What the heck is this negative calorie adjustment with UA? Heh
Options
simpleonajourney
Posts: 11 Member
So, I enabled NCA with the UA calorie adjustment and it took off an immediate 453 calories, lowering my food goal. So I was like, "okay....maybe that's supposed to happen" so I just went with it. Then, I biked 3 miles and burned approx 211 calories ballpark. So it subtracted 211 calories. Confused.
What's up with this?
Note: not using a fitbit or anything. ATM I just use my phone with MFP, UA Record, and Endomondo.
What's up with this?
Note: not using a fitbit or anything. ATM I just use my phone with MFP, UA Record, and Endomondo.
0
Replies
-
Is it subtracting from your net intake?0
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »Is it subtracting from your net intake?
Well, not sure. Here are some screenshots if that can help you with that question. By net intake, do you mean amount of calories consumed (eaten)?
1 (home page):
2 (exercise):
0 -
What have you got your activity level set to?0
-
christinev297 wrote: »What have you got your activity level set to?
I have it on "lightly active." I'm fairly out there...go to school Mon-Fri, walk around campus etc. Then nearly every day I'm out doing some physical activity.0 -
jandersen0617 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »What have you got your activity level set to?
I have it on "lightly active." I'm fairly out there...go to school Mon-Fri, walk around campus etc. Then nearly every day I'm out doing some physical activity.
Well there goes my theory. If you were set to highly active, then you'd get calories taken away until you hit MFP's numbers.
Hopefully our resident fitbit expert @heybales will see this and chime in0 -
christinev297 wrote: »jandersen0617 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »What have you got your activity level set to?
I have it on "lightly active." I'm fairly out there...go to school Mon-Fri, walk around campus etc. Then nearly every day I'm out doing some physical activity.
Well there goes my theory. If you were set to highly active, then you'd get calories taken away until you hit MFP's numbers.
Hopefully our resident fitbit expert @heybales will see this and chime in
Maybe I should just disable NCA due to my not using any extra tracking bands? Just using phone right now.0 -
Your tracker is saying that you haven't moved enough today to eat that 2260, it is taking away 453 cals from you for today. To be honest, I don't have the neg cal adjustment on for myself, and have accepted on the days when I am not that busy, I will lose less than I had hoped for. You could also review your goals on both your tracker and your MFP account.0
-
.0
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »Your tracker is saying that you haven't moved enough today to eat that 2260, it is taking away 453 cals from you for today. To be honest, I don't have the neg cal adjustment on for myself, and have accepted on the days when I am not that busy, I will lose less than I had hoped for. You could also review your goals on both your tracker and your MFP account.
Ah, but why did it take away the 211 when I exercised?
Or is that even what it did?0 -
Pure luck I clicked on this topic, almost didn't.
My username is actually the other hey - though I am in Kansas surrounded by the hay also.
What is the UA calorie adjustment coming from?
MFP does the math as follows.
Other device (UA?) reported daily burn - MFP estimated daily burn - exercise burn = adjustment
NET eating goal + exercise burn + adjustment = current eating goal.
So too many unknown figures - but if you click on that "i" for more info on that adjustment - you'll get rest of them, or can figure them out.
But at this point - it appears for today you burned less according to UA with exercise than MFP estimated you'd burn without exercise.
Ya, that's bad.
So either a bug in the math or whatever UA is.
Or that bike ride wiped you out, and you slept in 3 hrs and then took a 3 hr nap also say.0 -
jandersen0617 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Your tracker is saying that you haven't moved enough today to eat that 2260, it is taking away 453 cals from you for today. To be honest, I don't have the neg cal adjustment on for myself, and have accepted on the days when I am not that busy, I will lose less than I had hoped for. You could also review your goals on both your tracker and your MFP account.
Ah, but why did it take away the 211 when I exercised?
Or is that even what it did?
Not what it did.
You were going to get a neg 664 adjustment. But it ended up only being neg 443.
2260 + 211 - 664 = 1807 eating goal.
1807 - 435 eaten already = 1372 left to eat.0 -
@heybales
Thanks for the info!!
Want to try and figure this out.... the adjustment is coming from UA Record only, as far as I know. I use Endomondo for tracking running/walking/cycling etc, and MFP for food of course. No outside device in the picture (yet). Just phone and apps.
What the "i" on the UA Calorie Adjustment says is:
-> UA Calories Burned 2805
-> MFP Calories Burned 3469
-> UA Calorie Adjustment -664
Weirdly enough, though, UA Record says that the calories I've burned today were 1,371 (from looking at the front of it.) So I'm not even sure where the 2805 came from... unless it has to do with my BMR and steps, etc.
Anyway, it's much clearer now...I think I'll keep it on. However if I start getting hungry or something trying to rigorously follow it, it's going off unless I get a device that may or may not be more accurate.0 -
Now that does speak to a bug then, unless they happen to do things very differently than any tracker method of doing it.
Shoot - even Fitbit app used with steps from your cell phone and no actual Fitbit device, still reports a daily burn that is exactly that - all included daily burn. In fact with them, if you don't point out a workout block of time - it's buried in the daily stats and you could never review it later for just the workout.
If the UA is directly saying 1371, and I'm guessing they do a step count and total miles walked along with giving daily burn estimate - but MFP received 2805, I'm guessing like you said they included BMR level burn in what they sent to MFP, but only reflect to you in the app what was burned beyond that.
Perhaps - math good to confirm.
Daily 2805 - 1371 movement = 1434 BMR @ this moment, 7:52 pm PST, or 19:52, or 1192 min of the day.
BMR 1434 / 1192 min x 1440 min in day = 1732 BMR for day.
Does that sound right?
1732 x 1.4 Lightly Active = 2425 MFP estimated daily burn no exercise. That doesn't appear correct, so the BMR is wrong, or that's not BMR that UA added.
Are your stats matching on UA and MFP?
Your MFP daily burn appears to be:
3469 - 211 exercise = 3258 estimated no exercise.
Your daily eating goal 2260 means you have a 2lb weekly goal set, or 1000 cal deficit. (you are on the verge of that not being reasonable deficit, I'd suggest 2-3 weeks of that, then back off to 1.5 lbs weekly, or 750 cal deficit. Otherwise you risk muscle mass unless you do everything dead on correct, and even then potential.)
3260 / 1.4 lightly active = 2328 Mifflin BMR or there abouts.
So ya, UA is not adding in a BMR, or their stats are way off and they miscalculated your BMR at only around 1732, about 600 less.
This will be interesting to see where the problem is.0 -
Now that does speak to a bug then, unless they happen to do things very differently than any tracker method of doing it.
Shoot - even Fitbit app used with steps from your cell phone and no actual Fitbit device, still reports a daily burn that is exactly that - all included daily burn. In fact with them, if you don't point out a workout block of time - it's buried in the daily stats and you could never review it later for just the workout.
If the UA is directly saying 1371, and I'm guessing they do a step count and total miles walked along with giving daily burn estimate - but MFP received 2805, I'm guessing like you said they included BMR level burn in what they sent to MFP, but only reflect to you in the app what was burned beyond that.
Perhaps - math good to confirm.
Daily 2805 - 1371 movement = 1434 BMR @ this moment, 7:52 pm PST, or 19:52, or 1192 min of the day.
BMR 1434 / 1192 min x 1440 min in day = 1732 BMR for day.
Does that sound right?
1732 x 1.4 Lightly Active = 2425 MFP estimated daily burn no exercise. That doesn't appear correct, so the BMR is wrong, or that's not BMR that UA added.
Are your stats matching on UA and MFP?
Your MFP daily burn appears to be:
3469 - 211 exercise = 3258 estimated no exercise.
