Should you eat back your calorie burned?
Replies
-
bethanylynn101 wrote: »
My goal was to eat 1650 I ended up eating 1815 calories today im always hungry lol. I burned 574 calories today and have 409 left so I should eat 50% of 409? Which I should have 204 calories left to eat? Or I should eat 50% of 574 which would be 287 calories I have extra to eat. Which means I ate over the50% is a safe bet. I use MMF to log runs and it's known for overstating the calories burnt.
50% of whatever you burnt off, so 287.0 -
So I should have 147 calories left to eat?0
-
bethanylynn101 wrote: »
My goal was to eat 1650 I ended up eating 1815 calories today im always hungry lol. I burned 574 calories today and have 409 left so I should eat 50% of 409? Which I should have 204 calories left to eat? Or I should eat 50% of 574 which would be 287 calories I have extra to eat. Which means I ate over the50% is a safe bet. I use MMF to log runs and it's known for overstating the calories burnt.
50% of whatever you burnt off, so 287.
So I should have 147 calories left to eat?0 -
OP, you mention being always hungry. I can't see your diary, but how much protein are you eating. Personally, eating more protein (meats, especially) has helped a lot in curbing my hunger, especially after workouts.0
-
OP, you mention being always hungry. I can't see your diary, but how much protein are you eating. Personally, eating more protein (meats, especially) has helped a lot in curbing my hunger, especially after workouts.
My proteins are set at around 109-120 but sometimes it changes. Days I eat more I try to eat more meats.0 -
bethanylynn101 wrote: »
The goal that I got was from this website called iifym and said that suggested calorie is 1737. I have a polar watch, so I know what I'm burning is accurate.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are working from the goal MFP gave you, yes, you should eat them back. But how are you determining how many calories you've burned? Your daily average sounds a bit high. To counter over-estimation, many people eat back just a portion of the calories.
Your Polar might be accurate for steady state cardio ... nothing else .. and even that is a maybe.0 -
Why wouldn't it be accurate?? It's more accurate then most things specially on MFPbrianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
The goal that I got was from this website called iifym and said that suggested calorie is 1737. I have a polar watch, so I know what I'm burning is accurate.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are working from the goal MFP gave you, yes, you should eat them back. But how are you determining how many calories you've burned? Your daily average sounds a bit high. To counter over-estimation, many people eat back just a portion of the calories.
Your Polar might be accurate for steady state cardio ... nothing else .. and even that is a maybe.
0 -
bethanylynn101 wrote: »
Why wouldn't it be accurate?? It's more accurate then most things specially on MFPbrianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
The goal that I got was from this website called iifym and said that suggested calorie is 1737. I have a polar watch, so I know what I'm burning is accurate.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are working from the goal MFP gave you, yes, you should eat them back. But how are you determining how many calories you've burned? Your daily average sounds a bit high. To counter over-estimation, many people eat back just a portion of the calories.
Your Polar might be accurate for steady state cardio ... nothing else .. and even that is a maybe.
Because HRMs are designed and programmed only for some steady state cardio activities. They aren't accurate for lifting, yoga, Zumba, intervals, etc.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
Why wouldn't it be accurate?? It's more accurate then most things specially on MFPbrianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
The goal that I got was from this website called iifym and said that suggested calorie is 1737. I have a polar watch, so I know what I'm burning is accurate.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are working from the goal MFP gave you, yes, you should eat them back. But how are you determining how many calories you've burned? Your daily average sounds a bit high. To counter over-estimation, many people eat back just a portion of the calories.
Your Polar might be accurate for steady state cardio ... nothing else .. and even that is a maybe.
Because HRMs are designed and programmed only for some steady state cardio activities. They aren't accurate for lifting, yoga, Zumba, intervals, etc.
That's actually something I was going to ask....I have a fitbit charge HR, and I LOVE it, but was wondering how accurate it was taking into account when I do strength training? I love it either way, and I use it for the steps, hr, cardio etc, but just wondering if I'm burning more that it actually says when I do lifting, etc.?!?!brianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
Why wouldn't it be accurate?? It's more accurate then most things specially on MFPbrianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
The goal that I got was from this website called iifym and said that suggested calorie is 1737. I have a polar watch, so I know what I'm burning is accurate.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are working from the goal MFP gave you, yes, you should eat them back. But how are you determining how many calories you've burned? Your daily average sounds a bit high. To counter over-estimation, many people eat back just a portion of the calories.
Your Polar might be accurate for steady state cardio ... nothing else .. and even that is a maybe.
Because HRMs are designed and programmed only for some steady state cardio activities. They aren't accurate for lifting, yoga, Zumba, intervals, etc.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
Why wouldn't it be accurate?? It's more accurate then most things specially on MFPbrianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
The goal that I got was from this website called iifym and said that suggested calorie is 1737. I have a polar watch, so I know what I'm burning is accurate.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are working from the goal MFP gave you, yes, you should eat them back. But how are you determining how many calories you've burned? Your daily average sounds a bit high. To counter over-estimation, many people eat back just a portion of the calories.
Your Polar might be accurate for steady state cardio ... nothing else .. and even that is a maybe.
Because HRMs are designed and programmed only for some steady state cardio activities. They aren't accurate for lifting, yoga, Zumba, intervals, etc.
That's actually something I was going to ask....I have a fitbit charge HR, and I LOVE it, but was wondering how accurate it was taking into account when I do strength training? I love it either way, and I use it for the steps, hr, cardio etc, but just wondering if I'm burning more that it actually says when I do lifting, etc.?!?!brianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
Why wouldn't it be accurate?? It's more accurate then most things specially on MFPbrianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
The goal that I got was from this website called iifym and said that suggested calorie is 1737. I have a polar watch, so I know what I'm burning is accurate.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are working from the goal MFP gave you, yes, you should eat them back. But how are you determining how many calories you've burned? Your daily average sounds a bit high. To counter over-estimation, many people eat back just a portion of the calories.
Your Polar might be accurate for steady state cardio ... nothing else .. and even that is a maybe.
Because HRMs are designed and programmed only for some steady state cardio activities. They aren't accurate for lifting, yoga, Zumba, intervals, etc.
I have the Fitbit one and I love mine too but that's not as accurate as my polar watch as in lifting and what not. I still think that my polar is pretty accurate because I go to this one website that tells you how much calories that you burn and I put how long I workout and what I did and what my polar watch says is pretty much real close to what it says on that website:)0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
Why wouldn't it be accurate?? It's more accurate then most things specially on MFPbrianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
The goal that I got was from this website called iifym and said that suggested calorie is 1737. I have a polar watch, so I know what I'm burning is accurate.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are working from the goal MFP gave you, yes, you should eat them back. But how are you determining how many calories you've burned? Your daily average sounds a bit high. To counter over-estimation, many people eat back just a portion of the calories.
Your Polar might be accurate for steady state cardio ... nothing else .. and even that is a maybe.
Because HRMs are designed and programmed only for some steady state cardio activities. They aren't accurate for lifting, yoga, Zumba, intervals, etc.
Various studies utilizing different Polar heart rate monitors have demonstrated that the monitors are highly accurate at estimating energy expenditure when compared to the actual energy expenditures evaluated by indirect calorimetry -- a lab-based test that is considered the gold standard measure of energy expenditure. The monitors appear to be the most accurate when measuring moderate-intensity exercise. Low-intensity and high-intensity exercise have produced less accurate measurements. You can also increase the monitor’s accuracy by entering your individual VO2 max and maximum heart rate into the device. VO2 max is your maximum rate of oxygen consumption during exercise and will increase with physical fitness. Your maximum heart rate is usually 220 minus your age and a doctor can perform a supervised VO2 max test, but the average exercise enthusiast can use a Polar heart rate monitor to identify those values.0 -
For the average user, Polar heart rate monitors are among the most accurate monitors available. Individuals of normal weight and those who are overweight should be able to get an idea about how many calories they have burned during use, but they should also bear in mind that since heart rate is not always the best way to determine energy expenditure, the monitors have a tendency to slightly overestimate calories burned.brianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
Why wouldn't it be accurate?? It's more accurate then most things specially on MFPbrianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
The goal that I got was from this website called iifym and said that suggested calorie is 1737. I have a polar watch, so I know what I'm burning is accurate.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are working from the goal MFP gave you, yes, you should eat them back. But how are you determining how many calories you've burned? Your daily average sounds a bit high. To counter over-estimation, many people eat back just a portion of the calories.
Your Polar might be accurate for steady state cardio ... nothing else .. and even that is a maybe.
Because HRMs are designed and programmed only for some steady state cardio activities. They aren't accurate for lifting, yoga, Zumba, intervals, etc.
So for the most part it is accurate from what I could understand from the article0 -
bethanylynn101 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
Why wouldn't it be accurate?? It's more accurate then most things specially on MFPbrianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
The goal that I got was from this website called iifym and said that suggested calorie is 1737. I have a polar watch, so I know what I'm burning is accurate.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are working from the goal MFP gave you, yes, you should eat them back. But how are you determining how many calories you've burned? Your daily average sounds a bit high. To counter over-estimation, many people eat back just a portion of the calories.
Your Polar might be accurate for steady state cardio ... nothing else .. and even that is a maybe.
Because HRMs are designed and programmed only for some steady state cardio activities. They aren't accurate for lifting, yoga, Zumba, intervals, etc.
Various studies utilizing different Polar heart rate monitors have demonstrated that the monitors are highly accurate at estimating energy expenditure when compared to the actual energy expenditures evaluated by indirect calorimetry -- a lab-based test that is considered the gold standard measure of energy expenditure. The monitors appear to be the most accurate when measuring moderate-intensity exercise. Low-intensity and high-intensity exercise have produced less accurate measurements. You can also increase the monitor’s accuracy by entering your individual VO2 max and maximum heart rate into the device. VO2 max is your maximum rate of oxygen consumption during exercise and will increase with physical fitness. Your maximum heart rate is usually 220 minus your age and a doctor can perform a supervised VO2 max test, but the average exercise enthusiast can use a Polar heart rate monitor to identify those values.
Those tests are for STEADY STATE CARDIO. Trying to apply 220-age is inaccurate more than it is right ... saying that is "usually" one's maximum heart rate is laughable.
I recommend you pay attention to what is said and stop trying to hype a product beyond what it can do. I'll rely on actual science versus marketing hype. The fact you keep mentioning a brand is noticeable and revealing about your ability to vet sources and understand how HRMs truly work.
I'll put this in very simple terms for you. There is no relationship between HR and calories for anaerobic activity. HRMs estimate calories for aerobic activity using HR as a proxy for effort level and is only close to accurate for steady state cardio.
If you'd like to keep arguing against basic human physiology, feel free.
0 -
I understand what your saying, I was just showing you what I found that's all. And I'm not by any means arguing against basic human physiology what so ever. Im just saying what I've heard from other ppl that polar watches or any watches in that matter that uses HRM are more accurate then most things aka the treadmills machines things like that. So I don't understand why you think I'm arguing with you when I'm trying to understand the whole thing, I'm not looking to be criticized or anything, I'm just asking a simple question about something that isn't about HRM monitors aren't accurate.brianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
Why wouldn't it be accurate?? It's more accurate then most things specially on MFPbrianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
The goal that I got was from this website called iifym and said that suggested calorie is 1737. I have a polar watch, so I know what I'm burning is accurate.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are working from the goal MFP gave you, yes, you should eat them back. But how are you determining how many calories you've burned? Your daily average sounds a bit high. To counter over-estimation, many people eat back just a portion of the calories.
Your Polar might be accurate for steady state cardio ... nothing else .. and even that is a maybe.
Because HRMs are designed and programmed only for some steady state cardio activities. They aren't accurate for lifting, yoga, Zumba, intervals, etc.
Various studies utilizing different Polar heart rate monitors have demonstrated that the monitors are highly accurate at estimating energy expenditure when compared to the actual energy expenditures evaluated by indirect calorimetry -- a lab-based test that is considered the gold standard measure of energy expenditure. The monitors appear to be the most accurate when measuring moderate-intensity exercise. Low-intensity and high-intensity exercise have produced less accurate measurements. You can also increase the monitor’s accuracy by entering your individual VO2 max and maximum heart rate into the device. VO2 max is your maximum rate of oxygen consumption during exercise and will increase with physical fitness. Your maximum heart rate is usually 220 minus your age and a doctor can perform a supervised VO2 max test, but the average exercise enthusiast can use a Polar heart rate monitor to identify those values.
Those tests are for STEADY STATE CARDIO. Trying to apply 220-age is inaccurate more than it is right ... saying that is "usually" one's maximum heart rate is laughable.
I recommend you pay attention to what is said and stop trying to hype a product beyond what it can do. I'll rely on actual science versus marketing hype. The fact you keep mentioning a brand is noticeable and revealing about your ability to vet sources and understand how HRMs truly work.
I'll put this in very simple terms for you. There is no relationship between HR and calories for anaerobic activity. HRMs estimate calories for aerobic activity using HR as a proxy for effort level and is only close to accurate for steady state cardio.
If you'd like to keep arguing against basic human physiology, feel free.
0 -
I have Timex HRM. After I set the max heart rate to what I think mine is, it spits out a number that is very close to that MFP spits out for the same activity. When I used the 220-age number, it spitting out numbers with more than 200 calories more than that. Of course, I knew 220-age was wrong because on one workout I had a maximum heart rate that was higher than 220-age, and I didn't feel like I had pushed myself very hard. But I haven't been using the number the HRM spits out because it seems high. I suspect that my height is making it difficult for these calorie calculators, since they are based on the average sized person.
0 -
HRMs are only close to accurate for steady state cardio where they use HR as a proxy for effort level and then plug that into a formula to deliver a caloric estimate. Those formulas do not apply to anything beyond steady state cardio. Intervals result in periods of elevated HR whithout a corresponding increased effort level which produces a skewed caloric estimate. There is not a relationship between HR and lifting, yoga, etc which makes them useless for estimating caloric burn for those activities.
If the HRM or machine is more accurate is dependent on which HRM and which machine. For some matchups, the watch is the closer option ... in others the machine comes closer ... another subset has them equally wrong. Blanket statements don't fit.0 -
When your saying 200- age what does that mean? Yeah I added my height, age, and heightTimothyFish wrote: »I have Timex HRM. After I set the max heart rate to what I think mine is, it spits out a number that is very close to that MFP spits out for the same activity. When I used the 220-age number, it spitting out numbers with more than 200 calories more than that. Of course, I knew 220-age was wrong because on one workout I had a maximum heart rate that was higher than 220-age, and I didn't feel like I had pushed myself very hard. But I haven't been using the number the HRM spits out because it seems high. I suspect that my height is making it difficult for these calorie calculators, since they are based on the average sized person.
0 -
How am I able to find out if I'm over calculating? On an average my HR is at 140-180. Yeah I've noticed today doing the cross trainer it said that I burned 200 something calories in 35 minutes and my HRM I burned 166 calories and it's a polar machine too. It's crazy how things are logged differentlybrianpperkins wrote: »HRMs are only close to accurate for steady state cardio where they use HR as a proxy for effort level and then plug that into a formula to deliver a caloric estimate. Those formulas do not apply to anything beyond steady state cardio. Intervals result in periods of elevated HR whithout a corresponding increased effort level which produces a skewed caloric estimate. There is not a relationship between HR and lifting, yoga, etc which makes them useless for estimating caloric burn for those activities.
If the HRM or machine is more accurate is dependent on which HRM and which machine. For some matchups, the watch is the closer option ... in others the machine comes closer ... another subset has them equally wrong. Blanket statements don't fit.
0 -
bethanylynn101 wrote: »
How am I able to find out if I'm over calculating? On an average my HR is at 140-180. Yeah I've noticed today doing the cross trainer it said that I burned 200 something calories in 35 minutes and my HRM I burned 166 calories and it's a polar machine too. It's crazy how things are logged differentlybrianpperkins wrote: »HRMs are only close to accurate for steady state cardio where they use HR as a proxy for effort level and then plug that into a formula to deliver a caloric estimate. Those formulas do not apply to anything beyond steady state cardio. Intervals result in periods of elevated HR whithout a corresponding increased effort level which produces a skewed caloric estimate. There is not a relationship between HR and lifting, yoga, etc which makes them useless for estimating caloric burn for those activities.
