Hi all! I'm nervous to trust the calorie input calculations.

My best example was a hike I took -- it was 10+ miles, took us 5 hours, through the mountains and I had a 7 pounds pack. MFP estimated I burned 2500+ calories. I use an apple watch, which I know is also not perfectly accurate, but it estimated I burned 980. That is one hell of a difference.

hookandy wrote: »

I started on MFP back in Jan (Strange that) and have logged food and exercise (via fitbit and manually adding)

So actual weight loss in the 6 weeks I have been playing this game = 15lb

Looking at the daily average for Net Calories (In-Out) and taking this away from my MFP maintenance figure gives me my average daily deficit for each week. A quick bit of excel I can multiply by 7 and divide by 3500 and add up for each week.

The MFP figures suggest I should have lost 12.75lb

I have adjusted my goal a couple of times, and it has dropped 20 cal each time, I tend to eat some of my exercise calories back, but not all. I weigh food where I can and guestimate the rest.

My loss is slightly quick at about 2.5lb per week, but it is not as if I do not have plenty to lose.

Conclusion: For me the figures work and I am going to eat back more of my exercise calories to slow the rate. I have also distrusted the figures, but working it out has given a huge tick in the MFP accuracy box.

Also consider you can't do the math including the first week - because you have water weight lost then which of course has no calories.

That's why the math never works if your weigh-ins have known expected water weight fluctuations.

You could have one weigh-in the morning after some very low sodium eating days and big cardio workout.
Then the next weigh-in morning is after couple high sodium eating days, and big lifting workout still sore.

You could easily have a 5lb weight increase there.

But does that mean you ate 5 x 3500 / 7 days = 2500 surplus calories daily - and therefore should adjust your eating level based on those results?
Of course not.

The math aspect and adjusting _can_ be a good way of doing it - if you understand the limitations of when you don't have figures you should use.

I'll bet you redo the math with 1st week gone - MFP was right on the mark.

You were mighty close anyway - but just wanted to point out the example of potential issues for those that don't know.

TerraRoberts24 wrote: »

Wow, thanks so much for all the feedback! I really do appreciate it. I have so much to learn about all of this, lol. Like I didn't know that it didn't matter whether you sweat or not. That's good to know. Everyone around me keeps telling me "You have to sweat to burn calories! If you aren't sweating then your work out doesn't count." I sometimes go for hour walks when I can swing them in the day, and I am always getting told those don't matter because I am not sweating when I walk.

Anyways, thanks again everyone! I have decided to stick with the 1500 range and see where that gets me. And when it says I burn 400 biking, I am just going to automatically assume its in the 200 range for now as well.

sweating just means your body is cooling itself off so it doesnt become overheated. think if you are lounging at the beach,you sweat right? if we lost calories from sweating then I would welcome the hot flashes and sweats perimenopause brings lol

Tacklewasher wrote: »

I still think sweating is somewhat, indirectly related to the activity level. So if you are sweating while working out, it is an indication of how hard you are working. Yeah the act of sweating itself is irrelevant, but if I'm sweating while on the treadmill in the basement, it's because I'm working hard and burning calories. If I'm just walking on it and not sweating, then I'm burning less calories.

lol well what about those that dont sweat? or have hyperhidrosis?

heybales wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

I still think sweating is somewhat, indirectly related to the activity level. So if you are sweating while working out, it is an indication of how hard you are working. Yeah the act of sweating itself is irrelevant, but if I'm sweating while on the treadmill in the basement, it's because I'm working hard and burning calories. If I'm just walking on it and not sweating, then I'm burning less calories.

lol well what about those that dont sweat? or have hyperhidrosis?

Or outside in the cold and layered correctly to not sweat but just barely keep warm?

Sweating is indirectly related to activity level in the temperature conditions you are doing the activity and your personal genes.
A personal indicator somewhat for all conditions being equal but the level of intensity.

But if someone can't tell they are being more intense in their movement and sweating is useful indicator, they need to listen to their breathing rate and pounding of their heart better - because that's a whole lot better than sweating to compare activity levels.

I agree.I can workout and doing the same exercise and some days I will sweat more and others less. but I know the days I sweat less is because Im not going as hard with my workout. but then sometimes the hot flashes kick in as well so,that tells me nothing lol

heybales wrote: »

cessi0909 wrote: »

My best example was a hike I took -- it was 10+ miles, took us 5 hours, through the mountains and I had a 7 pounds pack. MFP estimated I burned 2500+ calories. I use an apple watch, which I know is also not perfectly accurate, but it estimated I burned 980. That is one hell of a difference.

5 hrs @ 2mph would be a slow level walk. But it was not actually level.

But that is certainly more than 200 cal / hr - considering your BMR if not moving would probably be about 80 of that already.

I'd say the Apple Watch is mighty off too.

Probably got the distance way off. Of course, it doesn't incorporate incline increased calorie burn, nor is it aware of extra weight being carried.

Those were active calories, so not including BMR -- so that is correct, that was not a total. But we did go slow, we had my 61 year old father with me who without telling anyone was hit with a kidney stone attack a few miles in so we moved slowly.

I don't believe the distance is wrong. Most places list the trail itself as 8.5 miles, plus we walked to the trail and into the town on both sides of the hike.

There was not much of an incline. For anyone curious it was Peaks Trail in Breckenridge, Colorado. https://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.aspx?trailid=HGR076-005A