Your daily eating goal 2260 means you have a 2lb weekly goal set, or 1000 cal deficit. (you are on the verge of that not being reasonable deficit, I'd suggest 2-3 weeks of that, then back off to 1.5 lbs weekly, or 750 cal deficit. Otherwise you risk muscle mass unless you do everything dead on correct, and even then potential.)
3260 / 1.4 lightly active = 2328 Mifflin BMR or there abouts.
So ya, UA is not adding in a BMR, or their stats are way off and they miscalculated your BMR at only around 1732, about 600 less.
This will be interesting to see where the problem is.
Odd....used a few calculators and my BMR should be ~2000ish. (2038 on last calculator.)
I do have a 2lb weekly goal set.
So yeah, those definitely don't sound correct.
Also, what do you mean about it not being a reasonable deficit? I should change it to 1.5 after 2-3 weeks? What about the muscle mass?
Interesting indeed.
I wonder if the fact that I didn't walk much today at all has something to do with it. In fact, I was extremely inactive from my norm today. Laid around a lot up until that exercise I did have.0 -
How about contacting customer service?0
-
Your BMR as used on MFP is found under Apps - BMR calc. Mifflin BMR.
But a 300 cal difference between what MFP is using right now (which is about 2328) and what you found on several sites - speaks to having your stats wrong on MFP.
In which case UA is perhaps closer, but still not right.
But a lazier than normal day would indeed cause negative adjustments - just not that big usually.
You can make the normal diet muscle mass loss worse by taking a bigger deficit.
At about 60 lbs to go, 2 lbs weekly, or 1000 cal deficit - has now become that bigger deficit.
Your body tears down and rebuilds muscle every day normally.
In a diet the body is going to decide where the now reduced protein/carbs from food goes to - basic systems for life, cells for nail/hair/skin growth, liver/kidney, all other cells, or for muscle that isn't being used as much as other needed stuff.
On average, it's the muscle that isn't rebuilt, other needed systems get it. So you lose muscle mass.
As you lose weight the rate of loss should slow down, because you wisely made it slow down by taking a lower deficit the less you have to lose.
If you don't, your body will force itself slower anyway and the result will be slow weight loss with a stressed out body and less muscle mass.
So at 45 lbs left, for sure be at 1.5 lbs.
30 lbs - 1 lb.
15 lbs - 1/2 lb weekly.
Just rough guides to be on the safe side. If you feel risky, go for more - just be aware a whole lot harder to build up a pound of muscle than it is to not lose it in the first place.
Losing muscle never bodes well for maintaining after you have lost. Hence the reason such a huge majority of crash dieters gain the lost weight and usually more back - they put their bodies into a bad spot for eating normal again, besides adherence is usually terrible to desired diet.0 -
Your BMR as used on MFP is found under Apps - BMR calc. Mifflin BMR.
But a 300 cal difference between what MFP is using right now (which is about 2328) and what you found on several sites - speaks to having your stats wrong on MFP.
In which case UA is perhaps closer, but still not right.
But a lazier than normal day would indeed cause negative adjustments - just not that big usually.
You can make the normal diet muscle mass loss worse by taking a bigger deficit.
At about 60 lbs to go, 2 lbs weekly, or 1000 cal deficit - has now become that bigger deficit.
Your body tears down and rebuilds muscle every day normally.
In a diet the body is going to decide where the now reduced protein/carbs from food goes to - basic systems for life, cells for nail/hair/skin growth, liver/kidney, all other cells, or for muscle that isn't being used as much as other needed stuff.
On average, it's the muscle that isn't rebuilt, other needed systems get it. So you lose muscle mass.
As you lose weight the rate of loss should slow down, because you wisely made it slow down by taking a lower deficit the less you have to lose.
If you don't, your body will force itself slower anyway and the result will be slow weight loss with a stressed out body and less muscle mass.
So at 45 lbs left, for sure be at 1.5 lbs.
