Beware of hidden calories.
hooltwl1957
Posts: 31 Member
I just discovered why my weight has been plateauing then bouncing back and forth . I was using calories from my daily exercise whenever I was hungry. Well after some slick calculations and testing, I discovered that MFP and many other programs including the software loaded into digital exercise equipment is over estimating the calories you burn during exercise. If you must add these calories onto your daily intake then only use 35 - 40% of the exercise calorie total. If you are adding the calories from exercise, set your profile to sedentary. Levels above sedentary already take a given amount of physical exercise into account.
0
Replies
-
yes, we tell people this every day.... lol
0 -
I know. I just thought I remind them...0
-
Yeah.0
-
Just a correction - on MFP, levels above sedentary are NOT meant to take exercise into account. They take your job activity into account. That's why, with MFP's method, you're meant to add exercise in regardless of your work activity level.0
-
With no true way to confirm I think my running app Runtastic is reasonably close for calories burned. Even before MFP I never trusted a machine I sit on to be anywhere close.0
-
Just a correction - on MFP, levels above sedentary are NOT meant to take exercise into account. They take your job activity into account. That's why, with MFP's method, you're meant to add exercise in regardless of your work activity level.
Then MFP is unusual because all other activity calculators take in job + exercise.0 -
With no true way to confirm I think my running app Runtastic is reasonably close for calories burned. Even before MFP I never trusted a machine I sit on to be anywhere close.
Treadmills are pretty close, bikes are dead accurate in terms of calories you put into the machine since they can base it on the watts you are generating, but you'll burn more because you have your own calories to burn outside of what you are putting into the machine. Most other machines are just SWAG, well not exactly that bad but the formulas they use aren't as well validated.0 -
I understand the way some machines are measuring your WATTS generated but Kcals burned is dependent on your fitness level and your muscle mass. The more muscle the more u burn. I know this because I perform METS testing. The only way that bike or treadmill would be accurate would be if it knew your real parameters. Not just BMI since this is a calculated number not actual. All this matters little if you have trended your calories burned to the weight loss u are trying to achieve each week.0
-
With no true way to confirm I think my running app Runtastic is reasonably close for calories burned. Even before MFP I never trusted a machine I sit on to be anywhere close.
Hmm I just got this app today and was wondering how accurate it is. The distance measuring seems to be off. I ran one direction for a mile, then more or less walked back. Same distance, yet it said the walk back was 1.48 miles...0 -
you should see my misfit, it calculated I burned 1496 calories for 2000 steps bwhaahaa mfp synced up and i got NEGATIVE 32!!!!0
-
I walk over 10,000 steps everyday but I consider that my baseline. Fitbit wants to give me 980 calories. I would gain three pounds a week if I use those calories. Unless u are really burning a ton of calories why not just let those calories contribute to your weight lose?0
-
Did u mean to say 20,000 steps?0
-
Just a correction - on MFP, levels above sedentary are NOT meant to take exercise into account. They take your job activity into account. That's why, with MFP's method, you're meant to add exercise in regardless of your work activity level.
What do you mean? Activity level to my understanding is your normal every day activity excluding purposeful exercise.
Doesn't matter if sedentary or highly active.
So a nurse or landscaper would set their activity level higher than a office worker who is sedentary. They would then all log their exercise, say they all go to the gym, they would log that.
0 -
That's ok but what I am saying is the calories u are given for the exercise you do is over estimated. Therefore it is my belief that using these calories will interfere with your weight loss. If u don't believe me, set your activity level for the category u feel u belong in, then eat the additional calories that u are given for exercise. You will find your weight loss if any has either plateaued, slow to a crawl or u are gaining weight. There was a good post a few weeks ago titled "My Fitbit is making me fat". Now if your just logging the exercise but u programmed MFP to not add those calories then it doesn't matter since u are not eating the calories estimated in your exercise. Just a suggestion, I don't want to belittle anyone's beliefs.0
-
I agree. It sounds like your daily activity plus strength training made the extra calories possible for you. Congratulations.0
-
hooltwl1957 wrote: »I just discovered why my weight has been plateauing then bouncing back and forth . I was using calories from my daily exercise whenever I was hungry. Well after some slick calculations and testing, I discovered that MFP and many other programs including the software loaded into digital exercise equipment is over estimating the calories you burn during exercise. If you must add these calories onto your daily intake then only use 35 - 40% of the exercise calorie total. If you are adding the calories from exercise, set your profile to sedentary. Levels above sedentary already take a given amount of physical exercise into account.
You are so right on that MFP and other internet sources inflate exercise calories. Thank you for posting this.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »With no true way to confirm I think my running app Runtastic is reasonably close for calories burned. Even before MFP I never trusted a machine I sit on to be anywhere close.
Treadmills are pretty close, bikes are dead accurate in terms of calories you put into the machine since they can base it on the watts you are generating, but you'll burn more because you have your own calories to burn outside of what you are putting into the machine. Most other machines are just SWAG, well not exactly that bad but the formulas they use aren't as well validated.
Not all of them. Generally, there is anywhere from a 100 t0 250 calorie burn difference between the treadmills and my heart rate monitor, with the latter being the lower of the two. I lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining my weight using a heart rate monitor for exercise burns, so if I used the treadmill burns I would be in BIG trouble.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Just a correction - on MFP, levels above sedentary are NOT meant to take exercise into account. They take your job activity into account. That's why, with MFP's method, you're meant to add exercise in regardless of your work activity level.
Then MFP is unusual because all other activity calculators take in job + exercise.
Other calculators use the TDEE method, which includes regular activity plus exercise. MFP does not use the TDEE method. Hence the difference.0 -
This is common knowledge.0
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »With no true way to confirm I think my running app Runtastic is reasonably close for calories burned. Even before MFP I never trusted a machine I sit on to be anywhere close.
Treadmills are pretty close, bikes are dead accurate in terms of calories you put into the machine since they can base it on the watts you are generating, but you'll burn more because you have your own calories to burn outside of what you are putting into the machine. Most other machines are just SWAG, well not exactly that bad but the formulas they use aren't as well validated.
Not all of them. Generally, there is anywhere from a 100 t0 250 calorie burn difference between the treadmills and my heart rate monitor, with the latter being the lower of the two. I lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining my weight using a heart rate monitor for exercise burns, so if I used the treadmill burns I would be in BIG trouble.
Ture but HRM's aren't the most accurate either unless they are the Cadillac versions that allow you to calibrate, most of the problems in dreadmills is that they often use gross rather than net calories but the formula for running is generally 2/3 body weight x miles for net burn and is well established. I've read a lot of treadmill accuracy studies and they tend to be pretty good in general.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »With no true way to confirm I think my running app Runtastic is reasonably close for calories burned. Even before MFP I never trusted a machine I sit on to be anywhere close.
Treadmills are pretty close, bikes are dead accurate in terms of calories you put into the machine since they can base it on the watts you are generating, but you'll burn more because you have your own calories to burn outside of what you are putting into the machine. Most other machines are just SWAG, well not exactly that bad but the formulas they use aren't as well validated.
Not all of them. Generally, there is anywhere from a 100 t0 250 calorie burn difference between the treadmills and my heart rate monitor, with the latter being the lower of the two. I lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining my weight using a heart rate monitor for exercise burns, so if I used the treadmill burns I would be in BIG trouble.
Ture but HRM's aren't the most accurate either unless they are the Cadillac versions that allow you to calibrate, most of the problems in dreadmills is that they often use gross rather than net calories but the formula for running is generally 2/3 body weight x miles for net burn and is well established. I've read a lot of treadmill accuracy studies and they tend to be pretty good in general.
In other words, the number you see on the Treadmill for your calorie burn is really not your calorie burn and should be significantly less?
My HRM is not a Cadillac version (Polar FT7) that I did have to calibrate, and I realize all methods are estimations only, but I will believe the estimation on my HRM because of my results.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »With no true way to confirm I think my running app Runtastic is reasonably close for calories burned. Even before MFP I never trusted a machine I sit on to be anywhere close.
Treadmills are pretty close, bikes are dead accurate in terms of calories you put into the machine since they can base it on the watts you are generating, but you'll burn more because you have your own calories to burn outside of what you are putting into the machine. Most other machines are just SWAG, well not exactly that bad but the formulas they use aren't as well validated.
Not all of them. Generally, there is anywhere from a 100 t0 250 calorie burn difference between the treadmills and my heart rate monitor, with the latter being the lower of the two. I lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining my weight using a heart rate monitor for exercise burns, so if I used the treadmill burns I would be in BIG trouble.
Ture but HRM's aren't the most accurate either unless they are the Cadillac versions that allow you to calibrate, most of the problems in dreadmills is that they often use gross rather than net calories but the formula for running is generally 2/3 body weight x miles for net burn and is well established. I've read a lot of treadmill accuracy studies and they tend to be pretty good in general.
In other words, the number you see on the Treadmill for your calorie burn is really not your calorie burn and should be significantly less?
My HRM is not a Cadillac version (Polar FT7) that I did have to calibrate, and I realize all methods are estimations only, but I will believe the estimation on my HRM because of my results.
