these calorieburns are too d*mn high! ;)

VintageFit
VintageFit Posts: 90 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I don't usually log exercise that isn't actually exercise in my eyes (e.g. if I'm walking to university I won't log that, if I go jogging I will log)

I work in a kitchen 2 times a week, usuall 7-9 hours, and while it's not the most hectic kitchen in the world I still end up walking around a lot and lifting heavy things, just constantly being on the move.
However, none of that ever made me feel like I'd done some kind of workout. I'm not really that tired afterwards (except my legs hurt of course from standing). And since it's only two days, I didn't include it into my lifestyle settings (which I chose as sedentary, because on the other 5 days I'm a huge couch potato).

Just out of fun, I decided to check if mfp had a 'kitchen work' option in exercises or something. I found 'cooking or food preparation' and entered my 9.5 hour-long workday.
It told me I had burned 1376 calories just by working. I know mfp and many other places overestimate calories burned, but... THAT much? I highly doubt it....

is there any 'non-traditional' exercise you've logged and found to be a massive calorieburn, whether it was true or not?

Replies

  • lili61
    lili61 Posts: 231 Member
    Using an HRM would give you the best estimate, but even that is still an estimate.

    Personally, I don't log anything that I did incidentally before I decided to work on improving my fitness--working on my feet, cleaning, etc. Your activity level (sedentary, lightly active, etc.) will account some of that burn into your calorie estimate.

    I do remember seeing "Fishing from a Riverbank" as an activity at one point--I wonder if that calorie burn is accurate? :laugh:
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    I've not logged any non-traditional exercise. But, there's a thread on here re: logging driving. Some of the responses are pretty funny.

    I agree with Lili61.....standing is included in activity level to some degree.
  • Marlitharn
    Marlitharn Posts: 36 Member
    "Mowing lawn, general" claims to burn over a thousand calories for 2 hours of work. On one hand, that seems way too high. On the other hand, my yard is huge, and full of hills and sunken areas, and I'm using an old-fashioned reel mower that I have to manhandle and wrestle around because a large part of the yard is thick lush clover and dandelions with 'roid rage and the mower HATES it, and by the time I'm done I'm sweating and swearing more than I do on the treadmill, so who knows? Maybe it's not so far off.
  • hunterjumper642
    hunterjumper642 Posts: 115 Member
    You also have to think about the net calories you burn just being alive, which would account for some of those calories. Sure, you may be burning a lot due to kitchen work, but you may be better off calculating that in with your overall macronutrients/ daily calorie allowance instead of putting it in as exercise.

    Usually, 'exercise' is something that gets your heart rate out of a normal comfort range for the individual person.
  • lilawolf
    lilawolf Posts: 1,690 Member
    I've never counted any of that stuff before, but now I sorta am because I have a fitbit. It motivates me to walk/move around a lot more now, and it takes away calories if I stay in bed all day (sometimes a Saturday just doesn't promote movement after a long week :-p). We'll see how it goes. You could try that and see what you get.

    I saw someone on my FL that had food prep for hundreds of calories. Yeah. I think even "sedentary" people cook occasionally.
  • Loralrose
    Loralrose Posts: 203
    I think MFP assumes you are doing that activity for every second of the time logged. You're probably not actively working at food prep/cooking every minute of a 9.5 hour workday, no matter how hectic the kitchen is. When I want to log a workday I usually take half the number of working hours as the "active" time. Gives a much more reasonable burn that way.
  • sarainiowa
    sarainiowa Posts: 287 Member
    Please do not use the MFP option when logging exercise. Use a HRM or a Fitness Calculator or some form of monitoring specifically for you and your body.

    I really wish MFP would clean up the food data base and put in a fitness calculator rather then the current system. It messes with a lot of people more then it helps!
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    the point of recording exercise in MFP, for most people, is to adjust their caloric intake to account for the extra activity. If you're on a sedentary setting, you should be recording extra activity even if it isn't specific exercise. And for the record, walking is a good exercise in its own right so I would be recording a walk to university, assuming it's not a 5 minute stroll down the block.

    As for the amount of calories, you'd need to use your best judgement. I suspect that a 9.5 hour restaurant shift includes the BMR on the MFP calculation. I don't know that for certain, but if you pretend it does, just subtract our what your BMR would be for that 9.5 hours from the 1376. For me, that would be about 665 calories, so I could record 1376 - 665 = 711 net calories. That seems fairly reasonable for a shift where you're on your feet the entire time and moving constantly. Might still be a little high, but use your own judgement there (and maybe that 1376 is based on a larger person than I am and so would have a larger amount toward the BMR than my example,)
  • smanning1982
    smanning1982 Posts: 210 Member
    I never ever log unintentional exercise, even though I chose sedentary also yet I have 4 kids and we do A LOT. I always see my friends logging 2 hour of cleaning, housework 700 calories, or after I know they went grocery shopping they log walking 3 miles an hour for 30 mins, 85 calories or whatever. More power to them I guess
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Please do not use the MFP option when logging exercise. Use a HRM or a Fitness Calculator or some form of monitoring specifically for you and your body.

    I really wish MFP would clean up the food data base and put in a fitness calculator rather then the current system. It messes with a lot of people more then it helps!

    An HRM is not going to be useful in this example. They are only useful for steady state cardio when your HR is above a certain threshold and I'm sure his was not.

    As for the MFP numbers, I can say that for walking and running they are fairly accurate.
  • aribugg
    aribugg Posts: 164 Member
    Mowing the lawn for me as well. I think it's in the ball park, but still a bit too high. especially given that i have an electric mower so its pretty light and easy to push, but i also have a yard that makes me fight with it a good bit.
  • ASDtwins
    ASDtwins Posts: 3
    I've done it both ways. Currently I am starting out after gaining a significant amount of weight while being at a sedentary, highly stressful desk job. Now I'm at a project site and I walk about 2 hours a day. I'm logging that.

    As for the OP's comment, I don't think so. Every time I've compared them they have been pretty close, close enough for this process anyway. Besides I've discovered that when I estimate conservatively on duration of exercise and food eaten I lose weight, and really that's the only thing I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to figure this stuff out, nobody is going to send me a certificate of righteousness for finding faults in the program.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    The only non exercise I have ever logged is my gardening in the spring...which means I am taking 8-12 hours on a weekend and pulling, digging, tilling, moving lots of mulch etc which is out of the ordinary for me...

    not the normal weed pulling...or flower heading...

    it burns a lot of calories for one hour it burns 283 calories...so in lets say even 8 hours well..over 1600 burned...would I eat them all back, heck no...but if I was doing NEAT sure I would, same with the wood in the fall...that's hard work...not something I do a lot and is good exercise...

    and last weekend I helped my sister in law and her 3 roommates move...I was on my feet a full 7 hours, moving all the time (cause they hadn't packed much) digging out beds, furniture like chairs, couches, boxes full of books etc..1247...yah no..not logged.
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    1300 for being on your feet all day seems almost low- most women burn that much by just being alive- I mean hell- even typing at a key board burns SOME calories!

    I would actually account for that as moderately active and then add in your regular exercise calories again.

    Being on your feet constantly or being on your feet AND being out side constantly is a really big burn when you do it regularly- I worked construction 5 years as an inspector- I was amazed at how exhausted I was after a cold day outside walking leisurely outside for 6 hrs (roughly 2 or 3 inside in the trailer or building)
  • Kimsied
    Kimsied Posts: 223 Member
    I think it generally makes more sense to choose the activity level that best describes your "non-exercise" activity. That is what MFP intends which is why it includes four different activity level choices. I would think someone working 8 hours in a kitchen is not sedentary in non-active time. Sedentary would be more of a desk job. They are probably either lightly active or moderately active (depends how vigorous the work and what else they do). Someone who walks to class or work (and doesn't log it as exercise) is likely at least lightly active depending what they do inn addition to walking to class or work. I don't think the calorie burn is that crazy, but I suspect it also includes BMR for the 8 hours so would give an inflated total. The problem with logging it as exercise it MFP adds the total on top of your base activity level. I think it is generally safer to just try to choose the most appropriate activity level and to only log actual exercise.

Categories