30 lbs - 1 lb.
15 lbs - 1/2 lb weekly.
Just rough guides to be on the safe side. If you feel risky, go for more - just be aware a whole lot harder to build up a pound of muscle than it is to not lose it in the first place.
Losing muscle never bodes well for maintaining after you have lost. Hence the reason such a huge majority of crash dieters gain the lost weight and usually more back - they put their bodies into a bad spot for eating normal again, besides adherence is usually terrible to desired diet.
Used the calculator on MFP. It says 2030. Odd.
Interestingly, though, I was quite a lot more active today...nearer my usual. I got past the negative adjustment, and now it's positive and giving me a higher caloric allowance for the rest of the day. I suppose this is the "more accurate" amount of calories that I should be consuming according to my physical activity, right?
Also thanks for the tip. I'll definitely keep that in mind and drop the goal as I drop weight.0 -
Then your stats in your profile are different than what you used in the calculator.
Or your net eating goal would be BMR 2030 x 1.4 Lightly Active = 2842 - 1000 deficit = 1842 eating goal.
And it's 2260.
That's a 418 cal difference. You use lbs and not kg's in your profile?0 -
From my understanding, one would only even want to consider negative calorie adjustment if logging ALL activity through the day, such as wearing a device. I guess it could be done with an app, but it would seem that would be painful at best.
And OP, since you are obviously attempting to nail things down to more accurate for a reason, you might want to look at Endomondo vs accepted calorie burns. Endo will grossly overestimate BMR/RMR for me.0 -
I suppose that I had misunderstood the MFP activity level. I changed it down to sedentary, since most of the day I am at a desk. I log my workouts. I suppose this might make more sense...Then your stats in your profile are different than what you used in the calculator.
Or your net eating goal would be BMR 2030 x 1.4 Lightly Active = 2842 - 1000 deficit = 1842 eating goal.
And it's 2260.
That's a 418 cal difference. You use lbs and not kg's in your profile?
Anyhow, here's what it's looking like now if you're interested:
home page:
exercises:
UA cal adjustment:
Perhaps this might be better. I think my stats are right, though. What stats exactly are you referring to @heybales? I do use lbs.
Indeed. I log all activity, though. I carry my phone everywhere. I think it seems okay, now. I managed to get it acting correctly, at least I believe so. I'll be getting a Fitbit device soon, though, which should make it more accurate to say the least.robertw486 wrote: »From my understanding, one would only even want to consider negative calorie adjustment if logging ALL activity through the day, such as wearing a device. I guess it could be done with an app, but it would seem that would be painful at best.
And OP, since you are obviously attempting to nail things down to more accurate for a reason, you might want to look at Endomondo vs accepted calorie burns. Endo will grossly overestimate BMR/RMR for me.
Also, what do you mean about that last part? I was using Endo, but decided for MapMyFitness due to better syncing.0 -
I still think the negative adjustments thing is strange. Maybe it's just because I've done it the other way, but it seems to be trying to predict what you are going to do and then screw with it. On the regular method, I know how many calories I have in hand, and when I exercise I know how many I've burned and thus added that I can eat. After a while I more or less know the calories I'm going to burn if I exercise, so even if I want to eat some of them early I have the option.
As for the comment on Endomondo, I found it calculates BMR in with your exercise time. That in itself doesn't bother me so much, as it could be compensated for. But in my case I found out that not only does it include BMR, but it does so at a very high rate. This can throw the exercise calories off quite a bit.
Quoted from another thread....robertw486 wrote: »Did a quick yet telling test today with Strava vs Endomondo.
Turned the apps on, set the two phones side by side on the desk, and didn't touch them. In just shy of 70 minutes of nothing happening...
Endomondo showed a calorie burn of 159 calories
Strava showed a burn of 5 calories
For some reason when I first hit the "record" button on Strava, it showed a speed of like 20mph. Maybe I bumped the phone a little and the GPS picked up on it.
At any rate, this test seems to show me that Strava is not recording resting metabolism at all. Good or bad depending on how you track your calorie burn.
As a note, I have switched phones to test the GPS variance theory, and have also tried using Endomondo in different exercise modes. But they all report higher than BMR calorie burns if I do nothing at all.
Most BMR calculators would have put my BMR at about 85-90 calories for the 70 minutes I ran that test. No huge deal for a single event, but combine that error with hours of biking and your calorie burns are all messed up. And in my case, since I would prefer the app to report net calorie burn that doesn't factor in BMR, it was just easier to switch to another app.
The entire thread is below if you want to check out the notes of any others involved, including valuable input from @heybales
Cycling Calories Burned
I'm not sure if they function the same way or not, but all the Map My (Life) apps are owned by the same company as Endomondo, which is UA. I think Strava is one of the few apps that doesn't include BMR calories for the time you are exercising.
0 -
That's what is so strange about Strava - for running they do, and they use some rather normal formula's that match within 5 cal other sites - with BMR included.
Cycling is the only one where they estimate Watts to perform the work, watts to KJ and that to calories, so because it's just the energy needed to perform the work and not to live, BMR not included.
But I found an add-on to SportTracks that calculates Watts on running to, and leaves BMR out.0 -
jandersen0617 wrote: »
I suppose that I had misunderstood the MFP activity level. I changed it down to sedentary, since most of the day I am at a desk. I log my workouts. I suppose this might make more sense...Then your stats in your profile are different than what you used in the calculator.
Or your net eating goal would be BMR 2030 x 1.4 Lightly Active = 2842 - 1000 deficit = 1842 eating goal.
And it's 2260.
That's a 418 cal difference. You use lbs and not kg's in your profile?
Anyhow, here's what it's looking like now if you're interested:
home page:
exercises:
UA cal adjustment:
Perhaps this might be better. I think my stats are right, though. What stats exactly are you referring to @heybales? I do use lbs.
Indeed. I log all activity, though. I carry my phone everywhere. I think it seems okay, now. I managed to get it acting correctly, at least I believe so. I'll be getting a Fitbit device soon, though, which should make it more accurate to say the least.robertw486 wrote: »From my understanding, one would only even want to consider negative calorie adjustment if logging ALL activity through the day, such as wearing a device. I guess it could be done with an app, but it would seem that would be painful at best.
And OP, since you are obviously attempting to nail things down to more accurate for a reason, you might want to look at Endomondo vs accepted calorie burns. Endo will grossly overestimate BMR/RMR for me.
Also, what do you mean about that last part? I was using Endo, but decided for MapMyFitness due to better syncing.
None of that changes the fact the BMR didn't match to the figures you used in other calc's - including MFP's own Mifflin calc.
That change to activity level will only effect the amount of adjustment - the figures at the end of the day will end up exactly the same for eating goal.
BMR 2030 x 1.25 Sedentary = 2538 MFP estimated daily burn - 1000 deficit = 1538 net eating goal, rounded to 1540.
So you must have corrected some other stat while you were in your personal profile, because now it's correct.
If you changed it to Lightly Active - which from your comments you actually are - your eating goal should be 1842 abouts now, as long as you change no other body stat.
But you still have an issue of the fact that UA is vastly underreporting your calorie burn for the day.
I'd really confirm the stats on their site matches if they didn't get it from MFP. Perhaps one was default set to kg and syncing lbs over doesn't work right.0 -
jandersen0617 wrote: »
I suppose that I had misunderstood the MFP activity level. I changed it down to sedentary, since most of the day I am at a desk. I log my workouts. I suppose this might make more sense...Then your stats in your profile are different than what you used in the calculator.
Or your net eating goal would be BMR 2030 x 1.4 Lightly Active = 2842 - 1000 deficit = 1842 eating goal.
And it's 2260.
That's a 418 cal difference. You use lbs and not kg's in your profile?
Anyhow, here's what it's looking like now if you're interested:
home page:
exercises:
UA cal adjustment:
Perhaps this might be better. I think my stats are right, though. What stats exactly are you referring to @heybales? I do use lbs.
Indeed. I log all activity, though. I carry my phone everywhere. I think it seems okay, now. I managed to get it acting correctly, at least I believe so. I'll be getting a Fitbit device soon, though, which should make it more accurate to say the least.robertw486 wrote: »From my understanding, one would only even want to consider negative calorie adjustment if logging ALL activity through the day, such as wearing a device. I guess it could be done with an app, but it would seem that would be painful at best.
And OP, since you are obviously attempting to nail things down to more accurate for a reason, you might want to look at Endomondo vs accepted calorie burns. Endo will grossly overestimate BMR/RMR for me.
Also, what do you mean about that last part? I was using Endo, but decided for MapMyFitness due to better syncing.
None of that changes the fact the BMR didn't match to the figures you used in other calc's - including MFP's own Mifflin calc.
That change to activity level will only effect the amount of adjustment - the figures at the end of the day will end up exactly the same for eating goal.
BMR 2030 x 1.25 Sedentary = 2538 MFP estimated daily burn - 1000 deficit = 1538 net eating goal, rounded to 1540.
So you must have corrected some other stat while you were in your personal profile, because now it's correct.
If you changed it to Lightly Active - which from your comments you actually are - your eating goal should be 1842 abouts now, as long as you change no other body stat.
But you still have an issue of the fact that UA is vastly underreporting your calorie burn for the day.
I'd really confirm the stats on their site matches if they didn't get it from MFP. Perhaps one was default set to kg and syncing lbs over doesn't work right.
Weird. I think I'm following now.... I'm not sure what else I might have changed, besides my weight (it's going down) and activity level. But perhaps you're right, something may have changed.
As for UA, I'm not sure why it's underreporting. I have the same weight (lbs) and height (ft"in') set as on MFP. It's probably because it's GPS based and a phone, and not really made to be so accurate as a Fitbit or other device. That's just my theory, though. By the end of the day, it usually has matched up, or surpassed MFP in the daily burn. The screenshots I've showed you were about mid-day (~1pm--ish), after my morning/afternoon ride(s). Maybe that's what you're seeing as an underreporting statistic. I'm not sure, though.
Thanks for your help! You've been really helpful @heybales.
And @robertw486, thank you for that information. That's really interesting!0 -
Well, that may indeed be true then.
Because I sure wouldn't expect MFP with no exercise to be higher than that side with exercise included, especially after exercise should you have a positive adjustment that becomes perhaps less as the day goes on.
You might check if UA is also using steps for judging normal daily activity walking distance.
If that is off based on some stride length figure, then it could be underestimating how far you walk, and therefore your calorie burn from that activity is lower.0 -
That's what is so strange about Strava - for running they do, and they use some rather normal formula's that match within 5 cal other sites - with BMR included.
Cycling is the only one where they estimate Watts to perform the work, watts to KJ and that to calories, so because it's just the energy needed to perform the work and not to live, BMR not included.
But I found an add-on to SportTracks that calculates Watts on running to, and leaves BMR out.
Strange for sure. I did a test trying to use Strava for walking since Endo reports so high, but it seemed to mess with Strava walking slow. It somehow imported the data here to MFP as "running in place". But it still passed the "don't move and calories don't increase" test. But more testing is in order on apps to figure it out. I really wish someone made an app with more options to correct things.jandersen0617 wrote: »And @robertw486, thank you for that information. That's really interesting!
Some of the apps are great for some things, and fail at others. I'm still trying to sort it all out myself. But Heybales always has some good scoop on calorie tracking, and a few others do as well.
0 -
Maybe it stands for Universe Anonymous!! Beats Me!! I just got started myself!!:)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions