Scared to eat calories burned back

Shadowmf
Shadowmf Posts: 40
in Health and Weight Loss
www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

... I used this site to calculate how many calories I burn...and it's 200 more than MFP estimates for me. While this is fine for now since I'm trying to lose weight, I eat my calories burned back during maintenance.

And I'm scared to death for trusting this calculator. I'm scared I'll gain again. Also, if this is correct it means I'm under eating now while losing. Under 1200 calories.

I took into account that it might be a bit off and input 85 minutes of exercise while I actually walk 90, I also did this because my heart rate after exercise is 120 bpm and the minimum on this calculator is 124. I walk 7.9km a day, 5 sets of walking overall. Each lasting about 18 minutes. I'm 21 female and 1.56m, weighing 59 kilos. My restibg heart rate is 60 bpm.

Any help would be appreciated. I'm not sure how to go about this number burned. How do I know if I should eat all those calories back once I'm on maintenance, I guess what I'm asking is how accurate is this number, because I know calories burned numbers are famous for being too high........ PANIC....

Replies

  • Shadowmf
    Shadowmf Posts: 40
    Also... you should know I only do cardio and have no apparent muscle at all. I've never lifed. So the calories I eat would be much lower as far as I know as someone who actually has come muscle.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    Okay so you walk 5x a day 18mins a piece which is 125 calories burned each time...with the difference in HR I would say 120 just to be safe so that works out to a total of 600 calories...MFP gives you 400?

    MFP normally over estimates exercise calories esp if you are smaller (which you are).

    what pace are you entering into MFP? as it doesn't do this sort of calculation?

    ETA: I would personal enter pace in MFP and eat back 75% of them and if you find you aren't losing as fast as you think (or gaining during maitenance) then only eat back 50%...it's sort of a trial and error thing. But 600 calories for walking eh...that sounds high to me.
  • Shadowmf
    Shadowmf Posts: 40
    I input 3mph for 90 minutes and I do actually do that because I'm afraid of it being too high. So not quite as much as I may actually be burning.
  • mistiblake08
    mistiblake08 Posts: 80 Member
    A heart rate monitor will be closer to an accurate calorie burn than anything else. You would have better luck using one and eating 75% of your calorie burn back.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Walking calculators should be pretty accurate - good chance of being more accurate than a HRM.

    The one thing you haven't mentioned is what has been happening with your weight recently.....
    That's the best guide to your calorie intake.

    Are you losing at the rate you expect?
    Is your rate of weight loss appropriate for some who doesn't have much to lose?
    Also... you should know I only do cardio and have no apparent muscle at all. I've never lifted. So the calories I eat would be much lower as far as I know as someone who actually has come muscle.
    You are over stating this effect - muscles at rest don't actually burn many calories - it's activity that is the calorie burner.
  • Shadowmf
    Shadowmf Posts: 40
    Also...I don't know if this is just because I thought I was burning 50 calories for every 1.50 km walked... Ugh! I hate math! so much confusion!!!!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Just keep it on the conservative side and make adjustments as necessary if they are necessary. There is no "exact"...all of this is estimation.
  • suremeansyes
    suremeansyes Posts: 962 Member
    It's a scientific fact that workout calories taste better than regular calories.
  • Shadowmf
    Shadowmf Posts: 40


    The one thing you haven't mentioned is what has been happening with your weight recently.....
    That's the best guide to your calorie intake.

    Are you losing at the rate you expect?
    Is your rate of weight loss appropriate for some who doesn't have much to lose?


    This is really hard to tell at the moment because I've started 2 weeks ago one being a binge week and this week, well, yeah....pms. I'd rather stay as far away from the scale right now as possible.
  • raindawg
    raindawg Posts: 348 Member
    When I got a HRM I actually found that MFP was under-estimating my calorie burn. I'm one of the rare examples. You can use the new calculation and try eating back only 50%. Really don't stress too much, just check and adjust based on your weight loss or lack of over a period of a week or two. A lot of times it just takes trial and error to see how you fit into MFP's numbers.
  • Ninkyou
    Ninkyou Posts: 6,666 Member
    Generally, you can estimate 100 calories per mile walked. This of course will vary depending on your weight and your existing activity level.. but if all you have to go by are estimates, then that's what I'd recommend. OR, log it in MFP and eat 50-75% of the calories it lists.
  • Shadowmf
    Shadowmf Posts: 40
    Generally, you can estimate 100 calories per mile walked. This of course will vary depending on your weight and your existing activity level.. but if all you have to go by are estimates, then that's what I'd recommend. OR, log it in MFP and eat 50-75% of the calories it lists.

    That means I would burn 490. Again seems really high. But I've been under the impression all this time that I've been burning only 250. So I guess that's why. The reason I used that site was because I thought it would be more accurate than MFP. But jeez.. lol
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    I input 3mph for 90 minutes and I do actually do that because I'm afraid of it being too high. So not quite as much as I may actually be burning.

    Well you can find out for sure if you want...2 ways..

    Easy way if you have a smart phone...download mapmywalk and it syncs to MFP...it's great for tracking MPH, distance, time etc...

    Or

    Hard way...put your route in google maps and do the calculation yourself (I know you hate math) but you just need Distance and time to calculate speed...distance/time=speed...so if you walked 1.5km in 18min it was 5kmh..

    http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/speed_distance_time_calc.html here is a link for that calculation.
  • Ninkyou
    Ninkyou Posts: 6,666 Member
    Generally, you can estimate 100 calories per mile walked. This of course will vary depending on your weight and your existing activity level.. but if all you have to go by are estimates, then that's what I'd recommend. OR, log it in MFP and eat 50-75% of the calories it lists.

    That means I would burn 490. Again seems really high. But I've been under the impression all this time that I've been burning only 250. So I guess that's why. The reason I used that site was because I thought it would be more accurate than MFP. But jeez.. lol

    When I first started out walking, I was probably closer to 125-150 calories per mile. I was Obese... started out at 211 lbs (I'm 5'2). I walk 4 miles every weekend. Back then, I would burn about 500ish calories. Now, I weigh 155 lbs and I burn (barely) 300 for that same 4 mile walk. Like I said, it varies with your weight and activity, how long you've been doing it, etc. Your body becomes much more efficient doing the same activities over time.

    So right now, yeah, it may seem like alot... but it's probably pretty accurate.

Categories