Beware of hidden calories.

2»

Replies

  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    sashayoung72 wrote: »
    you should see my misfit, it calculated I burned 1496 calories for 2000 steps bwhaahaa mfp synced up and i got NEGATIVE 32!!!!

    If misfit is similar to fitbit, it is not saying you burned 1496 for 2000 steps. It is saying you burned 1496 for everything you had done up to that point, including the 2000 steps.
  • sashayoung72
    sashayoung72 Posts: 441 Member
    Dnarules wrote: »
    sashayoung72 wrote: »
    you should see my misfit, it calculated I burned 1496 calories for 2000 steps bwhaahaa mfp synced up and i got NEGATIVE 32!!!!

    If misfit is similar to fitbit, it is not saying you burned 1496 for 2000 steps. It is saying you burned 1496 for everything you had done up to that point, including the 2000 steps.
    IDK it's says like 200 calories for 10 steps when I synch in the morning, so i'm glad it does what it's suppose to when it converts over to the mfp app

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    rsclause 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.

    I honestly think it depends on the treadmills. The treadmills at my old gym overestimated for sure. The treadmills at my current gym are fairly accurate for a nice low net burn.

    Saying that, I don't use them any more, I'm doing TDEE with Fitbit. For the person above who said that Fitbit gave them so many calories, you misunderstood the Fitbit calculation.

    Fitbit did not give you all those calories just for those steps. Fitbit gave you the difference between what MFP thought your burn was for the day and what it thought your burn was for the day. If you've had your Fitbit a while, it has a better idea what your TDEE is than MFP does.

  • hooltwl1957
    hooltwl1957 Posts: 31 Member
    callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »
    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. LOL

  • hooltwl1957
    hooltwl1957 Posts: 31 Member
    I set my goals exactly like you. . I use sedentary and if I get hungry I'll eat about 30% of my exercise allowance. Not really a scientific equation, it's just what works for me. I've lost about 67 lbs this way in a little under 5.5 months I don't think that's excessive especially since that includes the initial water loss when you first start. I always hear every spewing warnings about how I'm not eating enough, Blah blah blah but I'm eating 1680 Kcals a day more than enough for anyone unless u are a competitive athlete running marathons or a similar extreme activity. All that really matters is the lifestyle change. As you begin keeping a food diary, u learn to watch your intake. Some days u may eat a little more or a little less. That's life but overall u are becoming accountable for your health and isn't that why we are here.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories