The reason some of us may not be losing weight.

Options
jerren
jerren Posts: 196
in Fitness and Exercise
Let me preface this post by first stating that I love MFP. I feel it is a great tool and has been the key factor in my lifestyle change so far. Also, I know there are a lot of other things that come into play when we are trying to figure out why we aren't losing what we thought we would be. My post here is just speaking to the MFP Database Numbers vs. HRM numbers. And one last thing, I'm not a professional trainer or anything. I've only been here a few months. And I'm still fat. lol. However this is just an opinion I've developed from my observations from my short time being here. Its probably not anything ground breaking or something that hasn't been brought up before.

Phew, now that we got the disclaimer out of the way, on to my post...

This past Saturday, Fed Ex delivered my Garmin Forerunner 305 GPS/Calorie Counter/ Heart Rate Monitor/Bike cadence counter/ and I think it has a clock too. So I immediately tossed it on, set it up, and took it out for a spin. I did some of the normal things that I track here on MFP. And as expected, the calories burned numbers that I was getting from MFP were off. Substantially in some cases. For example, mowing the lawn according to the MFP numbers for 40 mins is supposed to burn 400+ calories for me. According to the hear rate monitor, I only burned 100. So in this case my calories in/calories out count for the day would have been WAY off if I had gone by the MFP numbers. And for S's and G's I checked out how many calories I would have burned if I had whipped out a riding mower and it said 191 lol.

I understand the discrepancy here is that our database is completely ran by us, the users. But I just wanted to put out there that it is not the final word in most cases. Just be careful about what you are logging and if you are in doubt about the number that mfp gives you is a bit high, round it down a bit and play it safe.

Good luck out there everyone. Be safe and be healthy!
«1

Replies

  • shellshalla
    shellshalla Posts: 263 Member
    Options
    That's interesting because my Polar F6 gives me higher numbers then MFP and my treadmill 99% of the time. I usually burn at least 10 calories per minute.
  • skygoddess86
    skygoddess86 Posts: 487 Member
    Options
    Oh I agree! I have been cross checking with another site and kind of splitting the difference.
  • miqisha
    miqisha Posts: 1,534 Member
    Options
    Alot of users here use HRM because of that same reason

    Thats also why alot of people dont try to eat their workout calories....because MFP does tend to be off for some items

    So I would suggest to some people who may not be loosing to probably get a HRM to get a better idea of how many calories they really are burning

    Thanks for the info
  • rburchfiel
    rburchfiel Posts: 1
    Options
    With all due respect relying on any numbers on a website that is built by other users is simply ridiculous. What would be the best thing is to come up with a baseline diet that you stick to on a daily basis and not even log your workouts.
  • cutmd
    cutmd Posts: 1,168 Member
    Options
    I know it's not the point of the thread, but just to cull the reasons together, a lot of people are not weighing their food and guestimating, which can make you off by 100-200 cals for nutrient dense foods. Couple that with error in selecting foods from the database, errors in the database, and then errors in your exercise burn and you end up either way above or below your net calorie goal, either of which could sabotage your weight loss efforts. :frown:

    The best solutions I think are to weigh and measure your foods, use a heart rate monitor, put your recipe rather than a same name food in the database, and really just try to make it as accurate as possible
  • jerren
    jerren Posts: 196
    Options
    With all due respect relying on any numbers on a website that is built by other users is simply ridiculous. What would be the best thing is to come up with a baseline diet that you stick to on a daily basis and not even log your workouts.

    I don't know if I would say its ridiculous. I would say that perhaps a confirmation system like they have on the food database side of things may be helpful. I've double checked the food database time and time again. It has a high rate of accuracy when compared to the exercise data base.
  • SimonLondon
    SimonLondon Posts: 350
    Options
    The HRM made a whopping difference to the calorie count (50% difference from the results here) and it is the main reason I never eat all my exercise calories because I just don't know how accurate any of it is...
  • msarro
    msarro Posts: 2,748 Member
    Options
    Actually, the exercise numbers are based on average calorie expenditure for men and women. The issue is, all of us have extremely different bodies. Almost none of us will fall right on the "average" line. Further, if you run every single day for the next 3 years, your calories burnt will probably be lower than what is reported on here, vs someone who runs for the first time whose calories burnt would be much higher.

    The rate at which we burn calories in exercise can be impacted by a ton of things, from body weight, exposure to the particular exercise, muscle tone, muscle composition, all the way through to biorhythms. The numbers can't really be relied on, they're just better to give you an estimate. The only *real* way to track things is to get a HRM. And even then, you need to find out if the HRM takes into account your BMR or not. If it doesn't, then you need to take your BMR, devide it by 24 to get the calories burnt in an hour, and do the math to figure out what exactly you burnt. Some take it into account, others don't. Polar, for instance, does not take it into account.

    I would never suggest using only the exercise numbers on this site to someone. Use a HRM, see where you tend to fit (above or below the numbers) and then use them occasionally to ballpark it.
  • DeeDeeLHF
    DeeDeeLHF Posts: 2,301 Member
    Options
    Before losing weight my numbers were higher on my HRM than MFP would give me. Now that I am closer they are too high. It really depends on your personal body stats. In the beginning my heart rate could shoot up really quickly and take several minutes to return. Now it takes a good 5 or 6 minute warm up to get my heart rate in zone and it returns within a minute or less. That makes a difference in calorie burn on my HRM as it is lower but it also shows I am healthier so I am pleased. MFP gives us a guideline but true...everyone should use a HRM if you are excercising.

    D
  • SimonLondon
    SimonLondon Posts: 350
    Options
    Carrying on from my last - I worked out my V02 Max at the weekend and tonight I tested out my heart rate monitor (polar RS400) based on having ALL the details it needs.

    After 30 minutes on the Elliptical trainer covering 4 miles it gave a calorie count of 320. I was thinking it would be quite a bit lower considering the VO2 was off by 15 but it hasn't really made much difference :ohwell:

    I think the Polar is probably very close but I still don't like eating all my exercise calories...just to be sure :wink:
  • stratdl
    stratdl Posts: 303 Member
    Options
    Actually, the exercise numbers are based on average calorie expenditure for men and women. The issue is, all of us have extremely different bodies. Almost none of us will fall right on the "average" line. Further, if you run every single day for the next 3 years, your calories burnt will probably be lower than what is reported on here, vs someone who runs for the first time whose calories burnt would be much higher.

    The rate at which we burn calories in exercise can be impacted by a ton of things, from body weight, exposure to the particular exercise, muscle tone, muscle composition, all the way through to biorhythms. The numbers can't really be relied on, they're just better to give you an estimate. The only *real* way to track things is to get a HRM. And even then, you need to find out if the HRM takes into account your BMR or not. If it doesn't, then you need to take your BMR, devide it by 24 to get the calories burnt in an hour, and do the math to figure out what exactly you burnt. Some take it into account, others don't. Polar, for instance, does not take it into account.

    I would never suggest using only the exercise numbers on this site to someone. Use a HRM, see where you tend to fit (above or below the numbers) and then use them occasionally to ballpark it.

    I completely agree. And I'd like to add the following: Unless you've actually had your BMR/RMR and XMR (exercise metabolic rate) measured directly, you may be off (substantially, in some cases) as well. Keep in mind that whenever a calculation based on "the average exerciser" is used, it may or may not reflect your unique situation. This is probably the reason why some people seem to lose after eating exercise calories and some people do not. Of course, it can be quite spendy to invest in the tests, but if you're as anal as I am about knowing how many calories *exactly* that you've burned and how many calories *exactly* that you can consume, it's well worth it to get the tests done.

    Keep in mind that as your fitness level increases, your XMR can change (your BMR/RMR does not change as much, from what I understand).

    Hope this helps!

