calories burned per mile by walking

Speed/Pounds 100 lb 120 lb 140 lb 160 lb 180 lb 200 lb 220 lb 250 lb 275 lb 300 lb
2.0mph 57 68 80 91 102 114 125 142 156 170
2.5mph 55 65 76 87 98 109 120 136 150 164
3.0mph 53 64 74 85 95 106 117 133 146 159
3.5mph 52 62 73 83 94 104 114 130 143 156
4.0mph 57 68 80 91 102 114 125 142 156 170
4.5mph 64 76 89 102 115 127 140 159 175 191
5.0mph 73 87 102 116 131 145 160 182 200 218
Walking Off Weight

get your facts straight mate

camelothosting

Well then I must be a miracle! I just totted up 442 whilst on a 01:17:45 walk. I wore my HRM. The last 5ish mins of that was me taking off my shoes and sh1t. I always take away the number of minutes rounded up away from the total. That means I just burnt 364 calories. I burn that and more regularly on my dog walks. I find MFP underestimates (by around 100) things like walking for me, yet on the elliptical it overestimates... but maybe that's because I take it slowly for the first half, then up the intensity the second half.

No, just confused as to how calorie burn is done. You're more than welcome to look at any metabolic chamber study. But I assure you you did not burn 442 or even 364 from exercise walking. Total perhaps yes. But not from exercise. Big difference.

well your going to have to forgive me when I dont take your word for it, unless you have the same phd behind your name as my Dietitian does and more degrees than the folks that suggested the HRM I got ( which is where I get my calories burned from )

littlepinkhearts

How would you know unless you were there with them? They could have been wearing a backpack or other type of weight. They could have just picked the first exercise they saw on their list of activities and adjusted the mins to fit the cal burn that they know they did. Who knows?? and honestly who cares unless they are asking for help?

ladyark

I got called out once, i regularly burn 1400 and had to post a pic of my HRM, thing is, if i went off MFP calcs it would've been more, haters gonna hate

I agree with this poster...and i will usually use the cal counts MFP gives me an a guide not a truth. Im sure it can fluctuate in either direction.

Also, MFP on the home page will say you burned X amount of calories doing Cardio including the eliptical ( for example) ...so that means there are other things as well that added up that count..

IF you know this person as a friend then i would ask about that and say you are just trying to help or understand how that could be since it doesent work that way for you. If you dont really know them well, then you should really only be worried about your own numbers .

Just my 2 cents worth

stephvaile

How do you know it's not possible? Are you some sort of weight loss expert in calories burned for each individual person?

Unless they ask, keep your mouth shut.

because if 30min walks burning 1k calories was possible, humanity would have died out thousands of years ago.

There are things called metabolic chambers which are able to accurately measure every calorie burned. the TLDR is that people burn FARRR less from exercise than they think they burn. and far underestimate the BMR burn simply from living.




Quick examples of metabolic chamber study. first is average dude, second is competitive marathon runner.

sleeping: 0.8cal/min
awake and sitting: 2cal/min
standing: 3cal/min
fast walking: 5cal/min
slow jog: 7cal/min

Ok, do the math there. A guy is burning 2cal/min from exercise going for a walk. Take your average female and it's even less burn than that, so prob 1.5cal/min. Meaning going for an hour walk is 90calories burned is what they should be logging. This is pretty universal for most females that are average to just overweight. Yet how many log 90 calories? How many are instead logging 300-900??? The overestimation of calorie burn people have for this site is utterly laughable.

Now for a top end burn. This is a marathon runner running at a marathon pace. In other words, prob the utter max calorie burn a human can hope to accomplish for extended cardio. 16cal/min. This is also comparable to tour de france riders during stage racing. So when you subtract the 3cal/min BMR you're left with 13cal/min from exercise. So about 800 cal/hour. So the upper limit of cardio calorie burn gives a burn of 800 calories an hour. hmmm...

now look through this thread. How man people here are claiming a much higher calorie burn than what the most accomplished athletes on earth are able to burn at an intensity many times higher than the people in here can only dream of.

Yes. I use a chart on Runner' World and burn about 68 cal/mile running and walking would be 32 cal/mile walking for my weight. This is about what my HRM calculates too. MFP definitely overestimates calories.
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

a mile is a mile how ever long it takes you if youburn 100 cals a mile running it in 10mins you will burn 100 cals walking it in 15 mins

Cait_Sidhe

Well I certainly wouldn't post a topic and shame them publicly.

camelothosting

How do you know it's not possible? Are you some sort of weight loss expert in calories burned for each individual person?

Unless they ask, keep your mouth shut.

because if 30min walks burning 1k calories was possible, humanity would have died out thousands of years ago.

There are things called metabolic chambers which are able to accurately measure every calorie burned. the TLDR is that people burn FARRR less from exercise than they think they burn. and far underestimate the BMR burn simply from living.




Quick examples of metabolic chamber study. first is average dude, second is competitive marathon runner.

sleeping: 0.8cal/min
awake and sitting: 2cal/min
standing: 3cal/min
fast walking: 5cal/min
slow jog: 7cal/min

Ok, do the math there. A guy is burning 2cal/min from exercise going for a walk. Take your average female and it's even less burn than that, so prob 1.5cal/min. Meaning going for an hour walk is 90calories burned is what they should be logging. This is pretty universal for most females that are average to just overweight. Yet how many log 90 calories? How many are instead logging 300-900??? The overestimation of calorie burn people have for this site is utterly laughable.

Now for a top end burn. This is a marathon runner running at a marathon pace. In other words, prob the utter max calorie burn a human can hope to accomplish for extended cardio. 16cal/min. This is also comparable to tour de france riders during stage racing. So when you subtract the 3cal/min BMR you're left with 13cal/min from exercise. So about 800 cal/hour. So the upper limit of cardio calorie burn gives a burn of 800 calories an hour. hmmm...

now look through this thread. How man people here are claiming a much higher calorie burn than what the most accomplished athletes on earth are able to burn at an intensity many times higher than the people in here can only dream of.

Yes. I use a chart on Runner' World and burn about 68 cal/mile running and walking would be 32 cal/mile walking for my weight. This is about what my HRM calculates too. MFP definitely overestimates calories.
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

a mile is a mile how ever long it takes you if youburn 100 cals a mile running it in 10mins you will burn 100 cals walking it in 15 mins

Not quite accurate,
this is determined by severaal factors,
1 speed
2 elevation
heat
humidity

These will all affect your heart rate, and when I am walking 5 miles averaging 76% of max hr im going to burn more than if I walk the same 5 miles at a slower more relaxed pace and only average 65% max heart rate

Same 5 miles different heart rate so different amount of calories burned

jms3533

If the person is very close to me as a friend or family member, privately, I would talk to them. Otherwise? I wouldn't say anything. Sometimes people are going through their own private issues and I would just let them work it out.

Couldn't have put it better!

PrettyGirlPayton

LOL

invisibubble

Keep mouth shut, definitely. Although nearly everyone forgets to take out their normal sedentary calorie burn for the time they were active.Not explaining myself well - most people seem to think their gross calorie burn is their net calorie burn.

stephvaile

How do you know it's not possible? Are you some sort of weight loss expert in calories burned for each individual person?

Unless they ask, keep your mouth shut.

because if 30min walks burning 1k calories was possible, humanity would have died out thousands of years ago.

There are things called metabolic chambers which are able to accurately measure every calorie burned. the TLDR is that people burn FARRR less from exercise than they think they burn. and far underestimate the BMR burn simply from living.




Quick examples of metabolic chamber study. first is average dude, second is competitive marathon runner.

sleeping: 0.8cal/min
awake and sitting: 2cal/min
standing: 3cal/min
fast walking: 5cal/min
slow jog: 7cal/min

Ok, do the math there. A guy is burning 2cal/min from exercise going for a walk. Take your average female and it's even less burn than that, so prob 1.5cal/min. Meaning going for an hour walk is 90calories burned is what they should be logging. This is pretty universal for most females that are average to just overweight. Yet how many log 90 calories? How many are instead logging 300-900??? The overestimation of calorie burn people have for this site is utterly laughable.

Now for a top end burn. This is a marathon runner running at a marathon pace. In other words, prob the utter max calorie burn a human can hope to accomplish for extended cardio. 16cal/min. This is also comparable to tour de france riders during stage racing. So when you subtract the 3cal/min BMR you're left with 13cal/min from exercise. So about 800 cal/hour. So the upper limit of cardio calorie burn gives a burn of 800 calories an hour. hmmm...

now look through this thread. How man people here are claiming a much higher calorie burn than what the most accomplished athletes on earth are able to burn at an intensity many times higher than the people in here can only dream of.

Yes. I use a chart on Runner' World and burn about 68 cal/mile running and walking would be 32 cal/mile walking for my weight. This is about what my HRM calculates too. MFP definitely overestimates calories.
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

a mile is a mile how ever long it takes you if youburn 100 cals a mile running it in 10mins you will burn 100 cals walking it in 15 mins

Not quite accurate,
this is determined by severaal factors,
1 speed
2 elevation
heat
humidity

These will all affect your heart rate, and when I am walking 5 miles averaging 76% of max hr im going to burn more than if I walk the same 5 miles at a slower more relaxed pace and only average 65% max heart rate

Same 5 miles different heart rate so different amount of calories burned

Walking a mile burns the same number of calories as running a mile -- fit or fiction?

Well, this one is not so clear-cut. The answer is no, yes and it depends.

Walking at moderate speeds burns up to 40 percent fewer calories than jogging at moderate speeds over the same distance. This is because moderate walking is a more efficient way of moving and involves fewer muscles than running at a slow-to-moderate pace. When you walk, your legs are fairly straight as your foot strikes the ground. There is less impact, and your center of gravity remains relatively constant. All this conserves energy, e.g., burns fewer calories. Running is essentially jumping from foot to foot which is less energy efficient than the smooth glide of walking; because your knee is bent when your foot strikes the ground, muscles use up even more energy acting as shock absorbers and gravity fighters.

An American College of Sports Medicine study from 2004, for example, measured the calories burned running and walking over 1600 meters (around a mile) on a treadmill for 12 men and 12 women. The average calories the men burned running was 124 and 88 calories burned walking. The women burned 105 and 74 calories respectively. That's a 30 percent difference. (The men burned more because they weighed more.)

However, running doesn't always burn more calories than walking, and once again, this has to do with efficiency of movement. If you jog at a slow, barely-pick-up-your-feet pace, you'll burn a respectable 8 calories per minute -- but walking at a pace that is so speedy you have to wiggle your hips and swing your arms madly to keep yourself from breaking into a run can burn a massive 15 calories per minute. The so called "cross over" or "gray zone" pace, where walking becomes very strenuous, occurs somewhere at around 4 to 5 miles per hour for most people. So in other words, a 150-pound person running a mile at a 5 mph might burn 96 calories and 180 calories walking over the same distance and at the same speed.

To make things more complicated, you need to consider fitness level, hills, surface type and a host of other factors, all of which will significantly affect how many calories you burn over a given distance and a given amount of time. And to really complicate matters, a University of Colorado at Bolder study found walkers burn more calories walking at super-slow speeds (2 miles per hour or slower) than they do at moderate paces, due to the inefficiency of holding yourself back from using a normal gait.

If this is confusing, let me simplify it for you. Walking has the advantage of being easy to do and virtually injury free whereas running typically torches more calories but is tougher on the old joints. For most of us, a mix and match approach probably yields the best results. Just get out there and move your fanny. In the long run -- or walk – it's all miles in the bank.

GettinMyLifeBck

Tell her in private....I hate when people put burned calories by carrying a baby or burned calories walking in walmart need I go on???

kaotik26

I'm not an expert but I do understand what works for one may not work for another, so I'd mind my own business. If they ask for help I might mention it but otherwise no.

Irish_eyes75

Here we go again with the diary police....too many calories burned, eating back calories, not drinking water, not logging exercise..blah blah blah

Unless someone asks you for your advice keep it to yourself. This should be followed in real life too btw.

stephvaile

i would say if it bothers u that much send a private message but at the end of the day its her buisness and unless she asks for help when not losing i would leave it alone

littlepinkhearts

[/quote]





[/quote]
Walking a mile burns the same number of calories as running a mile -- fit or fiction?

Well, this one is not so clear-cut. The answer is no, yes and it depends.

Walking at moderate speeds burns up to 40 percent fewer calories than jogging at moderate speeds over the same distance. This is because moderate walking is a more efficient way of moving and involves fewer muscles than running at a slow-to-moderate pace. When you walk, your legs are fairly straight as your foot strikes the ground. There is less impact, and your center of gravity remains relatively constant. All this conserves energy, e.g., burns fewer calories. Running is essentially jumping from foot to foot which is less energy efficient than the smooth glide of walking; because your knee is bent when your foot strikes the ground, muscles use up even more energy acting as shock absorbers and gravity fighters.

An American College of Sports Medicine study from 2004, for example, measured the calories burned running and walking over 1600 meters (around a mile) on a treadmill for 12 men and 12 women. The average calories the men burned running was 124 and 88 calories burned walking. The women burned 105 and 74 calories respectively. That's a 30 percent difference. (The men burned more because they weighed more.)

However, running doesn't always burn more calories than walking, and once again, this has to do with efficiency of movement. If you jog at a slow, barely-pick-up-your-feet pace, you'll burn a respectable 8 calories per minute -- but walking at a pace that is so speedy you have to wiggle your hips and swing your arms madly to keep yourself from breaking into a run can burn a massive 15 calories per minute. The so called "cross over" or "gray zone" pace, where walking becomes very strenuous, occurs somewhere at around 4 to 5 miles per hour for most people. So in other words, a 150-pound person running a mile at a 5 mph might burn 96 calories and 180 calories walking over the same distance and at the same speed.

To make things more complicated, you need to consider fitness level, hills, surface type and a host of other factors, all of which will significantly affect how many calories you burn over a given distance and a given amount of time. And to really complicate matters, a University of Colorado at Bolder study found walkers burn more calories walking at super-slow speeds (2 miles per hour or slower) than they do at moderate paces, due to the inefficiency of holding yourself back from using a normal gait.

If this is confusing, let me simplify it for you. Walking has the advantage of being easy to do and virtually injury free whereas running typically torches more calories but is tougher on the old joints. For most of us, a mix and match approach probably yields the best results. Just get out there and move your fanny. In the long run -- or walk – it's all miles in the bank.
[/quote]

love this answer!!!

Jynus

How do you know it's not possible? Are you some sort of weight loss expert in calories burned for each individual person?

Unless they ask, keep your mouth shut.

because if 30min walks burning 1k calories was possible, humanity would have died out thousands of years ago.

There are things called metabolic chambers which are able to accurately measure every calorie burned. the TLDR is that people burn FARRR less from exercise than they think they burn. and far underestimate the BMR burn simply from living.

Quick examples of metabolic chamber study. first is average dude, second is competitive marathon runner.

sleeping: 0.8cal/min
awake and sitting: 2cal/min
standing: 3cal/min
fast walking: 5cal/min
slow jog: 7cal/min

Ok, do the math there. A guy is burning 2cal/min from exercise going for a walk. Take your average female and it's even less burn than that, so prob 1.5cal/min. Meaning going for an hour walk is 90calories burned is what they should be logging. This is pretty universal for most females that are average to just overweight. Yet how many log 90 calories? How many are instead logging 300-900??? The overestimation of calorie burn people have for this site is utterly laughable.

Now for a top end burn. This is a marathon runner running at a marathon pace. In other words, prob the utter max calorie burn a human can hope to accomplish for extended cardio. 16cal/min. This is also comparable to tour de france riders during stage racing. So when you subtract the 3cal/min BMR you're left with 13cal/min from exercise. So about 800 cal/hour. So the upper limit of cardio calorie burn gives a burn of 800 calories an hour. hmmm... (granted, much larger people than marathon runners also going max intensity can get greater calorie burns. So it's relative)

edit: there was another metabolic chamber study I just recalled. Average guys, average gym goers, did 45min cardio, 188bpm, 70% VO2MAX. Their calorie burn was 560/hour from exercise. It was an epoc based test though and they had an additional 180cal burned over next 48 hours. Point being, it was average guys, doing hour of exercise and logging far less than most anyone in here would log for exact same exercise. Compare your cardio stats, are you under 188bpm? If yes, and you're not over 200lbs, then guess what, you're doing under 560cal/hour calorie burn. Pretty much no question about it. Yet what are you logging?

now look through this thread. How man people here are claiming a much higher calorie burn than what the most accomplished athletes on earth are able to burn at an intensity many times higher than the people in here can only dream of.

Calories burned per mile by walking

Speed/Pounds 100 lb 120 lb 140 lb 160 lb 180 lb 200 lb 220 lb 250 lb 275 lb 300 lb
2.0mph 57 68 80 91 102 114 125 142 156 170
2.5mph 55 65 76 87 98 109 120 136 150 164
3.0mph 53 64 74 85 95 106 117 133 146 159
3.5mph 52 62 73 83 94 104 114 130 143 156
4.0mph 57 68 80 91 102 114 125 142 156 170
4.5mph 64 76 89 102 115 127 140 159 175 191
5.0mph 73 87 102 116 131 145 160 182 200 218
Walking Off Weight

get your facts straight mate

My facts support this. that looks accurate. If you're including the 180cal/hour of bmr. 160lbs guy doing 3mph walk burns 255 calories total, minus 180 from BMR giving a total exercise burn of 75calories in a hour. But how many people would mark 255?? Not really understanding that 180 of it would have been burnt anyway.

rompers16

I don't want this to come across rude, but unless it changes your journey, why does it matter? I would hate to think someone looked at my calories burned walking today and assume I lied about it. Weight makes a big difference in calories burned and I use an HRM to input mine..for actual exercise time only. Even if you know for a fact she's lying, it's not hurting you.