Which is more accurate

Options
grammyvjc
grammyvjc Posts: 8 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
MPG uses personal info to figure calorie burn for exercises but not specific info about the exercise. Recumbent bike has detailed workout info but doesn't include physical info. Considerable difference in resulting figures. Which would be best to use??

Replies

  • grammyvjc
    grammyvjc Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    That should read MFP, not MPG.
  • hill8570
    hill8570 Posts: 1,466 Member
    Options
    Whatever results in your weight loss being on the track you wish. Generally use the lowest number unless you start to lose weight unreasonably fast.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Exercise descriptions that actually have an intensity level (pace or speed) are going to be more accurate.

    Sadly MFP takes a database that relies on metabolic rate and converts it to weight - and 2 people that weigh 200 lbs (65 yr old woman or 20 yr old muscle man) do NOT have the same metabolic rate.
    So that's where the database fails even when descriptions are good.

    For descriptions that have rough ranges of intensity (easy or hard) or none at all, accuracy is potentially much worse unless you happen to hit the workout the same way the study did the workout that came up with the calorie burn.

    So for those latter ones - take whatever the values MFP gives at first and divide by 2 and enter that value and eat it back.

    For the better exercises (walking, running, biking, swimming, weight lifting, circuit training, ect) just take it at face value. Unless you are a heavy older woman or a muscled young man.

    Since your accuracy in food logging probably has bigger bearing on calorie amounts - you'll probably never know where a problem lies in accuracy since it could be several places.

    But it's a decent start.
  • ryry_
    ryry_ Posts: 4,966 Member
    Options
    hill8570 wrote: »
    Whatever results in your weight loss being on the track you wish. Generally use the lowest number unless you start to lose weight unreasonably fast.

    Seconded.
  • grammyvjc
    grammyvjc Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    Thank you for replies. Yes, I am 61, very over weight and disabled. Have successfully lost 21 pounds over the past 90 days, but only .2 in the last 10. Trying to figure out what might need tweaked.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    When you have less to lose you should be purposely losing it slower.

    If you don't purposely - your body will get stressed out and adapt and you'll end up going slower anyway. But with stressed out body.

    Guess which is best?

    Slower is better is many times thrown out merely because that's what ones eventually get to - not because of purposeful decision.

    So deficit should likely be less if you lost 21 lbs already. And if fair amount of that was normal muscle mass, that'l one of the adaptions the body makes to slow down. Makes it harder though.

    May have to confirm accuracy on food logging too.

    The exercise database if it was being used should be better now if you pace/intensity picked up - if enough to compensate for moving less mass around.
    Though walking it's usually hard to move fast enough to compensate - so more hills or weight vest or such.
  • deneenae
    deneenae Posts: 97 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    It could be that you just hit a plateau. Weight loss comes in cycles and soon enough everyone will hit a plateau. If you lost that much weight in that amount of time, your body is trying to hold on to your energy storage more tightly. Keep doing what you're doing and soon enough your body will respond. And also, don't decrease your calorie intake. If you wish, you can increase the amount of exercise to make your body adapt. If you decrease you calories, your body will want to hold on to your energy storage more.

    Also MFP does use the TDEE method, but we're more apt to click that we're sedentary, when in reality we're more active than we realize. But if you must absolutely know calories burned and what to do with those extra calories, generally you can eat half back. For example, say you're recommended to eat 1700 cals and you do the bike and the machine says your burned 200 calories, you can eat 1800 cals for the day (1700+(200/2)).

    If you're worried about whether cals burned estimate on machine are accurate, it's good to keep in mind that those still are estimates, so don't pore over them too much. Take them at face value. Even fitbit and others like that are estimates. The only way you know for sure how many cals are burned is if you do a metabolic study with direct or indirect calorimetry. But, whenever available, use the machine number and manually enter the cals burned in MFP. MFP tends to overestimate exercise cals burned.

    Like the posters said above, do whatever exercise works for you. You could also just stick to the good ol' recommendation of 150 minutes moderate exercise/week and not worry about the cals burned and increase your calorie amount slightly. You still get all the benefits (improved cardiovascular health and strength, weight loss, etc.) You'll be good with that too.

    Don't get discouraged. It sounds like you did awesome work with these past 90 days and got results. Keep it up!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    [quote="deneenae;36339749"
    Also MFP does use the TDEE method, but we're more apt to click that we're sedentary, when in reality we're more active than we realize. But if you must absolutely know calories burned and what to do with those extra calories, generally you can eat half back. For example, say you're recommended to eat 1700 cals and you do the bike and the machine says your burned 200 calories, you can eat 1800 cals for the day (1700+(200/2)).
    [/quote]

    Just a correction to this.

    MFP is NOT TDEE method as that term is normally recognized. Those activity levels are non-exercise daily activity. But very true to being honest. Sedentary for most with step trackers seems to be less than 4000 steps - which is pretty non-moving.

    If you enter your exercise calories - and your daily activity does indeed match the non-exercise level you picked - then it is indeed a literal TDEE for that day method.
    But that is commonly called the NEAT method that MFP is doing - account for BMR and NEAT, the exercise is added on when actually done.

    But most other sites use the traditional weekly average TDEE method - where you attempt to pick an activity level that INCLUDES exercise.
    Then your daily eating levels stays the same.

    Those sites and that method also lead to the confusion that exercise causes weight loss - mostly because people don't keep to their planned amount of exercise - but eat the set goal, and not surprising - don't lose weight.

Categories