Do calories burned depend on gender/height/weight?

calories burned are going to be dependent on your weight, intensity, and how far said weight was moved. calories are energy...think of it this way...it takes a lot more energy to move an F-150 1 mile than it takes to move a Honda Civic 1 mile.

Yes, I think MFP calculates it based on your profile. If you want to check, go in and enter 10 minutes of jogging at 5mph and see what it says. Mine shows 78 calories (I am only 4'11 though!)

It is supposed to adjust for those factors. However, I notice that MFP gives everybody WAY too high numbers for calories burned. And I do mean everybody. you can count on about half of what it says.

MFP calculates exercise Calories using your profile statistics, and exercise effort values knows as metabolic equivalent of tasks (METs). Published METs values can be found at the Compendium of Physical Activities.

So according to this site and some others, at my height and weight, I am burning 136 calories for walking 1 mile at 3.5 mph at a 6% incline. I don't quite agree, so I am logging them here at 120 calories. Should I lower it even more? I have lost about 20 pounds since March 1, but now that I'm down, the scale seems to be dragging along, which is expected to a point. I still want to go another 20 to bring me down to 130. I'm 5'1".

I keep my intake to 1200-1300 calories, but I do use my treadmill for extra food, though I don't always eat them all back. I think I may be adding back too many calories at 120 per mile of walking. Either that or my food scale is broken and under-weighing my food. Even so, I always add in a bit more to my diary than I measured (i.e. if I had 5.8 ounces of something, I will put it at 6 and like today, I added 2 tablespoons of cocoa mix to my coffee but I only actually had one measured.)

The past few Sundays haven't been good and I have way over eaten, but not to the point where I should be completely stagnant on weight loss. I would've thought I'd see the scale say 148 by now, but it's actually reading 150 this morning. So I've actually gained back a pound as I was 149 for about 2 weeks. I haven't added back in the pound but I must be screwing something up somewhere.

And I think awards for foot races should be in minutes per pound not on the actual clock time!
"Seems fair to me." says the 220 lbs slow guy. :-)

gothchiq wrote: »

It is supposed to adjust for those factors. However, I notice that MFP gives everybody WAY too high numbers for calories burned. And I do mean everybody. you can count on about half of what it says.

Actually, I find that MFP is more accurate than I was giving it credit for. I recently started wearing a Polar HRM when I use the elliptical machine. The values for the workout given by MFP and the HRM are usually within 20-50 calories. I don't know if that goes for all exercises but I was pleased to see how close they were in this case.

Same here -- I use a Fitbit Charge HR, often within less than 200 calories difference.

Fooducate is a great other App

It is more geared toward knowing what you are eating and making better food choices. It is Not the all calories are equal half truth. You may find it helpful to fine tune your nutrition intake

From the App Store:

Fooducate is for the nutrition nerds. Search or scan packaged foods and get a complete nutritional break down. Not just how many calories you’re consuming but also amounts of fat, carbs or protein. If you don’t have a barcode for something you can type it into the database and the app will deliver the pros and cons about it so you know just what you’re getting. If you can’t find the food you want you can submit it to the company and it will be analyzed. One of the most useful features of the app is that it can look for certain allergies in food like nuts or gluten and alert you to them.