can i really be burning 2500 calories in a day!!
fitnessqueen91
Posts: 166 Member
i got a fit bit for christmas. i dont know how accurate it is. on some days it says i burn 3000 cals, that's when i exercise including lots of walking and an intense gym workout. today i wasn't that active, well by my standards. i only walked for about 25 minutes today and did my normal daily activities. i have a sedentary desk job as well. today according to my fit bit ive burned 2500 cals! i was really sedentary today. the only time when i burn 2000 calories a day is when im completely sedentary. one day i practically didn't move all day and i still burned 2000 calories!
0
Replies
-
im not really thin and i dont even have a fast metabolism as i'd weigh a lot less than i do now, but i try to be active everyday. i try to walk to and from work as much as i can and i work out 3-4 times a week.0
-
My daily burn is 2800 cals! When I do NOTHING. I think how much you burn daily is dependent on your current weight and activity level, not JUST activity level.0
-
Calories burned doesn't just count exercise calories. You are always burning calories--even when you sleep! Fitbit is counting that 24/7. Since you just got it though, give it some time to adjust to who you are, and you might see the burned calories go down.
For reference I work a desk job as well, usually walk 7-8k steps a day, am doing Couch to 5k. On the days when I am not doing my Couch to 5k training I burn about 2700-2800 calories (depending on how long my lunchtime walk can be). On days where I do Couch to 5k that can go up to 3k and over.0 -
Sounds reasonable to me.
But like others said it includes all calories burned, calories burned sleeping, beating your heart, breathing, digesting, thinking.
A large portion of your calories burned don't come from exercise or movement.0 -
ah ok, i usually thought that you burn 2000 cals when doing a desk job and a small amount of activity. im not obese; im 12 stone (76kg) and 5"7-5"8, so not really overweight (only by like a few pounds according to bmi) and ive always been active anyway.0
-
Sounds reasonable to me.
But like others said it includes all calories burned, calories burned sleeping, beating your heart, breathing, digesting, thinking.
A large portion of your calories burned don't come from exercise or movement.
but why is 2000 calories deemed as the amount that women burn not including exercise?0 -
dont men like burn 2500 calories?0
-
innerfatty91 wrote: »Sounds reasonable to me.
But like others said it includes all calories burned, calories burned sleeping, beating your heart, breathing, digesting, thinking.
A large portion of your calories burned don't come from exercise or movement.
but why is 2000 calories deemed as the amount that women burn not including exercise?
That's just an average estimate for a woman of average age and size. Most people end up above or below it somewhere.0 -
innerfatty91 wrote: »Sounds reasonable to me.
But like others said it includes all calories burned, calories burned sleeping, beating your heart, breathing, digesting, thinking.
A large portion of your calories burned don't come from exercise or movement.
but why is 2000 calories deemed as the amount that women burn not including exercise?
It's not the amount all women burn.
It's the amount you burn, based on the states you gave Fitbit, as well as your activity throughout the day.
I, at 5 feet tall and 114 pounds, don't burn that many calories unless I get in 10k+ steps. My average steps is more like 7k, which is 1600-1700 calories.
~Lyssa0 -
innerfatty91 wrote: »Sounds reasonable to me.
But like others said it includes all calories burned, calories burned sleeping, beating your heart, breathing, digesting, thinking.
A large portion of your calories burned don't come from exercise or movement.
but why is 2000 calories deemed as the amount that women burn not including exercise?
I can't say I have heard anyone say women burn 2000 calories.
But at a guess I would say it's based on averages, scientific studies, population studies.
Are you an average female? Is anyone average?
2000 calories sounds like what they put on nutritional panels as a guideline.
Like here a lot of places have stickers saying the average adults energy needs is 8700kj. To give customers information to make a more informed choice (also to avoid lawsuits I guess)
0 -
innerfatty91 wrote: »Sounds reasonable to me.
But like others said it includes all calories burned, calories burned sleeping, beating your heart, breathing, digesting, thinking.
A large portion of your calories burned don't come from exercise or movement.
but why is 2000 calories deemed as the amount that women burn not including exercise?
Why 2000 Calories?
When developing the new food label, the Food and Drug Administration needed a base for % Daily Values — a new feature to help customers see at a glance the fat and other nutrient content of a certain food. A mathematically simple 2,000 calorie-a-day diet was chosen so that consumers could easily calculate the Daily Values needed for their own diets.
This is the amount of total calories per day that a moderately active adult female (weighing approximately 132 pounds) would need to maintain her weight. However, if you do not fit this description, your caloric needs will vary. It is important, therefore, that you adapt the new food label to make the best choices for your own diet.
Read more: http://caloriecontrol.org/why-2000-calories/0 -
thanks guys for the info, i guess everyone is different and has different metabolisms, activity levels, body type etc. i always thought that eating 2000 calories was a lot and would never help me loose weight, so i was shocked when like for example on days when i burn 2500 cals my fit bit says i can eat 2000 cals to loose a pound a week and even more on days when i burn more. i always thought that women maintain on 2000 cals no matter what especially as we're told that to loose weight we should stick to low calorie diets. i eat between 1600-1900 cals a day.0
-
Also remember that activity trackers often aren't massively accurate as they use motions sensors, so for example driving down a bumpy road could have you burning thousands because it thinks you're running because you're bumping up and down like you're running.
I had a fitbit charge hr for a while but got rid of it as it was way off of what Runkeeper or treadmills were showing for calorie burn0 -
innerfatty91 wrote: »ah ok, i usually thought that you burn 2000 cals when doing a desk job and a small amount of activity. im not obese; im 12 stone (76kg) and 5"7-5"8, so not really overweight (only by like a few pounds according to bmi) and ive always been active anyway.
I don't know all about Fitbit, but I do know height has a lot to do with your energy needs. You are taller than most women, according to the numbers above, so it is not surprising that you should burn more than most women.0 -
Fitbit calories burned include your BMR plus activity, the amount of calories you burn just by being alive, plus added expenditures.
An easy analogy is to think of yourself as a car and food as gasoline. Your car burns gas even while you're stopped at a light/sign, or in traffic. You burn calories even while you sleep.
That is pretty much the same way MFP determines your daily allowance. If you mark sedentary plus you want to lose 2 lbs per week, you get 1200 calories, giving you a 1000 calorie deficit for 7000 calories deficit per week which is 2 lbs lost. Which means, they estimate you burn 2200 calories per day.
It doesn't mean you can eat an EXTRA 2500 calories. Hope that helps
0 -
innerfatty91 wrote: »ah ok, i usually thought that you burn 2000 cals when doing a desk job and a small amount of activity. im not obese; im 12 stone (76kg) and 5"7-5"8, so not really overweight (only by like a few pounds according to bmi) and ive always been active anyway.
So, guessing you are 30 years old, at your current weight, you would burn 1,781 calories a day if you never got out of bed. If you did get out of bed but did not engage in any intentional exercise, you could expect to burn 2,137. At your ideal weight of say 63½kg those numbers would go down to 1,517 and 1,821. 1,800 would be a good maximum target for daily intake. If you eat that and don't exercise you will still loose weight slowly. If you do exercise, it will come off faster. When you get to your ideal weight, you will already be used to eating the right number of calories.
People don't really vary very much unless they have some kind of freakish condition. You can probably take those number to the bank.0 -
I had a fitbit charge hr for a while but got rid of it as it was way off of what Runkeeper or treadmills were showing for calorie burn
Was the Fitbit higher or lower than the treadmill?
Could the issue be that a Fitbit calorie burn is all inclusive, bmr+exercise.
While a treadmill or run keeper is just exercise?
I don't know, just seems odd to trust a treadmill etc over a Fitbit.0 -
innerfatty91 wrote: »thanks guys for the info, i guess everyone is different and has different metabolisms, activity levels, body type etc. i always thought that eating 2000 calories was a lot and would never help me loose weight, so i was shocked when like for example on days when i burn 2500 cals my fit bit says i can eat 2000 cals to loose a pound a week and even more on days when i burn more. i always thought that women maintain on 2000 cals no matter what especially as we're told that to loose weight we should stick to low calorie diets. i eat between 1600-1900 cals a day.
You do not need to starve and suffer in order to lose a little bit of weight. In fact, it is counter-productive for most people that they do so.
You do need to eat at a moderate deficit. Anywhere from 10% to 20% off of your TDEE.
If your TDEE is 2500, you will lose weight if you eat 2250.
You will lose weight even faster if you eat 2000.
And if you eat even less, you will increase the likelihood of enjoying the negative side effects associated with excess deficits during weight loss.
The vast majority of people who end up choosing 2lbs a week as their weight loss target and end up eating 1200 Calories on MFP (and elsewhere) are doing themselves a disservice.
While you are not eating excessively low compared to many others, you would probably see better overall results (albeit perhaps slightly slower ones) by reducing your deficit and making sure you net at least 80% of your TDEE calories every day.0 -
Try putting your stats into this calculator - http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator0
-
I'm 52 years old, 5'6"... I took a power walk today after my substitute job at school & I just hit 2757 calories burned at about 11:30 pm. I am incredibly grateful for my ability to burn calories!0
-
innerfatty91 wrote: »Sounds reasonable to me.
But like others said it includes all calories burned, calories burned sleeping, beating your heart, breathing, digesting, thinking.
A large portion of your calories burned don't come from exercise or movement.
but why is 2000 calories deemed as the amount that women burn not including exercise?
Average woman
If you're taller, heavier, more active, exercise more you'll burn more. As you would if you have a higher musculature
Now personally I think 2500 might be a bit high .. but then I'm active, workout hard three times a week, have a decent musculature at 5'8 and 160lbs in maintenance .. and I burn on average 2300-24000 -
Try putting your stats into this calculator - http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator
imma gonna eat more
I thought I'd hit maintenance at around 2300 .. I might have another 200 per day in me
PS OP I use my fitbit and overlay with an HRM for specific workouts, I find it underestimates my TDEE so I generally eat 1500 calories over my MFP allowance each week0 -
there is a great website(http://nutritiondata.self.com/tools/calories-burned), you enter your height, weight, age, lifestyle.. etc.. it calculates your BMI (body mass indicator) compares where you are to where you should be, then tells you how many calories you burn per day, this is your BMR (basal metabolic rate) and what your nutritional needs are to maintain weight.. It is a real eye opener. this is great info to set your course for weight loss or maintenance.0
-
lynnstrick01 wrote: »there is a great website(http://nutritiondata.self.com/tools/calories-burned), you enter your height, weight, age, lifestyle.. etc.. it calculates your BMI (body mass indicator) compares where you are to where you should be, then tells you how many calories you burn per day, this is your BMR (basal metabolic rate) and what your nutritional needs are to maintain weight.. It is a real eye opener. this is great info to set your course for weight loss or maintenance.
that's not bad, apart from the having to log additional exercise on a daily rather than weekly basis
again I need to eat more cookies it seems .. munch scarfle snarfle0 -
Hmmmm maybe I should get a fitbit. I'd be curious to see just how much I burn during my 2 hour footy training session.
It would be nice to know just how much I'm burning each day, though I'd get a little worried id get a bit obssesed and get carried away and overtrain
0 -
I'm 46 and short and when I do a lot of walking throughout the day I can easily hit 1950-2000 calories. If I'm less active my TDEE is 1700-18000
-
The number Fitbit gives you is dependent on height/weight/age so if you're tall yes you'll get a higher burn . My hubby gets 2800 on his sendentary days and on his usual work days (active job and walks a lot) he'll get 3500.
I'm petite at 5ft 2 and on my active days it gives me total of 2300 on less than active days 1800. I find it to be an accurate little device and its kept me right since I got it in 2013 0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »The number Fitbit gives you is dependent on height/weight/age so if you're tall yes you'll get a higher burn . My hubby gets 2800 on his sendentary days and on his usual work days (active job and walks a lot) he'll get 3500.
I'm petite at 5ft 2 and on my active days it gives me total of 2300 on less than active days 1800. I find it to be an accurate little device and its kept me right since I got it in 2013
it's still just an estimator .. it follows a specific formula .. one must always check what's happening with their actual body over time
for me it underestimates my TDEE . I've actually been advised to increase my height to make it adjust but I'm happier going in the red on food logging and keeping an eye on the numbers0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »The number Fitbit gives you is dependent on height/weight/age so if you're tall yes you'll get a higher burn . My hubby gets 2800 on his sendentary days and on his usual work days (active job and walks a lot) he'll get 3500.
I'm petite at 5ft 2 and on my active days it gives me total of 2300 on less than active days 1800. I find it to be an accurate little device and its kept me right since I got it in 2013
it's still just an estimator .. it follows a specific formula .. one must always check what's happening with their actual body over time
for me it underestimates my TDEE . I've actually been advised to increase my height to make it adjust but I'm happier going in the red on food logging and keeping an eye on the numbers
Agreed!!!!
A little brain power is needed to analyse the data sometimes. Maybe the burn is a little high or low, maybe the input is a little off. If the (bodyweight) scale is not going fast enough - or maybe faster than expected - you have to be ready to make adjustments.
0 -
.deleted0
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