Yes, your net calories will be less than what the treadmill says, at least the ones I use, since the treadmill will generally give the gross calories. I imagine your HRM is using your net calories but I'm not sure the algorithm. I trust HRM's for the most part when it comes to steady state cardio, like running and walking, but not at all when it comes to weight lifting or prolonged interval activities such as jumping around at concerts. They tend to overestimate the calories burned since they are often not strongly correlated to elevated HR.0 -
hooltwl1957 wrote: »I just discovered why my weight has been plateauing then bouncing back and forth . I was using calories from my daily exercise whenever I was hungry. Well after some slick calculations and testing, I discovered that MFP and many other programs including the software loaded into digital exercise equipment is over estimating the calories you burn during exercise. If you must add these calories onto your daily intake then only use 35 - 40% of the exercise calorie total. If you are adding the calories from exercise, set your profile to sedentary. Levels above sedentary already take a given amount of physical exercise into account.
Yes.
As a general guideline, I try to overestimate my calories consumed a little bit, and underestimate my calories burned. It seems to be working.
0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »
When I used to figure my cardio using the totals off the machine, I always subtracted what I would be burning anyway, just by existing. So, if MFP maintenance was 1800, I figured I burn 75 calories an hour whether I'm exercising or not. So, I would pro-rate that and subtract it from the burn the treadmill gave me. Generally worked out to taking off 50 calories or so for my length of workout. Maybe this is what he's referring to as net burn?Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »With no true way to confirm I think my running app Runtastic is reasonably close for calories burned. Even before MFP I never trusted a machine I sit on to be anywhere close.
Treadmills are pretty close, bikes are dead accurate in terms of calories you put into the machine since they can base it on the watts you are generating, but you'll burn more because you have your own calories to burn outside of what you are putting into the machine. Most other machines are just SWAG, well not exactly that bad but the formulas they use aren't as well validated.
Not all of them. Generally, there is anywhere from a 100 t0 250 calorie burn difference between the treadmills and my heart rate monitor, with the latter being the lower of the two. I lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining my weight using a heart rate monitor for exercise burns, so if I used the treadmill burns I would be in BIG trouble.
Ture but HRM's aren't the most accurate either unless they are the Cadillac versions that allow you to calibrate, most of the problems in dreadmills is that they often use gross rather than net calories but the formula for running is generally 2/3 body weight x miles for net burn and is well established. I've read a lot of treadmill accuracy studies and they tend to be pretty good in general.
In other words, the number you see on the Treadmill for your calorie burn is really not your calorie burn and should be significantly less?
My HRM is not a Cadillac version (Polar FT7) that I did have to calibrate, and I realize all methods are estimations only, but I will believe the estimation on my HRM because of my results.
But...If I had an activity tracker or a HRM, I'd definitely trust those totals too.
Yes that would be a good estimate of net calories. If you take the formula of 2/3 body weight x miles you should get a very similar answer.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »
When I used to figure my cardio using the totals off the machine, I always subtracted what I would be burning anyway, just by existing. So, if MFP maintenance was 1800, I figured I burn 75 calories an hour whether I'm exercising or not. So, I would pro-rate that and subtract it from the burn the treadmill gave me. Generally worked out to taking off 50 calories or so for my length of workout. Maybe this is what he's referring to as net burn?Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »With no true way to confirm I think my running app Runtastic is reasonably close for calories burned. Even before MFP I never trusted a machine I sit on to be anywhere close.
Treadmills are pretty close, bikes are dead accurate in terms of calories you put into the machine since they can base it on the watts you are generating, but you'll burn more because you have your own calories to burn outside of what you are putting into the machine. Most other machines are just SWAG, well not exactly that bad but the formulas they use aren't as well validated.
Not all of them. Generally, there is anywhere from a 100 t0 250 calorie burn difference between the treadmills and my heart rate monitor, with the latter being the lower of the two. I lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining my weight using a heart rate monitor for exercise burns, so if I used the treadmill burns I would be in BIG trouble.
Ture but HRM's aren't the most accurate either unless they are the Cadillac versions that allow you to calibrate, most of the problems in dreadmills is that they often use gross rather than net calories but the formula for running is generally 2/3 body weight x miles for net burn and is well established. I've read a lot of treadmill accuracy studies and they tend to be pretty good in general.
In other words, the number you see on the Treadmill for your calorie burn is really not your calorie burn and should be significantly less?
My HRM is not a Cadillac version (Polar FT7) that I did have to calibrate, and I realize all methods are estimations only, but I will believe the estimation on my HRM because of my results.
But...If I had an activity tracker or a HRM, I'd definitely trust those totals too.
Yes that would be a good estimate of net calories. If you take the formula of 2/3 body weight x miles you should get a very similar answer.
I understand your reasoning now. Thank you. 0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »
When I used to figure my cardio using the totals off the machine, I always subtracted what I would be burning anyway, just by existing. So, if MFP maintenance was 1800, I figured I burn 75 calories an hour whether I'm exercising or not. So, I would pro-rate that and subtract it from the burn the treadmill gave me. Generally worked out to taking off 50 calories or so for my length of workout. Maybe this is what he's referring to as net burn?Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »With no true way to confirm I think my running app Runtastic is reasonably close for calories burned. Even before MFP I never trusted a machine I sit on to be anywhere close.
Treadmills are pretty close, bikes are dead accurate in terms of calories you put into the machine since they can base it on the watts you are generating, but you'll burn more because you have your own calories to burn outside of what you are putting into the machine. Most other machines are just SWAG, well not exactly that bad but the formulas they use aren't as well validated.
Not all of them. Generally, there is anywhere from a 100 t0 250 calorie burn difference between the treadmills and my heart rate monitor, with the latter being the lower of the two. I lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining my weight using a heart rate monitor for exercise burns, so if I used the treadmill burns I would be in BIG trouble.
Ture but HRM's aren't the most accurate either unless they are the Cadillac versions that allow you to calibrate, most of the problems in dreadmills is that they often use gross rather than net calories but the formula for running is generally 2/3 body weight x miles for net burn and is well established. I've read a lot of treadmill accuracy studies and they tend to be pretty good in general.
In other words, the number you see on the Treadmill for your calorie burn is really not your calorie burn and should be significantly less?
My HRM is not a Cadillac version (Polar FT7) that I did have to calibrate, and I realize all methods are estimations only, but I will believe the estimation on my HRM because of my results.
But...If I had an activity tracker or a HRM, I'd definitely trust those totals too.
Thank you.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »
When I used to figure my cardio using the totals off the machine, I always subtracted what I would be burning anyway, just by existing. So, if MFP maintenance was 1800, I figured I burn 75 calories an hour whether I'm exercising or not. So, I would pro-rate that and subtract it from the burn the treadmill gave me. Generally worked out to taking off 50 calories or so for my length of workout. Maybe this is what he's referring to as net burn?Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »With no true way to confirm I think my running app Runtastic is reasonably close for calories burned. Even before MFP I never trusted a machine I sit on to be anywhere close.
Treadmills are pretty close, bikes are dead accurate in terms of calories you put into the machine since they can base it on the watts you are generating, but you'll burn more because you have your own calories to burn outside of what you are putting into the machine. Most other machines are just SWAG, well not exactly that bad but the formulas they use aren't as well validated.
Not all of them. Generally, there is anywhere from a 100 t0 250 calorie burn difference between the treadmills and my heart rate monitor, with the latter being the lower of the two. I lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining my weight using a heart rate monitor for exercise burns, so if I used the treadmill burns I would be in BIG trouble.
Ture but HRM's aren't the most accurate either unless they are the Cadillac versions that allow you to calibrate, most of the problems in dreadmills is that they often use gross rather than net calories but the formula for running is generally 2/3 body weight x miles for net burn and is well established. I've read a lot of treadmill accuracy studies and they tend to be pretty good in general.
In other words, the number you see on the Treadmill for your calorie burn is really not your calorie burn and should be significantly less?
My HRM is not a Cadillac version (Polar FT7) that I did have to calibrate, and I realize all methods are estimations only, but I will believe the estimation on my HRM because of my results.
But...If I had an activity tracker or a HRM, I'd definitely trust those totals too.
Yes that would be a good estimate of net calories. If you take the formula of 2/3 body weight x miles you should get a very similar answer.
I understand your reasoning now. Thank you.
No problem and remember: it's all estimates the hard part is using the information and adjusting it to your actual physiology and that's not always easy unless you have done metabolic testing. I'll just try to muddle through with what I have though.
0 -
nope, just the 2000. i never go by it's calorie count.hooltwl1957 wrote: »Did u mean to say 20,000 steps?
0 -
This is a very informative discussion. Thank u everyone.0
-
i think its easy for people (especially new people who dont know better yet) to believe the numbers on a machine- you enter your weight, you enter the difficulty level and boom done. its right, right? well, no. and those of us who have been doing this (especially successfully) know this.
I wish (oh how i wish) i burned 700+ calories on the elliptical for an hour. 400 is much more realistic, and is what i log. Sometimes i eat it back (usually on weekends LOL), but most often during a normal week, i try not to (While still being mindful of net and how i am feeling). My activity level is set to sedentary, even though I'm far from it. I could set my activity level higher, but if i did that, I wouldnt want to log (rather, eat back) the exercise. again, little things that new people may not know to consider.
I think those with the most success using MFP are the ones who do come in the forums and learn- because otherwise, you log your food (probably inaccurately and probably skipping things like butter and oil), log your exercise (inaccurate burns) and eat back way more than you should, on top of already eating more than you think you are. we all see this EVERY.DAY.
and sure, we get tired of the constant topics on the same thing. i really wish people would learn how to use the search function. But as long as they LEARN and LISTEN to what veterans and knowledgeable people are telling them, thats really what matters.
kinda went off on a tangent. i do that sometimes. LOL0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions