Are MFP Calorie Estimates for Different Exercises Net of BMR ?

ericGold15
ericGold15 Posts: 318 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
Hopefully the title explains the question, but here is an example just in case:

Let's say I burn 50 Kcal an hour just from being alive.
If I ride a bicycle for an hour and MFP reports 450 kCal for the exercise, does that mean my total body energy burn is 450 kCal, or 500 ?

Are HR monitors that attempt to translate HR into kCal using the same convention ?

Replies

  • hill8570
    hill8570 Posts: 1,466 Member
    MFP calories (and most HR monitors I'm familiar with) are total burn (exercise + RMR). For exercises that have long durations or relatively low burns, knocking off your RMR will give your a more accurate estimate.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    Yes it is net. It is in addition to what you burn by being alive. That being said... it's also over estimated for a lot of the exercises.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    edited December 2015
    hill8570 wrote: »
    MFP calories (and most HR monitors I'm familiar with) are total burn (exercise + RMR). For exercises that have long durations or relatively low burns, knocking off your RMR will give your a more accurate estimate.

    Wait, really? How do you know that about MFP? Where does it say?
    That might explain why it's overestimated.
  • jenathp
    jenathp Posts: 92 Member
    My apple watch shows active calories and resting calories, it splits them out. If I do a workout through the watch (start the watch workout and then end it when I'm done) then it adds the amount of exercise calories to MFP which is JUST the exercise calories. With MFP synced to the Apple Healthkit and my watch it automatically adds my exercise calories (which is pretty accurate since it's measuring the heart rate and steps based on how it is calculated for me and my body) and then MFP takes into account my resting calories. My apple watch always says I have more active calories plus resting calories than MFP does but I use MFP since it's lower.
  • hill8570
    hill8570 Posts: 1,466 Member
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    hill8570 wrote: »
    MFP calories (and most HR monitors I'm familiar with) are total burn (exercise + RMR). For exercises that have long durations or relatively low burns, knocking off your RMR will give your a more accurate estimate.

    Wait, really? How do you know that about MFP? Where does it say?
    That might explain why it's overestimated.

    Compare MFP burns against the scooby calculator ( http://scoobysworkshop.com/calories-burned/ ). MFP burns generally match up pretty well with the scooby "Calories used during exercise" (exercise + RMR), and are higher than "Calories used by exercise" (just the exercise calories alone).
  • ericGold15
    ericGold15 Posts: 318 Member
    Thanks everybody,
    As VeryKatie says, including BMR in exercise calculations easily leads to over estimates in daily energy burn. It has for me.

    What do you people do to not double count (other than buy the spiffy Apple product?)
    My first thought is to correct my "sedentary BMR" down some 75 kCal a day to allow for about an hour a day of exercise.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2015
    hill8570 wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    hill8570 wrote: »
    MFP calories (and most HR monitors I'm familiar with) are total burn (exercise + RMR). For exercises that have long durations or relatively low burns, knocking off your RMR will give your a more accurate estimate.

    Wait, really? How do you know that about MFP? Where does it say?
    That might explain why it's overestimated.

    Compare MFP burns against the scooby calculator ( http://scoobysworkshop.com/calories-burned/ ). MFP burns generally match up pretty well with the scooby "Calories used during exercise" (exercise + RMR), and are higher than "Calories used by exercise" (just the exercise calories alone).

    This is what I've noticed too.

    I just knock it down some based on the time I exercised, but there are calculations that correct for it in running (rule of thumb is apparently weight x .75 for calories per mile gross, weight x .63 for calories per mile net, although that's rough because obviously it matters how fast you run). I think shapesense might have some that give you net for a variety of activities and include more detail for a better calculation.
  • hill8570
    hill8570 Posts: 1,466 Member
    ericGold15 wrote: »
    Thanks everybody,
    As VeryKatie says, including BMR in exercise calculations easily leads to over estimates in daily energy burn. It has for me.

    What do you people do to not double count (other than buy the spiffy Apple product?)
    My first thought is to correct my "sedentary BMR" down some 75 kCal a day to allow for about an hour a day of exercise.

    I generally run TDEE right now, so it's kind of irrelevant for me, but before that I just knocked off 100 calories an hour from my exercise burns (a bit conservative based on my RMR, but it made the math easy). Some bitty person with a tiny RMR probably wouldn't want to be that conservative (and vice versa).

    If you have a predictable average exercise burn for the week, just go the TDEE method and build some portion of that burn into your allotted daily calories and be done with it. Simple.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited December 2015
    I have never thought about this

    But then I've never needed to because my rolling weight management is in line with my expectations based on my fitbit for activity level adjustments and polar ft HRM for purposeful workouts

    So fitbit I assume makes gross adjustments

    And the HRM includes BMR and it overwrites fitbit during time zones

    Seems to work
This discussion has been closed.

Categories