    Cheers! :drinker:
  • LoveMy4Kids
    LoveMy4Kids Posts: 231
    Options
    I already posted this in another post simular to this one, but when I started at the gym (which I really need to get back to) the fitness worker there said that because I was heavy (well she didn't say it in those words, lol) that I would burn off more calories then the machine said! So is mfp going by your weight too? or just the same for everyone?
  • amandahyg
    amandahyg Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    I was starting to think along the same lines as everyone here and I just ordered a garmin forerunner 110 - can't wait for it to arrive now.
  • pittapatta
    pittapatta Posts: 15
    Options
    yeah, it is a bit vauge. it should have different strains of excercise - low, medium and high. if you where mowing the lawn like a madman that would probs be rated as hight because your hearts beating fater, therefore burning more cals. if you where doing it at a leisurely pace, that would be rated as low, therefore less cals burnt.
  • IsMollyReallyHungry
    IsMollyReallyHungry Posts: 15,385 Member
    Options
    wow this was a hot subject I see! Here's my 2 cents.....:-) The weeks I do the best are when I eat about 1700 to 1900 calories and not eating more than 100 to 300 exercise calories on the days I exercise. Since you are a male you may get away with 2000 to 2200. I recommend trying it for a week. Try not eating hardly any of the exercise calories. Definitely no more than half. Your investment in HRM is a good one. Hurray for you not giving up! MFP is still an awesome site, with many imperfections. What can you do, it is a FREE site. Good luck to you!
  • jerren
    jerren Posts: 196
    Options
    wow this was a hot subject I see! Here's my 2 cents.....:-) The weeks I do the best are when I eat about 1700 to 1900 calories and not eating more than 100 to 300 exercise calories on the days I exercise. Since you are a male you may get away with 2000 to 2200. I recommend trying it for a week. Try not eating hardly any of the exercise calories. Definitely no more than half. Your investment in HRM is a good one. Hurray for you not giving up! MFP is still an awesome site, with many imperfections. What can you do, it is a FREE site. Good luck to you!

    Mollie I'm going to give that a shot (not eating all of my exercise calories.) Although I think I did have a bit too much faith in the MFP calculations of exercise calories so I'm thinking that may have been one of the reasons I wasn't losing the way I thought I should have. We'll see.

    Thanks and good luck to you too!
  • blondageh
    blondageh Posts: 923 Member
    Options
    I don't eat my exercise calories but I can say I am bummed. I thought it was awful high. For example, it says I burn 516 calories riding my stationary bike for 30 mins when said bike says I burn just over 100. I am thinking it is more than that because I am so heavy but not anywhere near 516 calories for 30 mins. I just looked it up 10 mins before I read that post and got seriously excited to be burning so much for such little time. LOL. I guess I can throw that out the window. Wonder where they got these crazy numbers. I am going to try and look it up on another site and see what I get.
  • blondageh
    blondageh Posts: 923 Member
    Options
    Well I'll be darned! I just looked it up on http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php and it says the same. I think I know where people are getting their data. LOL. I will try another site.

    Ok, I looked it up on yet another site and this one was even MORE

    Your Calories Burned
    Additional Calories from Exercise: + 624.0 kcal

    I wonder how they figure this all out. Is the HRM really the best thing? I honestly need to look into getting one.
  • SugaNess
    SugaNess Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    I have learned from past experience that weighing you food and doing the calories yourself is always the best way. So I always weigh my food, check the calorie amount on the package(if it is a packaged food) with the calories on the mfp data to see if they match. I also take the time out to calculate my ingredients if I make something from scratch, then break them down. I guess that comes a little easier for me because I am a Baker/Pastry chef, and I have been changing up recipes and that is the only way I can get my correct calories, fat and protein readings to make sure I don't go over my calories. But some thing else may be easier for you. Just make sure you get your numbers as accurate as possible. Good luck with it..
  • jerren
    jerren Posts: 196
    Options
    I don't eat my exercise calories but I can say I am bummed. I thought it was awful high. For example, it says I burn 516 calories riding my stationary bike for 30 mins when said bike says I burn just over 100. I am thinking it is more than that because I am so heavy but not anywhere near 516 calories for 30 mins. I just looked it up 10 mins before I read that post and got seriously excited to be burning so much for such little time. LOL. I guess I can throw that out the window. Wonder where they got these crazy numbers. I am going to try and look it up on another site and see what I get.

    wait, that part could be right. for example, When I was 300 something, my stationary bike's max weight limit was only 250 (i think) whatever it was it was much less than what I weighed. So any way, it is a cheapo bike. so it never even asks about any of my stats before calculating what kind of calories i'm burning. So I figured if they thought I was the biggest the bike is spec'd for, I'm still burning even more calories than that since I was much larger. I hope my explanation of that scenario makes sense to you.

Categories