Is It Possible to Have a Negative Net Calorie Count Daily?

Options
13567

Replies

  • marm1962
    marm1962 Posts: 950 Member
    Options
    http://www.healthstatus.com/perl/calculator.cgi
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    Few people net more than ten calories per minute.
  • Thanasi99
    Thanasi99 Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    As far as my logging for exercises, I have a computer on my bike which tracked my time and average speed, I never stopped swimming laps between my 2 hours of swimming (it was completely continuous), and the walking was about 65 minutes (but I only logged 60).
  • Thanasi99
    Thanasi99 Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    I'm about 5'8" and 205 pounds if that helps at all. Thank you to everyone for informing me!
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    Lap swimming, moderate effort, has a MET of 5.8

    so 5.8 * weight in kg * hours = approximate burn (METs are based on averages)

    The same data file from my bike computer can produce over 700 calorie variances in different apps.
  • sofaking6
    sofaking6 Posts: 4,589 Member
    Options
    theresaTerriM wrote: »
    LeanButNotMean44 wrote: »
    Thanasi99 wrote: »
    I am using My Fitness Pal to measure my calories burned.

    The calorie burns for exercise on MFP are grossly overestimated.

    Serious? Wow, I just got onto MFP and was curious if they under or overestimated. So what's a good way to count calorie burn? I would hate to start logging my exercises today and think I'm burning more than I actually am! No bueno, yikes....

    I log 5 cal/min for light exercise up to 10 cal/min for all-out work.
  • Thanasi99
    Thanasi99 Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Few people net more than ten calories per minute.

    By that calculation, I would have burned 3,000 calories. Even if I only burned half of that it would be accurate to say that I burned 1,400 calories. (5 hours equals 300 minutes, multiplied by 10 equals 3,000 calories).
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    Thanasi99 wrote: »
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Few people net more than ten calories per minute.

    By that calculation, I would have burned 3,000 calories. Even if I only burned half of that it would be accurate to say that I burned 1,400 calories. (5 hours equals 300 minutes, multiplied by 10 equals 3,000 calories).

    If you could go at the level to net 10 calories per minute for five hours, you would be on Sports Center every night.
  • theresaTerriM
    theresaTerriM Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    So, the take away from all of this is to basically count the MFP calories burned by as much as half. Or log less time for each exercise to gain a better count of what's actually burned. And then round down and not up.

    That's what I'm basically getting from all of this myself as well... lol :smile:
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    Options
    According to BikeCalculator.com, a 175-pound individual riding a 30-pound bicycle at 11 mph will burn 179 calories in one hour, on a flat course with no wind. (I have no idea how much the OP weighs; I just picked a number out of a hat.) It requires 52 watts of power.

    11 mph is still slow enough that wind resistance isn't the major factor; rolling resistance will dominate, so with heavy or overinflated tires, the calorie burn might be somewhat higher.

    Once you get above 12 mph, wind resistance becomes much more important, and the calorie burn increases. Double the wattage from 52 to 104 and you'll be going 15 mph and burning 358 calories/hour. Add another 52, to 156 watts, and you'll go 17.7 mph and burn 537 calories/hour.

    By the way, when bicycling on flat terrain, the rider weight doesn't matter that much. It's frontal cross section that matters, especially at higher speeds or with a headwind.

    To answer the original question: Yes, it is possible to have negative net calories. I've done so once in the two years and three months I've been on MFP: On October 13, 2013, I ate 3260 calories, but I burned 4284 (estimated by my Garmin Edge 800 GPS cycle computer, which uses heart rate, fitness level, speed, and altitude changes to estimate energy expenditure). That was on an 9-hour (moving time), 111.5-mile bike ride up and down the Berkshire Hills of western Massachusetts. I just couldn't eat that much.

    However, I had carb loaded for a couple days before the ride, and I made up the excess deficit over the next several days. It is not sustainable to regularly have negative net calories. Even regularly having a low positive net is a very bad idea unless you're under strict medical supervision, with the possible exception of intermittent fasting.
  • MaryJane_8810002
    MaryJane_8810002 Posts: 2,082 Member
    Options
    This used to happen to me when I burned more exercise calories than I consumed.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Few people net more than ten calories per minute.

    This is what my fitbit transferred over to mfp yesterday. Who the F Knows how correct it is...
    This is for 170 active minutes

    2gss1a9t0af4.png


  • sofaking6
    sofaking6 Posts: 4,589 Member
    Options
    Made a suggestion to MFP to get rid of that default calorie burn number.
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,134 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    How are you not hungry after all that exercise? I know some people aren't affected until the next day or day after, but I'd be ready to pounce a moose (or a Blizzard from DQ).
  • theresaTerriM
    theresaTerriM Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    bwogilvie wrote: »
    According to BikeCalculator.com, a 175-pound individual riding a 30-pound bicycle at 11 mph will burn 179 calories in one hour, on a flat course with no wind. (I have no idea how much the OP weighs; I just picked a number out of a hat.) It requires 52 watts of power.

    11 mph is still slow enough that wind resistance isn't the major factor; rolling resistance will dominate, so with heavy or overinflated tires, the calorie burn might be somewhat higher.

    Once you get above 12 mph, wind resistance becomes much more important, and the calorie burn increases. Double the wattage from 52 to 104 and you'll be going 15 mph and burning 358 calories/hour. Add another 52, to 156 watts, and you'll go 17.7 mph and burn 537 calories/hour.

    By the way, when bicycling on flat terrain, the rider weight doesn't matter that much. It's frontal cross section that matters, especially at higher speeds or with a headwind.

    To answer the original question: Yes, it is possible to have negative net calories. I've done so once in the two years and three months I've been on MFP: On October 13, 2013, I ate 3260 calories, but I burned 4284 (estimated by my Garmin Edge 800 GPS cycle computer, which uses heart rate, fitness level, speed, and altitude changes to estimate energy expenditure). That was on an 9-hour (moving time), 111.5-mile bike ride up and down the Berkshire Hills of western Massachusetts. I just couldn't eat that much.

    However, I had carb loaded for a couple days before the ride, and I made up the excess deficit over the next several days. It is not sustainable to regularly have negative net calories. Even regularly having a low positive net is a very bad idea unless you're under strict medical supervision, with the possible exception of intermittent fasting.

    You're my new hero. I just got into cycling and only aspire to do that much! My fiance is a cycling freak, and I don't know if he could even do that ride. Wow.

    Sorry, off topic, just wanted to say that :smile:

    Great info, btw!!
  • Thanasi99
    Thanasi99 Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    The hunger didn't hit me until today. Should I eat over my calorie goal a tad to balance it all out?
  • jkal1979
    jkal1979 Posts: 1,896 Member
    Options
    christinev297 wrote: »
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Few people net more than ten calories per minute.

    This is what my fitbit transferred over to mfp yesterday. Who the F Knows how correct it is...
    This is for 170 active minutes

    2gss1a9t0af4.png


    Your exercise calories are not just factored from the 170 active minutes but from all of the steps that you took (which is a lot!).
  • RHSheetz
    RHSheetz Posts: 268 Member
    Options
    Not something you want to do on a regular basis. I have done it, usually on Wednesdays when I train with my trainer, walk 3 miles at lunch and hit boot camp at night. It helps offset my rest days that I eat at my Maintenance calories.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    jkal1979 wrote: »
    christinev297 wrote: »
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Few people net more than ten calories per minute.

    This is what my fitbit transferred over to mfp yesterday. Who the F Knows how correct it is...
    This is for 170 active minutes

    2gss1a9t0af4.png


    Your exercise calories are not just factored from the 170 active minutes but from all of the steps that you took (which is a lot!).

    I just posted this over on the fitbit group page. I dont want to derail this thread. It just gets mighty confusing regarding which actual numbers i'm supposed to be following...

  • theresaTerriM
    theresaTerriM Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    christinev297 wrote: »
    jkal1979 wrote: »
    christinev297 wrote: »
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Few people net more than ten calories per minute.

    This is what my fitbit transferred over to mfp yesterday. Who the F Knows how correct it is...
    This is for 170 active minutes

    2gss1a9t0af4.png


    Your exercise calories are not just factored from the 170 active minutes but from all of the steps that you took (which is a lot!).

    I just posted this over on the fitbit group page. I dont want to derail this thread. It just gets mighty confusing regarding which actual numbers i'm supposed to be following...


    Yeah, that's a good question. I have only been using my fitness tracker for a little over a month and even though I'm pretty good with nutrition and exercise, I get a bit lost on which numbers to follow and what are "good" numbers for losing weight, etc.

Categories