If the HRM or machine is more accurate is dependent on which HRM and which machine. For some matchups, the watch is the closer option ... in others the machine comes closer ... another subset has them equally wrong. Blanket statements don't fit.
The only way to assess a burn is tedious and time consuming. It requires minimizing intake logging errors as much as possible ... measuruing and tracking body fat percentages ... then comparing actual to projected fat loss and adjusting as needed. Without accounting for numerous variables it is impossible to know if a pound loss on the scale is fat, water, or lean mass.
The same data file going through different apps will generate different caloric estimates. Some incorporate more variables (height, weight, VO2 max, refinements for activity, etc) into their guess than others. None of the estimates are right. MET tables give an average of gross calories burned for an activity ... but those are still averages that are only starting points. Most devices report gross, not net, burn.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »bethanylynn101 wrote: »
How am I able to find out if I'm over calculating? On an average my HR is at 140-180. Yeah I've noticed today doing the cross trainer it said that I burned 200 something calories in 35 minutes and my HRM I burned 166 calories and it's a polar machine too. It's crazy how things are logged differentlybrianpperkins wrote: »HRMs are only close to accurate for steady state cardio where they use HR as a proxy for effort level and then plug that into a formula to deliver a caloric estimate. Those formulas do not apply to anything beyond steady state cardio. Intervals result in periods of elevated HR whithout a corresponding increased effort level which produces a skewed caloric estimate. There is not a relationship between HR and lifting, yoga, etc which makes them useless for estimating caloric burn for those activities.
If the HRM or machine is more accurate is dependent on which HRM and which machine. For some matchups, the watch is the closer option ... in others the machine comes closer ... another subset has them equally wrong. Blanket statements don't fit.
The only way to assess a burn is tedious and time consuming. It requires minimizing intake logging errors as much as possible ... measuruing and tracking body fat percentages ... then comparing actual to projected fat loss and adjusting as needed. Without accounting for numerous variables it is impossible to know if a pound loss on the scale is fat, water, or lean mass.
The same data file going through different apps will generate different caloric estimates. Some incorporate more variables (height, weight, VO2 max, refinements for activity, etc) into their guess than others. None of the estimates are right. MET tables give an average of gross calories burned for an activity ... but those are still averages that are only starting points. Most devices report gross, not net, burn.
Haha that seems like way to much work, I got no time for that haha:) Thanks for explaining this to me.0 -
MFP gives me 1200 calories per day. I have been sticking pretty close to that (including my evening wine). I have been exercising 4 times per week, burning 200-250 calories as counted on my pedometer ap (tracks my steps, distance, MPH and directly feeds the calories burned into MFP). I eat my burned calories sometimes. NOT LOSING WEIGHT! 3 lbs in a month. Any advise?0
-
Just me I think that eating 1200 is way way to low at least I don't believe in eating that low of calories. Are you starving when you eat 1200 calories a day? What are you eating? I would try upping your calories a little but then again that's just me.PatriceNovak wrote: »MFP gives me 1200 calories per day. I have been sticking pretty close to that (including my evening wine). I have been exercising 4 times per week, burning 200-250 calories as counted on my pedometer ap (tracks my steps, distance, MPH and directly feeds the calories burned into MFP). I eat my burned calories sometimes. NOT LOSING WEIGHT! 3 lbs in a month. Any advise?
0 -
PatriceNovak wrote: »MFP gives me 1200 calories per day. I have been sticking pretty close to that (including my evening wine). I have been exercising 4 times per week, burning 200-250 calories as counted on my pedometer ap (tracks my steps, distance, MPH and directly feeds the calories burned into MFP). I eat my burned calories sometimes. NOT LOSING WEIGHT! 3 lbs in a month. Any advise?
Losing 3 lbs in a month = losing weight.
I don't see the problem.0 -
i dno't bother eating back my calories. the other day i did 2 workouts and had over 800 cals left but there is no way i'd force my body to eat. this app is for reference; not the be all end all. listen to your body - if you are hungry and have extra, great! if not and you have extra, leave it be.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions