Logging exercise on MFP or FB
Options
kbcara
Posts: 105 Member
Hi there
I know you are supposed to log food and exercise on MFP and I do... and generally very little FB adjustments made.
BUT I have thought/still think that calorie estimates by MFP on exercise burn are very high e.g. 1 hour basketball 550 kcals. And FB just seems to accept whatever MPF calculates. Would I be better not logging any exercise and letting FB do all the adjustments? What is the actual reason to log activity at all when FB measures it?
Thanks all!
I know you are supposed to log food and exercise on MFP and I do... and generally very little FB adjustments made.
BUT I have thought/still think that calorie estimates by MFP on exercise burn are very high e.g. 1 hour basketball 550 kcals. And FB just seems to accept whatever MPF calculates. Would I be better not logging any exercise and letting FB do all the adjustments? What is the actual reason to log activity at all when FB measures it?
Thanks all!
0
Replies
-
There are two ways to handle this. You are correct that FB just accepts whatever comes to it from whatever program.
First, you can adjust the calorie value from MFP and FB will accept them.
The other alternative is to go over the FB and delete the workout from the activities reported by MFP. I can't remember for sure but you may have to delete the MFP exercise in order to accept the FB correction.0 -
That's kind of what I thought, but then what possible reason is there to log activity at all (on MFP) if FB can always more accurately measure?0
-
That's kind of what I thought, but then what possible reason is there to log activity at all (on MFP) if FB can always more accurately measure?
So your friends see your posting.
Which means someone isn't aware you could just make a post about your exercise and include the interesting facts.
Or someone actually uses the Exercise diary on MFP, as limited as it is, perhaps to have their reports in one place.
The reason to log many things is because it's not step based and Fitbit is not more accurate in all cases, and Fitbit will badly underestimate the calorie burn - swimming, rowing, biking, elliptical, lifting, ect.
Other reason would be you use HRM with better estimate, replace the MFP calorie estimate but keep the entry, and you are more intense than Fitbit knows even on walking (incline, backpack, pushing mower/stroller) or running hills, ect.
Both those latter reasons are why all my workouts are manually logged, but I just do it on Fitbit site and take the positive adjustment. I'll make my own posting about the workout.0 -
Thanks for your reply. Though it does kind of turn my FB investment into a pedometer! Lol.
Think will leave FB to calculate all walking/running/team sport [basketball equiv]. And use MFP for all sit down, stand still, in water exercise...0 -
Thanks for your reply. Though it does kind of turn my FB investment into a pedometer! Lol.
Think will leave FB to calculate all walking/running/team sport [basketball equiv]. And use MFP for all sit down, stand still, in water exercise...
Pedometers assume a set stride length for every impact, and if they do calorie estimates, are based on that. I think I've seen some newer ones using the same method as FB, except for syncing and/or logging of food. So they don't say activity trackers.0 -
I generally go with Fitbit's estimates ... that IS why I bought it, to save myself from having to log everything manually. But there are some things that Fitbit doesn't calculate correctly (although what is "correct"? MFP, heart rate monitors, machine readouts ... they are all estimates).
I do like to track my workouts with these other devices at times. My machines have a readout, and I'll record that in my notes, but won't generally adjust anything (unless it's really off/over). I do log my bike rides manually (I put the Fitbit on my sock, and then while I don't get that many steps, it overestimates on calories by a long shot). On some workouts, I know Fitbit may not be giving my full credit (incline on the treadmill, soccer - where my HRM comes in much higher) but for the most part I think their estimates are pretty decent, and I'd rather be under in my estimate. I don't want to eat back food calories I haven't actually earned!0 -
I was reading about this in MFPs info about Fitbit.
It said if you have a Fitbit connected to MFP to log your exercise in FB.0 -
I log manually into Fitbit and let Fitbit do the walking bit. I use a HRM for non walking exercise. I use MyFitnessPal because Fitbit doesn't have much of a food database (for us Dutchies).0
-
I log manually into Fitbit and let Fitbit do the walking bit. I use a HRM for non walking exercise. I use MyFitnessPal because Fitbit doesn't have much of a food database (for us Dutchies).
Edited by m1ssannthropy On September 19, 2014 11:29 AM
I agree with this post. Plus, I always know where to look for the primary log of activity or food.0 -
Might explain why MFP alone hasn't been 100% for me...
Last week I logged Basketball (non-game) for 2 hours and MFP said I burnt 1013 kcal. Tonight based on FB only, it was 696 kcal - pretty big difference... OK so FB didn't know when I was 'sitting down' or 'lying down' I was actually holding a squat, planking and doing press-ups/sit-ups... but I assume it's better to under-estimate than over-estimate burn? i.e. stick with FB.0 -
Actually, all that non-moving time is given BMR level sleeping calorie burn.
So it is badly underestimated if standing non-moving, even more when squatting down non-moving.
You might get a few slow weak steps with pushups depending on the "impact".
As to better to underestimate - depends on how much we are talking about. If you have a reasonable deficit and have tough long workouts that are under by 200 an hour (easily possible) - that reasonable deficit no longer is along with rest of the underestimated day.0 -
So you obviously believe MFP more accurate?
I am aiming for 500 kcal under burn. So taking this one example it would seem FB has my estimated burn 150kcal per hour less than MFP.
If I go with MFP and FB is more accurate I'm over-eating by 300kcal and am effectively therefore only 200kcal under burn. If I go with FB, then I'd be 800kcal under burn. So what's better!? And how can I be more accurate [really don't want to buy more gadgets].0 -
Well, the option isn't only Fitbit seen steps and calorie burn, and MFP entry. There is also Fitbit entry.
I was merely sharing the fact that for your description of baseball, and I totally forgot about the idea of a lot of time not just standing, but squatting too, so even more actual calories burned than standing.
So you are getting credit for deep sleep calorie burn, but actually squatting body weight minutes on end, up and down, no steps.
Yes, I think MFP or Fitbit entry would be much more accurate for that entry compared to BMR which is sleeping.
Good idea comparing though so you can see, but lets compare what was seen, not what's less than or more than.
Look at your Activity Log graph for calorie burn every 5 min, for some non-moving time. There's your BMR. What's that figure?
Now take the whole time of the ball game, how many minutes and how many calories given for entire time? You said 696 prior, but not how much time for that exactly.
I'm curious what the math says about it.
Prior you said MFP for 2 hrs was 1013 last week. Exactly 2 hrs?
Fitbit for this week was 696. But was that for exactly 2 hrs also? Gotta compare equal times, right.
And, how much of your 2 hr time in game is sitting in dugout waiting, really 1/2 of time? I know that could vary.
And how many games a week does this situation come up?0 -
OK so the sport is Korfball, with Basketball being the nearest thing to it that I cab log - very similar.
Once a week I play a match which is 2 x 30 mins [any time-outs add to, not reduce the time]. But the pitch is in two halves so although it doesn't feel like it I guess you could argue you are only fully participating for 30 mins therefore on the assumption each half retain the ball for an equal period of time]. MFP measures 30 mins GAME as 333 calories. I don't yet have a FB comparison.
Once a week I train for 120 mins - yes, exactly. We shoot for approx. 60 mins though with running drills between shots so not stationary. We do some 'stood still' work, speed passing, squats, plank etc. And we play a match of c.20 mins. So you could argue the match is maybe 10 mins and therefore 110 mins total. Never-the-less 120 mins TRAINING on MFP is 1089 calories [not sure why not saying 1013 again!?]. The FB comparison for this same time period was 696 calories. Though notably only 15 mins of the 2 hour period is considered 'intense' with the rest showing as moderate.
I am also confused that FB shows me aiming for a daily burn of 2505. When MFP says my BMR is 1540. This is a massive difference - am really confused, Am maybe being blonde!?
I do other exercise too but that varies, this is consistent. Tomorrow is PT session so will also compare that with last week but I imagine as that includes a lot of strength work MFP more accurate.0 -
Well, I threw in some confusion too, but you are doing a pretty good job also.
I reread the post above that got me thinking about the game, I read baseball for some reason. Maybe it was on TV, I don't know. So my whole breakdown was regarding totally different sport.
Something like basketball should be might close actually.
You also don't say which Fitbit - the one on your wrist of arm being used for up and down motion?
Or on hip? See the big difference that could mean.
So yes the MFP entry for basketball is going to involve a typical game, as active as you see it. If that's not what your total game is like, if you are "benched" in some manner, then that whole time would not be a basketball game. As evidenced by Fitbit only seeing enough steps to appear like enough distance and enough calorie burn to warrant being 6 x your resting burn rate to be given VAM time of 15 min.
Yes MFP more accurate for lifting. Steps and calories from them totally unrelated to lifting stuff.
So Fitbit has a daily burn GOAL of 2505.
MFP has an estimated sleeping calorie burn BMR of 1540.
Here's an apple. Here's an orange. See any differences to compare?0 -
So 1540 BMR is if I do nothing....
Since I started with FB [One, clipped to bra!] ... my burn ranges from 1800-3000 daily, mostly 2200+.0 -
1540 is if you slept deep all day.
Just in case do nothing to you means sedentary no exercise. To emphasis that as soon as you wake up - you burn more than that.0 -
In which case MFPs suggestion of 1200 intake a day is far too low (which I already knew was stupid), and 1500 makes more sense (which I thought was more realistic anyway)! I know 1200 is not maintainable for me and I am aiming for lifestyle change i.e. eating a way that I can continue to, BUT I barely lose at 1500. Might have to try some of the numbers in between!
[Sorry seem to be monopolising your opinion on here!]0 -
No problem.
But realize that the 1200 given is only on non-exercise days that it would be eaten. Any exercise would increase the amount, just as Fitbit is causing to happen.
Also - you caused that 1200 by selecting a weight loss goal over 1 lb weekly. That's the only way you can get to 1200.
BMR 1540 x 1.25 sedentary = 1925
1925 - 500 deficit = 1425
1925 - 750 deficit = 1175
1925 - 1000 deficit = 925
With the latter 2 stopping at 1200 given.
So you caused the 1200 actually by your selection of activity level and weight loss goal amount.
Also, that 1200 is based on your hopeful correct choice of non-exercise activity level. You likely selected Sedentary that lead the math to the 1200, along with your weight loss goal amount.
But Fitbit could be showing that Lightly Active is more honest, and that would lead the math to different numbers on non-exercise days.
BMR 1540 x 1.4 Lightly Active = 2156
2156 - 500 = 1656
2156 - 750 = 1406
2156 - 1000 = 1156
Last one stopping at 1200.
So if Fitbit is really averaging 2200, and you still took the 1000 cal deficit, then you'd still be at 1200 except on days you burned much more.
And it sounds like you are more Lightly Active then, MFP estimated 2156 compared to Fitbit mostly 2200.
If you have 25 - 50 lbs to go - the 1 lb weekly loss is reasonable, unless you have health issues, in which case that might be too stressful too.0 -
Thanks for this - good to see it spelled out. I selected 1.5lb which I thought was realistic as a starting (well restarting) point given I have a fair whack to lose... I had planned to bring it down to 1lb a week after initial weight loss slows. But as I said I also realised 1200 was stupid, so have been close to 1500 (maximum on non-active days) and on active days I eat back some, not all (as I don't 100% trust the stats) of the extra calories burnt... which is why I'm so focused on understanding calories burnt.0
