Calories Burned are outrageous!!!!

VioletLemon
VioletLemon Posts: 56 Member
edited November 18 in Health and Weight Loss
I am 342 lbs right now- when I log my swimming it gives me burned calorie amounts of 800-1200 depending what Im doing- if this is true I should be dropping lbs like crazy! Im in that Olympic size pool everyday doing laps and Im under my calorie counts every day- where is this APP getting the calories burned info???

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Halve them
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    How long and for what intensity are you swimming?

    But yeah...as a general rule of thumb MFP's calories burn estimates (and remember, they ARE estimates) tend to be inflated.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Heavier people burn more calories. If you are using MFP to calculate then for various exercises it cna be overgenerous, so do as rabbit said and halve them, then adjust accordingly.
  • mamamiau
    mamamiau Posts: 18 Member
    I've wondered about this, too. I've noticed some people on MFP just don't add in their supposed calories burned.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    If I put in swimming, leisurely, general I get around 500 calories....which would probably be about right for me. If you're putting "vigorous effort" or something, you shouldn't...people tend to overestimate their level of effort because something is difficult because they're out of weight and out of shape...but that doesn't necessarily translate to "vigorous effort"
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Calories burned are calculated by taking real results from average people and then extrapolating calories burned for the rest of us. Heavier people do burn more calories, but it may not be as much more as predicted. I claim about half the exercise calories that the estimators give me. Some people claim more, but they weigh less than I do. The only way I know to figure it out is to start with a good guess, then compare your calories to your weight loss.
  • lorridevlin
    lorridevlin Posts: 3 Member
    You're moving, and that is more important than what a computer program says you're burning in calories. Keep up the good work. Often results lag behind actions. Our bodies are annoyingly reluctant to shed pounds, especially as we get older. Hang in there.
  • kirstfk
    kirstfk Posts: 21 Member
    I stopped logging my exercise on here because it was so unrealistic imo. not only that it then kept telling you to eat more which to me seemed like the wrong idea altogether! lol
  • Asher_Ethan
    Asher_Ethan Posts: 2,430 Member
    When I run, I always log it as walking and then I eat half of that. I'm still losing so I'm doing something right.
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    kirstfk wrote: »
    I stopped logging my exercise on here because it was so unrealistic imo. not only that it then kept telling you to eat more which to me seemed like the wrong idea altogether! lol

    It's not the wrong idea altogether, because that is how MFP is set up. You tell it how much you want to lose, and it will give you a goal with the deficit already built in. Exercise is to be added in as you go. Many choose to only eat a certain percentage because calorie burn estimates are sometimes inflated. But you should eat some of them back.

  • futuremanda
    futuremanda Posts: 816 Member
    kirstfk wrote: »
    I stopped logging my exercise on here because it was so unrealistic imo. not only that it then kept telling you to eat more which to me seemed like the wrong idea altogether! lol

    It's not the wrong idea. It's just MFP's approach -- it can't know in advance what exercise you'll do. If YOU knew you were going to burn 3000 today, from existing, working, chores, exercise... you'd know that you should eat at least 2000, because 1000 is the typical max deficit (as a guideline for a healthy deficit).

    But MFP doesn't know. So it takes 1000 off your BMR + lifestyle (work, etc). When you then go swimming and burn off another 300, you have this deficit of 1300... too big, kind of unnecessary. So you get to eat it back... just like you would if you'd known in the first place. (3000 - 1000 is 2000. 2700 - 1000 is 1700, but then you burn 300, making your deficit 1300, so eat another 300 to get 2000 and bring your deficit back in line. That's the same as 3000 - 1000, or 2700 + 300 - 1000.)

    It's just trying to keep you in line with your goal that you told it you wanted to lose every week.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    edited May 2015
    kirstfk wrote: »
    I stopped logging my exercise on here because it was so unrealistic imo. not only that it then kept telling you to eat more which to me seemed like the wrong idea altogether! lol

    Its quite easy just to replace the number and put your own estimate in. You are meant to eat them because thats how the neat system works. If you arent going to log exercise and use MFP as intended then consider using the tdee method.

    The estimates ive seen in the past has been 50% more for a heavier person 185lb. so for someone like the OP @342'bs then I bet its well over 100% more than someone down at the 125lb level.

    As wolfman pointed out its not uncommon that in addition to any inflation by MFP, then people often overestimate the effort and duration they are putting in. MFP isny inaccurate for everything although its a popilar mantra that people infer it is. Its simply an estimate.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    kirstfk wrote: »
    I stopped logging my exercise on here because it was so unrealistic imo. not only that it then kept telling you to eat more which to me seemed like the wrong idea altogether! lol

    fueling your fitness is very important to your overall health...with MFP, exercise activity is unaccounted for...your activity level just accounts for your day to day hum drum. With MFP you account for that activity by logging it after the fact...now you've done an additional activity that is otherwise not accounted for...thus your calorie requisites increase.

    When you get past the notion of exercise simply for the purpose of burning calories and/or losing weight and start to look at exercise for the purpose of fitness, it makes perfect sense. Fueling your exercise is important to recovery and fitness performance.

    I ride about 50-60 miles on average per week (more when I'm actively training) and hit the weight room a few days per week...and then I'm just pretty active in general. If I didn't fuel all of that activity properly, I'd be on my *kitten*...I'd have all kinds of recovery issues and likely chronic exercise related injuries.

    The difficulty with MFP is getting accurate calorie burn estimates which is why many people who are consistent and exercise regularly just do the TDEE method and include some estimate of exercise in their activity level and thus an estimate of those calories are included in calorie targets.
  • VioletLemon
    VioletLemon Posts: 56 Member
    thank you everyone- I have lost 8lbs in 20 days but I guess I expected it to be more- especially when I am eating less than 1500 cal per day most days and swimming laps and logging it at the lowest intensity for "swimming laps, general, light intensity" Perhaps I am getting too impatient or have unrealistic goals. I really want to meet my goals of a healthy weight and be at least 50lbs lighter by Christmas and then continue long after that to just achieve a healthy weight. I dont know if thats 150lbs or 200lbs- I just want to be strong
  • PurpleMilly
    PurpleMilly Posts: 21 Member
    I was just coming to post about exactly the same thing. MFP just tried to tell me that a 1 hour step class burned nearly 1000 calories! Even at my 250lb I don't believe it, so I halved it. MFP's calories burned for walking and running are always way over what my Garmin measures so I always enter the actual amounts from the garmin.
  • PopeyeCT
    PopeyeCT Posts: 249 Member
    edited May 2015
    Try using this: http://www.swimmingcalculator.com/swim_calories_calculator.php

    Instead of you estimating your level of effort, that will have you put input your weight, the distance you swam, the pace, and what stroke you were doing. The stroke and the pace are huge in swimming. You can easily overestimate by triple or more if you just go by time.

    I can't tell you how accurate this is, but it "feels" about right.

    4s7in9xcldfp.jpg
  • jonldemarco81
    jonldemarco81 Posts: 2 Member
    edited May 2015
    I compared my usually exercise (Walking, upstairs) in an amphitheater vs the machine at the gym and they were close. If anything MFP underestimated my calories burned!

    I always eat back all my calories, but not on the same day. I look at it with a weekly perspective. I'm down 47lbs so it seems to be working.
  • nuffer
    nuffer Posts: 402 Member
    I've been spending a bit of time in the pool over the last few months and find if I split the MFP swimming activity between "Leisurely" and "Vigorous" it comes out fairly close to the numbers I get from other calculators like the one mentioned above and caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-swimming.

    Results so far have been good.

    For other cardio like walking, though, I think MFP overestimates quite a lot.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I ran the numbers on a standard swimming calculator, since I was surprised the calories were so high--my swimming calories always seem higher than I think they are, but nowhere in that ballpark--and I got similar numbers for you (and the same 300 and some I normally get for the same exercise). There seems to be a huge variation based on weight.

    I am curious about that, as I'd actually think the water would reduce the effect of the added weight. Does anyone have knowledge about this?

    If I were you I'd halve it. I tend to see 10 calories per minute as a good max for really hard effort and scale everything else down accordingly. You will have greater burns due to weight, though.
  • bpetrosky
    bpetrosky Posts: 3,911 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I ran the numbers on a standard swimming calculator, since I was surprised the calories were so high--my swimming calories always seem higher than I think they are, but nowhere in that ballpark--and I got similar numbers for you (and the same 300 and some I normally get for the same exercise). There seems to be a huge variation based on weight.

    I am curious about that, as I'd actually think the water would reduce the effect of the added weight. Does anyone have knowledge about this?

    If I were you I'd halve it. I tend to see 10 calories per minute as a good max for really hard effort and scale everything else down accordingly. You will have greater burns due to weight, though.

    The key factor is the body mass (which doesn't change in water). Moving more mass over the same distance means more work, thus more energy used, so a higher calorie burn. If anything, a larger body would also increase the energy used due to more fluid resistance.

  • PopeyeCT
    PopeyeCT Posts: 249 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    If anything, a larger body would also increase the energy used due to more fluid resistance.

    Water is a thousand times more dense than air. So a larger body moving through it is going to have to overcome a LOT more resistance.

  • pixiestick
    pixiestick Posts: 839 Member
    Get a water resistant Heart Rate Monitor... then you can put your info in and get a better calculation.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Honestly that's why I went with the TDEE system instead.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    This is why most only eat back a portion of exercise calories.
  • Wiseandcurious
    Wiseandcurious Posts: 730 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Honestly that's why I went with the TDEE system instead.

    Me too. Also, I like knowing I have a reasonable amount of calories every day and don't have to work out in order to "earn" more food. I work out for fun and maintaining lean mass instead.
  • Kst76
    Kst76 Posts: 935 Member
    I don't have a HR monitor anymore. But when I calculate my workouts using the machines I put my weight at 15 pounds lighter than I am. Then I take the final calorie burn, lets say 500 calories for 45 minutes on the stair climber and log 450 calories.
    I really don't think 100 - 200 calories of inaccuracy from a excersise machine, is going to matter so much. Also, I live in the city of Chicago and I walk EVERYWHERE. Just by default I walk 2.8 miles per day , to and from my sons school.
    Then I walk to stores, parks, post office...you name it. I don't log any of those calories. They are pretty much gravy.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Honestly that's why I went with the TDEE system instead.

    Me too. Also, I like knowing I have a reasonable amount of calories every day and don't have to work out in order to "earn" more food. I work out for fun and maintaining lean mass instead.

    Agree with this.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    For me they seem fairly accurate. Like my fit bit, gym machine and mfp seem to be in the same ball park a lot of the time.
  • MercuryBlue
    MercuryBlue Posts: 886 Member
    I am 342 lbs right now- when I log my swimming it gives me burned calorie amounts of 800-1200 depending what Im doing- if this is true I should be dropping lbs like crazy! Im in that Olympic size pool everyday doing laps and Im under my calorie counts every day- where is this APP getting the calories burned info???

    Might be repeating what others have said (apologies- I'm sleepy!), but I'll say that, at your size, it's not unusual to have huge burns initially. They decrease along with your weight, and as your fitness level raises. Things I used to do to burn a thousand calories might only net 600 now.

    But, like others have said, the best way to have a good idea is to get an HRM with chest strap. Don't go by what MFP says because the log can be really inaccurate.
This discussion has been closed.