DO NOT RELY ON ACCURACY OF MFP CALS BURNED
Replies
-
EVERYTHING is an estimation - your BMR, your TDEE, the calories you eat (regardless of how closely you log) and your calories burned. Even heart rate monitors are estimates.
^this. I go off of when I'm hungry and eat healthy. It's worked for me so far, so I may as well just stick with it0 -
No big deal. Your body has the final say. Listen to it.
My body is telling me to eat an entire large pizza after 7pm.
my body is telling me to join you!0 -
EVERYTHING is an estimation - your BMR, your TDEE, the calories you eat (regardless of how closely you log) and your calories burned. Even heart rate monitors are estimates.
^^^^More people need to realize this.
Perhaps, but i think that HRM's are still waaaaay more accurate than the totals given on the site simply because the site has no way of knowing how intensely you work out no?
Not necessarily. HRMs assume your raised heartrate is as a result of cardio that burns calories and but an elevated heart rate does not necessarily mean you are doing cardio. You may not be burning calories at the rate it figures. Any number of things can affect heartrate. Look at strength training - use a HRM all the time but it is not accurate. The heart rate goes up, but your body is not using nearly as many muscles/not burning as many calories as if you were doing cardio.
And again, heartrate monitors are based on average. If you have a slightly faster or slower heartrate in general, the HRM won't be accurate.
But your example isnt necessarily true. When i weight train i do an intense circuit within a 6 minute window w/ 1 minute rest. I burn waaaay more than the guy that does 5 curls of a heavy weight then goes and looks at himself in the mirror.
In the end none of this matters. If you have a regular routine between work and working out, it's just not that complicated. If you consume an average of 2400 calories per day for 2 weeks and you find that you are down 2 pounds then you can assume that you are eating at a deficit.0 -
HRM aren't always correct either. If used correctly and you are at the right fitness level they can be fairly accurate, but if not they can be wildly off.
I've never invested in one because I have tachycardia. Even when I take a beta blocker, my heart rate seems to skyrocket when I work out. That has to affect the accuracy. *sigh* What can you do?0 -
EVERYTHING is an estimation - your BMR, your TDEE, the calories you eat (regardless of how closely you log) and your calories burned. Even heart rate monitors are estimates.
^^^^More people need to realize this.
Perhaps, but i think that HRM's are still waaaaay more accurate than the totals given on the site simply because the site has no way of knowing how intensely you work out no?
Not necessarily. HRMs assume your raised heartrate is as a result of cardio that burns calories and but an elevated heart rate does not necessarily mean you are doing cardio. You may not be burning calories at the rate it figures. Any number of things can affect heartrate. Look at strength training - use a HRM all the time but it is not accurate. The heart rate goes up, but your body is not using nearly as many muscles/not burning as many calories as if you were doing cardio.
And again, heartrate monitors are based on average. If you have a slightly faster or slower heartrate in general, the HRM won't be accurate.
But your example isnt necessarily true. When i weight train i do an intense circuit within a 6 minute window w/ 1 minute rest. I burn waaaay more than the guy that does 5 curls of a heavy weight then goes and looks at himself in the mirror.
In the end none of this matters. If you have a regular routine between work and working out, it's just not that complicated. If you consume an average of 2400 calories per day for 2 weeks and you find that you are down 2 pounds then you can assume that you are eating at a deficit.
I cannot even begin to count the ways this is wrong...What if i weight 90 lbs and i'm 4' 11"? you're telling me that every human being on earth can use the BlackTimber method.
you should write a book!0 -
I understand the concept of calories being burned. Also what people don't understand is actual body mass. If my daughter does the elippitical for an hour she is about 135 pounds and I do the same hour we will no way burn the same amount of calories. As for an accurate calorie count I just stay well below the alloment given. I have consistently lost 2 pounds a week which works for me. I did not gain 160 extra pounds in 7 months lets be realistic and understand I will not lose that much in a short time. Thanks so much for the valuable information I find on this site. It keeps me going! 84 pounds down about 80 to go!0
-
No big deal. Your body has the final say. Listen to it.
My body is telling me to eat an entire large pizza after 7pm.
my body is telling me to join you!
Mine also but I want my own pizza! Fresh sliced Garlic and Tomato please...0 -
In the end none of this matters. If you have a regular routine between work and working out, it's just not that complicated. If you consume an average of 2400 calories per day for 2 weeks and you find that you are down 2 pounds then you can assume that you are eating at a deficit.
I cannot even begin to count the ways this is wrong...What if i weight 90 lbs and i'm 4' 11"? you're telling me that every human being on earth can use the BlackTimber method.
you should write a book!
I think you misunderstand his point. I don't think it was everyone should eat at 2400, that was an example. I think he means if you are doing the same workouts and averaging the same amount of calories, and losing, you are at a deficit and simply continue to do that (although at some point you would have to either up the exercise or lower the calories as your body gets smaller it won't burn as burn as many calories therefore your deficit would be smaller)0 -
In the end none of this matters. If you have a regular routine between work and working out, it's just not that complicated. If you consume an average of 2400 calories per day for 2 weeks and you find that you are down 2 pounds then you can assume that you are eating at a deficit.
I cannot even begin to count the ways this is wrong...What if i weight 90 lbs and i'm 4' 11"? you're telling me that every human being on earth can use the BlackTimber method.
you should write a book!
I think you misunderstand his point. I don't think it was everyone should eat at 2400, that was an example. I think he means if you are doing the same workouts and averaging the same amount of calories, and losing, you are at a deficit and simply continue to do that (although at some point you would have to either up the exercise or lower the calories as your body gets smaller it won't burn as burn as many calories therefore your deficit would be smaller)
Its not just because your body gets smaller...your body and heart get more fit0 -
In the end none of this matters. If you have a regular routine between work and working out, it's just not that complicated. If you consume an average of 2400 calories per day for 2 weeks and you find that you are down 2 pounds then you can assume that you are eating at a deficit.
I cannot even begin to count the ways this is wrong...What if i weight 90 lbs and i'm 4' 11"? you're telling me that every human being on earth can use the BlackTimber method.
you should write a book!
I think you misunderstand his point. I don't think it was everyone should eat at 2400, that was an example. I think he means if you are doing the same workouts and averaging the same amount of calories, and losing, you are at a deficit and simply continue to do that (although at some point you would have to either up the exercise or lower the calories as your body gets smaller it won't burn as burn as many calories therefore your deficit would be smaller)
Its not just because your body gets smaller...your body and heart get more fit
Azduk explains it pretty well I this thread
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/405537-hrm-fat-v-muscle-how-accurate
"If you weighed the same, you and Lance would be burning approximately the same number of calories. It's just that he can sustain the effort easily and do even more, and you can't.
Heart rate by itself has nothing to do with calorie burn."
(In reference to biking at same pace)0 -
In the end none of this matters. If you have a regular routine between work and working out, it's just not that complicated. If you consume an average of 2400 calories per day for 2 weeks and you find that you are down 2 pounds then you can assume that you are eating at a deficit.
I cannot even begin to count the ways this is wrong...What if i weight 90 lbs and i'm 4' 11"? you're telling me that every human being on earth can use the BlackTimber method.
you should write a book!
I think you misunderstand his point. I don't think it was everyone should eat at 2400, that was an example. I think he means if you are doing the same workouts and averaging the same amount of calories, and losing, you are at a deficit and simply continue to do that (although at some point you would have to either up the exercise or lower the calories as your body gets smaller it won't burn as burn as many calories therefore your deficit would be smaller)
Its not just because your body gets smaller...your body and heart get more fit
Azduk explains it pretty well I this thread
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/405537-hrm-fat-v-muscle-how-accurate
"If you weighed the same, you and Lance would be burning approximately the same number of calories. It's just that he can sustain the effort easily and do even more, and you can't.
Heart rate by itself has nothing to do with calorie burn."
(In reference to biking at same pace)
yes but his explanation requires math skills which i do not have. I was simply stating an HRM is far more accurate than this site. And because i pulled that statement out of my butt while i was running on the treadmill this morning thinking about it, i do not need to cite any resources to substantiate my claim
0 -
i keep seeing the same convo over and over.
So you decided to post it again? Try this angle: Even if HRMs were as accurate as you think (they aren't) no one needs to know their exact "burn" to lose weight. You don't have to track exercise calories at all, in fact. People have been getting in shape for decades before HRMs starting getting touted as calorie calculators. Save your money.0 -
I have my MFP set to lose 2 lbs per week. I run about 5-7 miles everyday. Each mile being around 8-10 mins, which runs me about 500-600 cals burned per day, 60 push ups = 20 cals, 100 sit up = 30 cals, 40 mins of walking at a brisk pace = 120 cals burned but what I do, even though MFP says I burning about 700-800 calories per day I only eat 1,450 calories per day, that way I give myself a little space to eat more since I'm a runner and if the calculations are off, as many of you have been saying, I am still losing weight. Just because you burn the calories doesn't mean you should go crazy with your intake any way, set a calorie intake and make your body get use to it, this will help in the long run when you are trying to maintain your weight loss , personally my body has gotten use to a 1,450 calorie a day diet and that is what I am sticking with, at least until the Cross Country season is over... I have been trying to maintain btw 140-142 until the season is over, then I will get back on my weight loss to hit my goal of 130 lbs and ripped :-)0
-
I have my MFP set to lose 2 lbs per week. I run about 5-7 miles everyday. Each mile being around 8-10 mins, which runs me about 500-600 cals burned per day, 60 push ups = 20 cals, 100 sit up = 30 cals, 40 mins of walking at a brisk pace = 120 cals burned but what I do, even though MFP says I burning about 700-800 calories per day I only eat 1,450 calories per day, that way I give myself a little space to eat more since I'm a runner and if the calculations are off, as many of you have been saying, I am still losing weight. Just because you burn the calories doesn't mean you should go crazy with your intake any way, set a calorie intake and make your body get use to it, this will help in the long run when you are trying to maintain your weight loss , personally my body has gotten use to a 1,450 calorie a day diet and that is what I am sticking with, at least until the Cross Country season is over... I have been trying to maintain btw 140-142 until the season is over, then I will get back on my weight loss to hit my goal of 130 lbs and ripped 0
-
I have my MFP set to lose 2 lbs per week. I run about 5-7 miles everyday. Each mile being around 8-10 mins, which runs me about 500-600 cals burned per day, 60 push ups = 20 cals, 100 sit up = 30 cals, 40 mins of walking at a brisk pace = 120 cals burned but what I do, even though MFP says I burning about 700-800 calories per day I only eat 1,450 calories per day, that way I give myself a little space to eat more since I'm a runner and if the calculations are off, as many of you have been saying, I am still losing weight. Just because you burn the calories doesn't mean you should go crazy with your intake any way, set a calorie intake and make your body get use to it, this will help in the long run when you are trying to maintain your weight loss , personally my body has gotten use to a 1,450 calorie a day diet and that is what I am sticking with, at least until the Cross Country season is over... I have been trying to maintain btw 140-142 until the season is over, then I will get back on my weight loss to hit my goal of 130 lbs and ripped :-)
There is a difference between being healthy and losing weight. They do not necessarily go hand in hand. Too large of a calorie deficit is not a good thing. For the amount of exercise you do, and your age, that is quite a large deficit, even if you assumed that MFP's numbers are twice as high. You are barely eating above your BMR and are active.
I am not about going crazy with your intake, I am about fueling my body to perform well and be healthy.0 -
Damn... so I didn't burn 500 calories cleaning the car today? Shoot!0
-
Until I get my HRM I ordered, I have been going off of whatever machine I'm on says I've burned and even then, it's always a different number than what MFP would say if I put the same time in on here. I know neither are probably dead on, so I just assume that it's either a little lower or possibly a little higher than what I have entered.
I havent tried, but i've heard machines can be very inaccurate.
Which is why I just said I assume it'd a round about number. I mean, I lost 2 lbs in two weeks without a HRM using what the machine tells me, some I must be doing something right.
I lost a lot of weight w/out a HRM too, but because my heart got "more fit" i hit a plateau...you prolly will too. Just sayin
K. Not worried about it, don't have much to lose at all.0 -
I keep seeing people surprised by the fact that their HRM says they burned less than the cals burned on the site. It’s pretty logical if you think about it:
This site cannot tell how "INTENSE" you are working out. For instance if I select circuit training, one person might burn 400 in half an hour, another might burn way more or less. The only way to get an accurate cals burned # is w/ an HRM.
If you haven’t bought one yet, you can trick the system by deducting 200-300 cals off your burned amount (unless you work out very intensely) or you can select loose two pounds vs 1 lb per week. That way you will be about 500 or so under regardless.
I hope this helps! Not being critical, but i keep seeing the same convo over and over.
I'll be waiting for my HRM to arrive at my doorstep. I prefer UPS, but FedEx is acceptable.
Meanwhile, I will continue using MFP's database and continue getting great results.0 -
i keep seeing the same convo over and over.
So you decided to post it again? Try this angle: Even if HRMs were as accurate as you think (they aren't) no one needs to know their exact "burn" to lose weight. You don't have to track exercise calories at all, in fact. People have been getting in shape for decades before HRMs starting getting touted as calorie calculators. Save your money.
Never bought one and probably never will. I can't justify the expense. :smokin:0 -
I totally agree! You did not burn 100 calories by vacuuming!!
I bought a heart rate monitor recently and I'm shocked at how few calories I burn. It's a little sad, but at least I know the truth!
If you can burn 100 calories from walking, then you can burn 100 calories doing light cleaning. Basically, vacuuming, dusting, etc burn about the same number of calories as walking.0 -
When I started using a HRM (Polar FT4), I found that I was actually burning MORE calories than MFP said I was. So, I would not automatically assume MFPs estimates are high.0
-
If it helps you mentally, it helps you physically. The placebo effect can be helpful. Don't make this stuff to hard for yourself.0
-
i keep seeing the same convo over and over.
So you decided to post it again? Try this angle: Even if HRMs were as accurate as you think (they aren't) no one needs to know their exact "burn" to lose weight. You don't have to track exercise calories at all, in fact. People have been getting in shape for decades before HRMs starting getting touted as calorie calculators. Save your money.
Once again, DavPul speaks the truth, but I predict, once again, it will be ignored, and people will continue to praise the "accuracy" of their precious hrm's. These threads make for great entertainment though.0 -
I don't know if your completely right about this I have always lost my weekly goal weight unless I had a really bad week, but then again when I work out I give it my all.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions