Saw Something On The News This Morning About Exercise Being More Important Than Diet
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.0 -
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
0 -
For me, it's much easier to NOT eat that second serve of icecream than it is to burn it off at the gym.
Not to mention, after the gym i'm starving!
However, as my weight gain was slow (eating just over maintenance) and I only had a few kgs to lose, I probably could out exercise my diet, at least for a little bit.
But really it's CICO - calories in needs to be less than calories out.
Whatever way you do that is up to you.
I think, if you're focused on what you are eating, it is true of most people that it is easier not to eat something than to burn it off. But when looking at population level weight gain, there is a significant number of people who aren't focused on what they are eating. Perhaps they don't always have a second serving, but sometimes they do. Those people who are exercising will end up burning off that occasional extra serving while those who are not will just gain weight.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
If what you say is true, I think I probably would have gained between 36 and 72 lbs. (double or triple) instead of losing 36 lbs. by now.
I just did a little general research on activity trackers, and so far I see that they are fairly accurate overall, and the more variables they have to calculate, the more accurate they are. My Garmin Vivoactive has a GPS, pedometer, and a chest strap heart rate monitor. This should make it pretty accurate (especially when wearing the heart rate monitor) because it has more variables to calculate the calorie burn. It may be off by a small percent, but to say that it is off double or triple is preposterous.
I don't know where you are getting your over exaggerated information from, but I am going to go with what seems to be working.
Thanks0 -
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).0 -
If they seem fairly accurate for you, then you should use them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
If they seem fairly accurate for you, then you should use them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).
Well, I don't track like that anymore so it's kind of a moot point for me. I was just curious why you thought they were so high.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »Saw something on the news this morning about Coca Cola supporting a study that exercise is more important for weight loss than diet. I can see why they would support such a study because they sell sugary drinks, but it still seems interesting to me because I always felt that exercise is more important.
Just wondering what other people think about this.
Coca Cola has over the last five years lost almost 15 % of their revenue world wide from the sale of all kinds of soft drinks.
It would seem to me that they would do just about anything to boost their sales, or at least keep from them falling any further. That would probably also include the support of seemingly legitimate research.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »
At some point though, the exercise burns you'd have to achieve on a daily basis are just not doable. It's really easy eating 1000 or more over your maintenance. It can be done in the span of a few minutes. To exercise that away takes hours of exercise, and that daily if you're over your maintenance by that much daily.
At some point, sure. But to use your example, someone eating 1000 calories over maintenance is gaining 2 pounds a week. I don't think many people are putting on 100 pounds a year, perhaps you disagree. So 1000 calories over maintenance on a sustained basis is an exceedingly rare situation, hopefully we can agree on that.
A whole lot of people who are overweight got there at what, 10 pounds a year? So that's 100 calories over maintenance which qualified as a "bad diet" for them. All they need to do is walk a couple miles a day, and they'll have burned that and more. So yeah, they can easily out-exercise that bad diet.
Are there diets bad enough that you physically can't out exercise them? I suppose maybe so. Are most people eating enough that they can't out-exercise what they're currently eating? No. Now, they may not *want* to out exercise their diet, which is A-OK. But telling people that "you can't out-exercise a bad diet" tells them that if they're unwilling to change what they eat, there's no way to lose weight, and that's just not true for the vast majority.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »people say that to emphasize the fact that simply working out doesn't mean you just get to eat...look around the gym at all the people doing the right thing fitness wise...but their body's never change...they haven't figured out the diet part yet.
So then maybe they should say that instead of something else.
0 -
This morning, MFP gave me 930 calories for walking 4.5 miles at a 4.0 mph pace. That's not even remotely possible.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If they seem fairly accurate for you, then you should use them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).
Well, I don't track like that anymore so it's kind of a moot point for me. I was just curious why you thought they were so high.
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
Routinely.
The worse the person's physical condition, and the more interval-y the exercise, the bigger the over-estimate.
Which is too bad, really, because those are the people who tend to have the least knowledge/experience and are thus not well equipped to deal with large error bars in their logging.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
This morning, MFP gave me 930 calories for walking 4.5 miles at a 4.0 mph pace. That's not even remotely possible.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If they seem fairly accurate for you, then you should use them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).
Well, I don't track like that anymore so it's kind of a moot point for me. I was just curious why you thought they were so high.
I just checked in the MFP database. A 68 minute walk at a 4 mph pace at my weight (188.5 lbs.) calculates to 485 calories.
How are you getting 930?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
This morning, MFP gave me 930 calories for walking 4.5 miles at a 4.0 mph pace. That's not even remotely possible.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If they seem fairly accurate for you, then you should use them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).
Well, I don't track like that anymore so it's kind of a moot point for me. I was just curious why you thought they were so high.
I just checked in the MFP database. A 68 minute walk at a 4 mph pace at my weight (188.5 lbs.) calculates to 485 calories.
The actual number is ~250 - half of that.
And there you go - a two-fold over-estimate, just like claimed.
0 -
MFP is giving that number. I outweigh you by over 30 pounds.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
This morning, MFP gave me 930 calories for walking 4.5 miles at a 4.0 mph pace. That's not even remotely possible.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If they seem fairly accurate for you, then you should use them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).
Well, I don't track like that anymore so it's kind of a moot point for me. I was just curious why you thought they were so high.
I just checked in the MFP database. A 68 minute walk at a 4 mph pace at my weight (188.5 lbs.) calculates to 485 calories.
How are you getting 930?
And there's no way you would really burn that much.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double.
Walking at typically speed burns about the same as you're burning in BMR - this is why walking estimates are typically double the real net burn.
Interval training has lots of rest and rest-ish periods. So if you burn 2x BMR for the first minute interval, then 1x BMR for another minute of the interval and then follow it with two minutes of BMR-ish recovery before doing the next interval, meanwhile all the HRM sees is your heart pounding like a jack hammer....well, the math adds up (or subtracts down, I guess) pretty darn quickly.
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Now, if they could go back to putting cocaine in it, they might have a weight loss formula.Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Are you doubting the intentions of The Coca Cola Company?christinev297 wrote: »I'd take any studies funded by coca cola with a big heaping of scepticism...
All they're trying to do is help humanity just as they have always done in the tireless and selfless effort to make our world a better place.
In other news...the moon is made of Swiss cheese...
What makes this even funnier is that I remember those days.
Damn I'm old...
Ignoring most of this thread because it's apparently divolved into a semantics argument, but you remember 1903?! You must be winning all sorts of awards for the world's oldest person...0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Now, if they could go back to putting cocaine in it, they might have a weight loss formula.Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Are you doubting the intentions of The Coca Cola Company?christinev297 wrote: »I'd take any studies funded by coca cola with a big heaping of scepticism...
All they're trying to do is help humanity just as they have always done in the tireless and selfless effort to make our world a better place.
In other news...the moon is made of Swiss cheese...
What makes this even funnier is that I remember those days.
Damn I'm old...
Coca-cola stopped using cocaine in their formula in 1903.
It's fascinating that you remember those days so well.
HAHAHAHAHA
This whole thread was worth it just for this post.
I guess you didn't read my response to this.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Now, if they could go back to putting cocaine in it, they might have a weight loss formula.Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Are you doubting the intentions of The Coca Cola Company?christinev297 wrote: »I'd take any studies funded by coca cola with a big heaping of scepticism...
All they're trying to do is help humanity just as they have always done in the tireless and selfless effort to make our world a better place.
In other news...the moon is made of Swiss cheese...
What makes this even funnier is that I remember those days.
Damn I'm old...
Coca-cola stopped using cocaine in their formula in 1903.
It's fascinating that you remember those days so well.
HAHAHAHAHA
This whole thread was worth it just for this post.
I guess you didn't read my response to this.
Your response makes it funnier.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
This morning, MFP gave me 930 calories for walking 4.5 miles at a 4.0 mph pace. That's not even remotely possible.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If they seem fairly accurate for you, then you should use them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).
Well, I don't track like that anymore so it's kind of a moot point for me. I was just curious why you thought they were so high.
Odd. It only gives me 371 for walking 60 min at 4.0, which seems about right.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
This morning, MFP gave me 930 calories for walking 4.5 miles at a 4.0 mph pace. That's not even remotely possible.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If they seem fairly accurate for you, then you should use them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).
Well, I don't track like that anymore so it's kind of a moot point for me. I was just curious why you thought they were so high.
Odd. It only gives me 371 for walking 60 min at 4.0, which seems about right.
For someone around 310 pounds, yes, it would be about right.
Scale by your actual weight to get a more accurate number...your ticker says you're around 150, so there you go, almost exactly double the real burn.0 -
Probably 50% overstated, depending on how much you weigh.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
This morning, MFP gave me 930 calories for walking 4.5 miles at a 4.0 mph pace. That's not even remotely possible.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If they seem fairly accurate for you, then you should use them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).
Well, I don't track like that anymore so it's kind of a moot point for me. I was just curious why you thought they were so high.
Odd. It only gives me 371 for walking 60 min at 4.0, which seems about right.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double.
Walking at typically speed burns about the same as you're burning in BMR - this is why walking estimates are typically double the real net burn.
Interval training has lots of rest and rest-ish periods. So if you burn 2x BMR for the first minute interval, then 1x BMR for another minute of the interval and then follow it with two minutes of BMR-ish recovery before doing the next interval, meanwhile all the HRM sees is your heart pounding like a jack hammer....well, the math adds up (or subtracts down, I guess) pretty darn quickly.
IDK what you mean by "typically speed" but when I am walking for exercise I burn considerably more than when I'm watching TV. Even when I'm shopping I burn more than when watching TV.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP is giving that number. I outweigh you by over 30 pounds.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
This morning, MFP gave me 930 calories for walking 4.5 miles at a 4.0 mph pace. That's not even remotely possible.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If they seem fairly accurate for you, then you should use them.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, the double counting of BMR isn't what causes the estimated burns to be overstated by so much.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
BMR during exercise. Yes, it's double counting those calories.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double. Most everyone will burn more from activity than from BMR.
If you exercise for an hour, 1/24 of your BMR is included in that total burn, but you only net (actual exercise calories - BMR) because you'd have burned those BMR calories sitting on the couch, anyway. Most calculators include that BMR as part of the calculation so they are telling you that you're burning those BMR calories as part of exercise, which is on top of burning those BMR calories included in your base activity level.
Sorry, I misunderstood you to say the calorie counts posted from exercise were doubled, not just that the calories from BMR alone were doubled. This double counting of BMR would certainly not cause the calories listed from exercise to be doubled or even tripled. Even a very high BMR is unlikely to burn as much as light exercise. But it might throw it off by 100 calories or so.
What is, if it is? MFP has seemed fairly accurate for me and matches most other calculators I've used (give or take a few calories).
Well, I don't track like that anymore so it's kind of a moot point for me. I was just curious why you thought they were so high.
I just checked in the MFP database. A 68 minute walk at a 4 mph pace at my weight (188.5 lbs.) calculates to 485 calories.
How are you getting 930?
And there's no way you would really burn that much.
Ok. I just recalculated it at my initial weight of 225 lbs. (36.5 lbs. more than I weigh now), and it comes out to 578 calories.
Again... where are you getting your numbers?
Sounds like you are over exaggerating the exaggeration.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
MFP doesn't make the monitors and exercise machines, so I'm not talking about MFP. As far as I know, MFP doesn't do the exercise calculations, either, but use info separate from databases. Additionally, almost every calculator includes BMR burns, which double counts those calories and this effect gets worse the more you exercise.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm saying that activity trackers are notoriously inaccurate, yes. And that the exercise burns MFP uses can be double and triple actual burns, yes.bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
And it is well established that those burns are double, if not triple, reality. That's why there are scores and scores of threads in which people are advised not to eat back all of their exercise calories.bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »I have never seen a point get so lost amongst noise in my whole life.
Coke is attempting to promote the notion that you can out-exercise over consumption of calories in order to boost lagging sales.
Instead of being appalled by that, I'm seeing a bunch of posts with people arguing about the benefits of exercise.
I don't get it.
You can't out-exercise the over-consumption of calories. This is a point people were making earlier in the thread and they got told they were ignoring the CO part of the equation. What the what now? If you keep eating more than you're burning, what's going to happen?
It's always down to eating less than you burn.
Exercise is great. I do an awful lot of it because it helps me keep my energy levels up and manages my pain levels with some medical conditions I have ... the more I do, the better I feel. Yay me. But I still watch my calories like a hawk.
I'm not going to be swallowing Coke's message any time soon.
Agree! It's true most ppl don't exercise enough. But most of the problem is calories in. I am at 160 calories burnt after going for a 40 minute walk. I can't imagine how much I would need to move to burn off a big gulp
https://theconversation.com/big-sodas-tactics-to-confuse-science-and-protect-their-profits-45907
I just did a 53 minute walk and burned 401 calories. Earlier today I did 3 miles on my kayak and burned 428 calories. I also have a 68 calorie adjustment from steps on my activity tracker. So I have 897 exercise calories so far today. If you add them to my goal calories of 1580 that is 2477 calories, and the 500 and some odd calories that MFP minuses to lose 1 lb. per are already taken out. I have had breakfast and lunch which totals 919 calories, so I still have 1558 calories to eat. I will probably eat anywhere from 500 to 800 calories for dinner and a snack, so I will end up with 800 to 1,000 calories left over today.
How fast a pace do you walk?
That seems like a big difference in calories for only 13 minutes difference in time.
Bodyweight makes a big difference in calories burned from walking.
Of course, lots of walking estimates grossly overstate calories burned.
For me, 897 calories would be running about 9.5-10 miles, except even that counts the calories I would have burned anyway. To get a true 897 additional calories it would have to be even more. I don't count adjustments from steps other than in my daily overall activity.
Also, I exercise quite a lot, and at 2477 calories I'd be gaining weight.
I wear my heart rate monitor when I exercise, and because I am so old and out of shape, I get in the 70 to 80 percent cardio zone quite easily. my activity tracker must take that into account when it calculates my calories burned, because it's always a little lower when I don't wear it.
I don't believe HRM are accurate for walking calories.
For net walking calories (in other words, calories above what you would burn anyway, which is one problem with most HRM estimates) a good formula is .3 x weight x miles.
For me (assuming 4mph for an hour) that's .3 x 125 x 4 or 150 calories.
I don't know all that formula stuff, but what I do know is that I log my workouts, my fitness tracker calculates the calories burned, I log my food, MFP calculates that part and deducts whatever it takes to lose 1 lb. per week (my setting), and I have been losing about a lb. per week for going on 8 months now. I think if my activity tracker was miscalculating that much, I would have gained a lot of weight by now instead of losing 36 lbs.
Don't think I can agree with you on this one. Sorry.
You are the one who claimed to have 800 to 1000 calories left over today. If you regularly seem to have lots of calories left over and yet are losing the 1 lb/week predicted, well, that's the overestimate.
It could be that you aren't overestimating, though, because you are down at sedentary (with a 15-something goal for a one lb loss for a man, I assume you are) and yet are not actually sedentary (most are not).
When I started MFP said I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and instead I lost 2-2.5 lb/week at 1250, because I was down as sedentary and was really at least lightly active and because I left exercise calories on the table often (did not trust the counts).
It is my experience that as one gets closer to goal it's harder to do that, in part because the calories one burns from the same amount of exercise are less (although outside of walking it's generally easier to exercise).
If I have to run about 12 miles to burn 1000 extra calories, though, probably best not to count on daily burning 1000 extra calories. That doesn't mean exercise is unimportant, but this idea that one can always just burn off whatever calories one eats is simply false. You have to take into account what is actually feasible in a person's life. I exercise a lot because I enjoy it and am training for stuff, but even so of course I must watch what I eat (and I could probably lose easier if I exercised less and ate less).
Anyway FOR ME (not anyone else in particular) both exercise and watching my diet are very important and doing both makes both easier. However, IMO a third factor is the real underestimated one much of the time--getting general activity level up beyond intentional exercise, such as by walking more on a daily basis.
I usually leave extra calories for things that I don't log throughout the day. For example if I grab 2 or 3 chips, I'm not going to stop and try to figure out how to log that, so I try to leave some extra calories for that type of stuff. I don't weigh stuff either (although I do have a scale and have weighed things just out of curiosity). If it has a barcode, I scan it. If not, I ballpark it.
Also, I just checked the MFP database and walking for 60 minutes at a 4 mph pace is right on par with what I am getting on my activity tracker, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
You can go with whatever you want. That doesn't make it correct.
So you are saying that activity trackers double and triple the calories burned?
I don't know why they would do that, but what I do know is whatever I am doing seems to be working for me, and the 3 or 4 activity trackers that I have had since I started all this seem to calculate workout calories pretty much the same way. Don't understand why they would deliberately miscalculate them.
I'm not saying it's deliberate, though it seems like there would be some incentive to make people happier so they'd be more likely to use the products. It's similar to vanity sizing in clothing. It may just be that the algorithms are very poor across populations for the types of exercises they purport to measure.
Again, if you think it works for you, go for it. That doesn't mean they're accurate. They aren't.
How would throwing off the CO side of the CI<CO equation make people on a calorie counting website happy? Seems more like it would make them think your plan doesn't work or your site needs an overhaul.
But obviously calorie burns are not going to be accurate for everyone, but I would hope they are averages and therefore likely accurate for many.
I see. What do you mean by "includes BMR burns"? BMR during the exercise, rather than just exercise above and beyond BMR? That hardly seems like it would be double.
Walking at typically speed burns about the same as you're burning in BMR - this is why walking estimates are typically double the real net burn.
Interval training has lots of rest and rest-ish periods. So if you burn 2x BMR for the first minute interval, then 1x BMR for another minute of the interval and then follow it with two minutes of BMR-ish recovery before doing the next interval, meanwhile all the HRM sees is your heart pounding like a jack hammer....well, the math adds up (or subtracts down, I guess) pretty darn quickly.
IDK what you mean by "typically speed" but when I am walking for exercise I burn considerably more than when I'm watching TV.
Yes, you're burning about double. And since MFP and the various trackers don't subtract BMR from the burn number, that means the number they give you needs to be cut in half.
As your numbers upstream indicated, your walking burn is almost exactly double the actual number.
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Now, if they could go back to putting cocaine in it, they might have a weight loss formula.Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Are you doubting the intentions of The Coca Cola Company?christinev297 wrote: »I'd take any studies funded by coca cola with a big heaping of scepticism...
All they're trying to do is help humanity just as they have always done in the tireless and selfless effort to make our world a better place.
In other news...the moon is made of Swiss cheese...
What makes this even funnier is that I remember those days.
Damn I'm old...
Ignoring most of this thread because it's apparently divolved into a semantics argument, but you remember 1903?! You must be winning all sorts of awards for the world's oldest person...
I guess you didn't read my response either. Or are you just looking for someone to take shots at?
You ignore the thread, but as soon as you find someone to take a shot at, you jump right in there don't you?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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