did you really burn that many calories?

Options
13567…10

Replies

  • milesvictors
    milesvictors Posts: 83 Member
    Options
    My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

    I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.
    That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.

    Really? Impossible? A 5k is 3.1 miles, so I would say unless you are a SUPER athlete (with a resting heart rate of 40 or less) would you get close to 200 calories. I would say for the average recreational athlete, 300 would be on the lower end, even if you were skinny. 600 calories is not wildly outlandish, and the number is backed by heart rate data that takes into account weight, height, gender, elevation, and exertion. Where do you get your data from, might I ask? Where is your validation that stands behind your statement?
  • XTSH
    XTSH Posts: 129 Member
    Options
    I wore my HRM every workout. To be honest, I find it strange that my HRM actually gave me higher calories burnt than what shown on the equipment. The equipment brand they used at my local gym is called Technogym. I have updated my weight and height on the watch. Example, an hour on the Elliptical Trainer gave me 760 on the HRM. Equipment shows 520. I always login the machine readings. lol

    I did wore my HRM to work the other day (just for research) and the calories burnt just hit 800Kcal in the whole 9 hours. I doubt my HRM is faulty. Hope so since I'm really attached to my new toy. :)
  • rodneyderrick
    rodneyderrick Posts: 483 Member
    Options
    My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

    I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.
    That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.

    Really? Impossible? A 5k is 3.1 miles, so I would say unless you are a SUPER athlete (with a resting heart rate of 40 or less) would you get close to 200 calories. I would say for the average recreational athlete, 300 would be on the lower end, even if you were skinny. 600 calories is not wildly outlandish, and the number is backed by heart rate data that takes into account weight, height, gender, elevation, and exertion. Where do you get your data from, might I ask? Where is your validation that stands behind your statement?

    3.1 miles will generate an approximate calorie burn between 400 to 500 calories, but it depends on the person's intensity level, weight, and duration. I'd be pretty upset if I ran 3.1 miles, and only burned 200 calories.
  • jmc0806
    jmc0806 Posts: 1,444 Member
    Options
    My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

    I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.
    That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.

    It's definitely not impossible. I burn about 550 per 5k and that is coming from my HRM
  • got2go2concerts
    got2go2concerts Posts: 132 Member
    Options
    when I go to the gym I put in my weight on the machines and track calories burned by that. When I log on MFP the eliptical calorie burn is always higher than the machine so I log what the machine says. Then when I walk on treadmill MFP shows considerably lower than the machine, so again I use what the machine says. I think since there a variables when exercising or cleaning it is a little hard to get exact since so much can depend on what you are doing, such as speed, distance, incline, etc. so I just go with what my machine says. I try not to eat my calories back but some days I work out a little more because I have eat something bad that put me over on my calories. Just my 2 cents worth, LOL
  • watfordjc
    watfordjc Posts: 304 Member
    Options
    Let's see... I jogged 2.06 miles in 25 minutes last night (during a heavy downpour so bad I had to pull my Storm beanie over my eyebrows) with an average heart rate of 155 bpm (81% of max) and a peak heart rate of 177 bpm (92.7% of max). My HRM says I burned 306 calories, my Ki Fit says I average 14 kcal/min when jogging (minus MFP base calories... 14*25 - (1,430+750)/1,440*25 = 312 calories). Jogging 3 miles at ~4.9 mph would be 36 minutes at 14 kcal/min totalling 14*36 - (1,430+750)/1,440*36 = 449.5 calories.

    Your body does not work in exactly the same way as mine. My body doesn't even work in exactly the same way as it did when I was 90.8 pounds heavier, and "100 calories per mile" is a myth. I burn 7.5 kcal/min walking at 3.0 mph (8.5 kcal/min when walking over a certain distance) - 7.5*20 - (1,430+750)/1,440*20 = 120 calories per mile. I'm sure me jogging at 4.9 mph will also be different to me running at 6, 8, or 10 mph.

    Oh, and I eat back 100% of my exercise calories (several hundred thousand so far) and have lost 90.8 pounds since 3rd November, with 95-105% of the weight lost between December and July being from fat. I'm 5' 6", have ~140 lb LBM, my RHR (measured yesterday) is still 48 bpm (not quite down to 43 bpm where it was 3 years ago when I was 176 lb and had finished C25K and running for 30 minutes regularly, but definitely down from the 72-92 bpm it was at in November), my 1-minute heart recovery rate yesterday was 21 bpm and 2-minute heart recovery rate 38 bpm.

    If I didn't have a Ki Fit that was linked to MFP I'd probably go with data from my HRM which means although the running part would be in a separate lap I wouldn't be bothered to add the 12 minutes walking to the park, the 5 minute warm-up, the 5 minute cool-down, and the 12 minutes walking back from the park as separate, and I'd want to log the distance I ran rather than total combined distance so I could keep track of running distance that way. So on July 22nd that would be 1.72 miles and 295 calories (actually, that calorie burn is ignoring the 24 minutes of walking to/from the park... 1.72 miles and 439 calories).

    Friday I burned 2,869 calories from 1 minute of Bodymedia Display and 12 calories from 1 minute of BodyMedia calorie adjustment. If I were to have logged that instead using the figures from my iPhone using my logged walks (wasn't wearing a HRM) it would be 1,941 calories walking 16.8 miles at 3.2 mph - 940 exercise calories missing. ETA: Or using MFP numbers: Walking, 3.0 mph, 315 minutes, 1,455 calories (1,426 calorie under-estimate).
  • andiebaco
    andiebaco Posts: 211 Member
    Options
    I don't eat back the calories I burn...but I like logging my exercise.

    This,


    I know that my exercise cals look inflated, but I like logging them as a motivation for the next work out (if I was a bit lazy one day, I'll have to make up for it the next time).

    I always include 100 cals for a weekly home to work to gym to stores walk.. Again, just for information as I don't have a HRM or fitbit so I don't know what I really do on daily basis, but it's good on paper anyway ahaha
  • _Zardoz_
    _Zardoz_ Posts: 3,987 Member
    Options
    Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that everyone is different and depending on body composition etc we will all burn different calorie amounts. Personally I don't worry about others calories just mine
  • dta4ever
    dta4ever Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    Before I got my HRM, I thought "Wow, I'm burning a lot of calories doing exercises" because MFP was saying I burned A LOT of calories. Once I started using my HRM, I was actually only burning about 1/2 of what MFP was saying. So, I do not trust what MFP says about how many calories certain exercises burn off. For me, I NEVER log cleaning or even yard work. I think that's just silly. But everyone is different. I know some people who have logged how many calories they burn by doing dishes.
  • WhiteGirlWasted13
    WhiteGirlWasted13 Posts: 178 Member
    Options
    This will make me seem like a b!tch, but I've actually unfriended someone who overinflated their calories ALL THE TIME. I asked her about it, and she was all, oh yeah, I really did spend six straight hours climbing stairs with boxes in my hands. Day after day after day. It was cluttering up my newsfeed, she was delusional, and I was too annoyed by it for my own good.

    For myself, I always under report the times/speed of my workout, just to be on the safe side. But this chick, I wish her all the luck in the world. Her facepalm moment is gonna hurt pretty bad.
  • wilsoje74
    wilsoje74 Posts: 1,720 Member
    Options
    My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

    I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.
    That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.

    200-300 is A pretty low estimate. I average about 450 walking at an incline for 3 miles and I am not overweight. I use a Polar ft4.

    So the person above may be running the whole time, I could see 600 calories burned then.
    For walking that seems extremely high. And running a 5k would be 400 max unless like I said before you are very large. Heart rate monitors are not always accurate. I WISH I could burn 600 running a 5k because I run often, but that just isn't accurate.
  • onematch
    onematch Posts: 241 Member
    Options
    I don't eat back the calories I burn...but I like logging my exercise.

    Same here. I don't log every day activity though, like walking the dog or cleaning.
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    Options
    *shrugs* a lot of times when I log something like 2 hours of gardening, it's really a proxy for a full day's work farming.
  • crista_b
    crista_b Posts: 1,192 Member
    Options
    My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

    I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.
    This. Plus it depends on the individual.

    I just got back from a run a little while ago and logged my calories per my HRM. In 58 minutes, I burned 659 calories and was in "the zone" almost the entire time (at the top end of it - when I wasn't in the zone, I was over it). I'm following TDEE so I don't eat them back, but I still log them as my HRM says.

    I have some people on my FL that log cleaning and work (as a cashier so it's standing the whole time). While I wouldn't log them, I don't care that they do.

    Why do you care how many calories someone else is burning?
  • crista_b
    crista_b Posts: 1,192 Member
    Options
    My first 5K I burned 600 calories according to my HRM. 100 calories per mile is an often repeated myth.

    I do t worry about what others post. It doesn't affect me. If they ask ill offer an opinion.
    That's almost impossible. Maybe in a 10k but a 5k is probably 200-300 unless you are majorly overweight or super big person.

    200-300 is A pretty low estimate. I average about 450 walking at an incline for 3 miles and I am not overweight. I use a Polar ft4.

    So the person above may be running the whole time, I could see 600 calories burned then.
    For walking that seems extremely high. And running a 5k would be 400 max unless like I said before you are very large. Heart rate monitors are not always accurate. I WISH I could burn 600 running a 5k because I run often, but that just isn't accurate.
    While HRMs aren't always accurate, some of them are pretty close. I really don't see how running the whole time for a 5k would be 400 max.... My runs, excluding the warm-up and cool down walks, are around 3-3.5 miles and I burn over 400 in them, and even though I'm overweight, I don't think I'd fall into the "very large" or "majorly overweight" categories.
  • nuttynetty114
    nuttynetty114 Posts: 35 Member
    Options
    BUMP!
  • pholbert
    pholbert Posts: 575 Member
    Options
    I don't even know how many calories I burn. My BMF syncs with MFP gives me a number and that's the end of my logging.
    Me too. MY BMF gives calorie burn for 24hrs ,which is everything I do.
  • Shetchncn1
    Shetchncn1 Posts: 260 Member
    Options
    I have noticed that since I have been working out my cals burned doing the same exercise has gone down. So I have to work harder and longer to burn the same cals. I think it is time to start weight lifting.

    It depends on their weight, age etc.. etc.. etc.
  • majica8
    majica8 Posts: 210 Member
    Options
    Don't really care how many calories other people burn/log/think they burned but actually didn't. If it's that far out they will fail in the end and change something.
    I personally never trusted MFP's or Runtastic's estimates and usually cut some calories off what they said. I have a HRM now but still take a fair few off the number it gives (15% usually)
  • maegmez
    maegmez Posts: 341 Member
    Options
    100 calories per mile? thats not true...everyone burns different amounts of calories depending on their own body, weight and muscle play a factor as well. for example someone who weighs more is going to burn more calories because their body has to work harder to perform the task. mfp does over exaggerate on calories burned so its smart to use a heart rate monitor to get a more accurate burn.

    No, she is right, but that is for the average weight person. I am still about 12 pounds overweight with a 47 resting heart rate and I burn about 380 calories running 5k.i look at those extra 80 calories come from me pushing myself to run faster and get my heart rate up.

Categories