Is there an accurate way to determine how many calories you burned during a certain activity?

jdb3388
jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
edited November 16 in Health and Weight Loss
I have entered the exact same data into about 5 different calculators trying to determine how many calories I burned while walking. Each one gave me a different answer, ranging from 540ish to 750ish. (I am pretty severely overweight and I walked 5 miles so thats why its so high) but I don't know which one is accurate or at least the closest to being accurate. I have heard the one on MFP is not accurate. Any suggestions?

Replies

  • DietPrada
    DietPrada Posts: 1,171 Member
    Short answer, no. There's no "accurate" way. Every single minute of every single activity is going to be different for every person. So many factors at play. The activity is not going to be at an exactly consistent intensity for the duration. It also depends on your fitness, muscle mass, age, hydration level, personal metabolism, and many other things. Two people same height, weight and age doing the same activity will burn different amounts of calories. If you're concerned about how many calories to "eat back" then the safest bet is just to record your activity and eat back half of your exercise calories.
  • jdb3388
    jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
    I know this is heresy around here, but I don't count calories. It hurts more than it helps because I get to caught up in it. But I would like some kind of "close to accurate" idea of what I'm burning and eating to keep a mental note of where I'm at.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    For walking, no. For cycling, yes, a power meter will get you within 5 % of god's honest truth every time.
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,486 Member
    If you are not accurately trying to track your calories by counting them on here, no problem with that if you find it a detrimental activity, use the lower estimate and watch the scale.

    If you are losing at the rate you estimate you should be over a 4-6 week period, stick with that number. If you are losing more or less; adjust accordingly.

    If you wanted more accuracy you could log in MFP over 1menstrual cycle (or 2-4 weeks if you are M) just so you could extrapolate your personal walking calorie burn from data collected then stop.
    (Added more for those reading the thread @jdb3388 :) )

    Cheers, h.
  • donjtomasco
    donjtomasco Posts: 790 Member
    Try this site:

    http://www.fitday.com/webfit/burned/calories_burned_Tennis_doubles.html

    It is the most accurate one I found. Most don't ask your age, which might make a difference. You can pick from a list of almost any exercise.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,687 Member
    Given that I don't have a power metre ...

    I go with the light/low/slow options in MFP.

    That seems to work for me. :)
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,336 Member
    In the real world, estimates are all you can go on. In a lab where you are walking on a treadmill with a mask on your face measuring the difference between what you inhale and what you exhale you can get an accurate number, but that is not something you could of would want to do for every walk.
  • ccsernica
    ccsernica Posts: 1,040 Member
    jdb3388 wrote: »
    I know this is heresy around here, but I don't count calories.

    It's not so much that it's heresy as that counting calories (and other nutrients) is pretty much the whole point of the site.

    Besides, it works. Trying to estimate your calorie burn from exercise and having a vague idea of your intake? Not so much.
  • elisa123gal
    elisa123gal Posts: 4,333 Member
    A safe general way would to put 400 calories for every hour of exercise. 200 for a half hour. It is a mistake to try and accept the overestimates of gym machines and fit bits and such. So many variables.
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,748 Member
    edited March 2017
    That Fitday app doesn't seem more accurate than MFP, at least, not for me. It says that I burn 461calories running 6 miles. MFP gave me 559. Since I have lost more weight than expected, despite eating back all my exercise calories, I tend to think that the higher number is probably closer to my reality.

    To the OP: I would try using MFP's numbers for a few weeks. If you aren't losing weight as quickly as you expect, then try using a lower number. Or eat back fewer of your exercise calories.
  • jdb3388
    jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
    edited March 2017

    ccsernica wrote: »
    jdb3388 wrote: »
    I know this is heresy around here, but I don't count calories.

    It's not so much that it's heresy as that counting calories (and other nutrients) is pretty much the whole point of the site.

    Besides, it works. Trying to estimate your calorie burn from exercise and having a vague idea of your intake? Not so much.

    it depends on your definition of "works." Of course the math shakes down accurately and, in theory, if you eat at x deficit you'll lose y pounds over z amount of time. But this doesn't include the human variable factor. If I try to count the calories I get so caught up in math problems and making sure I weigh it the right way and get the exact amount of minutes I walked at the exact speed and it absolutely drives me crazy to the point where I say forget it! It's to stressful because I am so analytical and precise. It also helps (for the first and only time ever) that I am morbidly obese. The bigger you are the less dangerous it is to lose weight at a faster rate (within reason) and the less precise you have to be. If I weighed 150 lbs, and I was trying to cut to 145 but only lose fat, without sacrificing any gains in the gym, then yes it would be imperative that I knew exactly how many calories went in and how many went out, but since I weigh 239 (started at 283, so it's obviously working) and I'm trying to get to 150, I can literally just "make lower calorie choices" and call it a day. The only reason I ask for a way to know roughly how many calories I burn exercising is so I will know which walking route to pair with my meal choices that day (longer walks on heavier eating days, shorter routes on lighter days)
  • metalmeow1
    metalmeow1 Posts: 111 Member
    Good luck to you, and I'm proud of you for deciding to take care of yourself! No idea how accurate these HMRs etc. are, but I know MFP is amazing at tracking calories and it helps a lot. MFP seems to be more accurate than my elliptical at home, so I tend to trust it more.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,300 Member
    if your only exercise is step based and if you are only interested in "rough" figures any of the many fitness bands in the market will give you an "estimate".
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,300 Member
    edited March 2017
    Walking, running, cycling are activities that have been studied extensively. Often the difference comes down to how you interpret the effort/speed/conditions/duration more than anything else. Most devices / estimates are based on MET tables. MET values for various walking activities can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking
This discussion has been closed.

Categories