a question concerning accuracy of calories burned

Options
kijum
kijum Posts: 14 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I am 5'0" and weigh 137 lbs. When I signed up for MFP a few days ago, I set my activity level to active. I work at a convenience store about 40 hours a week. Which involves a lot of running around, climbing up and down ladders, and lifting/carrying heavy things. In my off time I do a lot of housework and yard work as well as chasing my 3 year old twins around. The diet profile section under my goals tab has me burning 2060 calories per day during normal daily activity. That seems like a lot, I am wondering if I should set my activity level lower.

Also for exercise I ride a stationary bike that I have at home. I have been logging my exercise as stationary bike, vigorous effort. ( I'm sweating a lot and becoming too out of breath to talk normally during these workouts. Since I don't have a way to monitor my heart rate or anything that's the best that I have to go by as far as determining the level of effort.) however, according to the site I'm burning 329 calories in 30 minutes on the bike or 658 calories in one hour. That also seems like a lot to me , so I am wondering if I should reduce the level of effort when logging my exercise?

What do you think?

Replies

  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    Options
    Its all estimation...

    Based on what you've said - I'd suggest leave lifestyle as it is, set weight loss goal to 1 pound a week, but not eat back exercise calories and see how you feel. If energetic, and you feel like you're eating enough: keep going.
  • CloudyMao
    CloudyMao Posts: 258 Member
    Options
    The estimate calorie burn on MFP is notoriously inaccurate and almost always overestimated. The best thing you can do without the assistance of a HRM or similar is to get to know your own body in the way or similar way to what @StaciMarie1974‌ suggested above.

    Loads of people on MFP log their exercise, and set it so that it burns no calories (they don't plan on eating these back)

    You might aso want to reduce effort level of yoru exercise, I often just reduce the time of my exercise by half, I also use the stationary bike, if I do 60min on there I log it as 30min - just because that seems to work about right for me and I also don't use a HRM.
  • SergeantSausage
    SergeantSausage Posts: 1,673 Member
    Options
    It's all SWAG - a Scientific Wild Assed Guess ... a.k.a : estimates.

    Dieting is science ... but much of science is approximation and estimation.

    Observe, record your results, make adjustments, rinse, repeat as necessary.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    Can you ride a regular bicycle outside at 17mph or more for 30 minutes? If not, then you are overestimating the vigor of your effort on the stationary bike. You are probably burning more like 200 or less in 30 minutes on a stationary bike. But if you can average 17mph outside, why aren't you?
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    Options
    Outside it is freezing cold, and also there are cars.
  • kijum
    kijum Posts: 14 Member
    Options

    CloudyMao wrote: »
    Loads of people on MFP log their exercise, and set it so that it burns no calories (they don't plan on eating these back)

    that is an excellent idea.I will definitely start doing that.

    love your hair by the way.
    StaciMarie1974 wrote: »
    Its all estimation...

    Based on what you've said - I'd suggest leave lifestyle as it is, set weight loss goal to 1 pound a week, but not eat back exercise calories and see how you feel. If energetic, and you feel like you're eating enough: keep going.

    right now I have my loss goal at 1.5 pounds per week, but I was thinking of changing it to 1 pound per week since I'm only looking to lose 17 more pounds. (I'm kind of insecure about posting that, because I've been browsing the forumand see that many women who are several inches taller than me have about the same goal weight.) and though I am anxious to get this weight off, I have found in the past that losing it more quickly only leads to gaining it back.

    thank you for the advice.
  • cingle87
    cingle87 Posts: 717 Member
    Options
    Leave your activity level as it is, but like most have said calories burned are overesitmated and so it the user perceived activity level. The way MFP is set up is that you eat back calories burn through exercise, because of the overestimate of calories burned its best to only eat back a % of them, most eat around 50-75% I eat 50% just to balance out underestimate in food login
  • kijum
    kijum Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    Can you ride a regular bicycle outside at 17mph or more for 30 minutes? If not, then you are overestimating the vigor of your effort on the stationary bike. You are probably burning more like 200 or less in 30 minutes on a stationary bike. But if you can average 17mph outside, why aren't you?


    I would much prefer the real thing, believe me. I live in a hilly, rural area that is lovely for cycling. ( I see about a hundred of those Power Ranger looking guys cycling past my house every weekend. ) not to mention that the stationary bike is boring as hell.

    Unfortunately, I can barely manage to find a babysitter for work , and my children are only three years old, much too small to come with me.

    The stationary bike will have to do for now, though I look forward to the twins being old enough to come along.
  • kijum
    kijum Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    gothchiq wrote: »
    Outside it is freezing cold, and also there are cars.

    I wish it were freezing cold here. It's frigging 60° out and barely noon. :b
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    gothchiq wrote: »
    Outside it is freezing cold, and also there are cars.

    You burn more calories when exercising in the freezing cold. And cars aren't usually a problem if you ride in the middle of your lane and use bright flashing lights.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    kijum wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    Can you ride a regular bicycle outside at 17mph or more for 30 minutes? If not, then you are overestimating the vigor of your effort on the stationary bike. You are probably burning more like 200 or less in 30 minutes on a stationary bike. But if you can average 17mph outside, why aren't you?


    I would much prefer the real thing, believe me. I live in a hilly, rural area that is lovely for cycling. ( I see about a hundred of those Power Ranger looking guys cycling past my house every weekend. ) not to mention that the stationary bike is boring as hell.

    Unfortunately, I can barely manage to find a babysitter for work , and my children are only three years old, much too small to come with me.

    The stationary bike will have to do for now, though I look forward to the twins being old enough to come along.

    Now you're making me envious. I live in north Texas. Our hills are kinda flat.

    It doesn't do much for your average time, but pulling the kiddos behind you in a trailer is a great way to add resistance to your workout.
  • Brittany91389
    Brittany91389 Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    My Heart Rate Monitor was the very best investment I could have made for myself. Less than $100 and 18 months later, I've had to replace the battery in the strap only twice (and I use it for 60-90 minutes at a time, 6-12 times a week). I find that the calorie estimates on MFP are about 200 calories over estimated for me when I use my HRM. I'm glad I enter that accurately. (I also don't eat back my calories...mostly).

Categories