Do any of you find that you seem to burn more calories than "typical"?

1246

Replies

  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,343 Member
    I find mine is pretty accurate. Has me at an average of 2200/day tdee and I lose 1lb/week as expected with 1450 cal weekdays and higher weekends. I think it starts to become less accurate when your activity is higher intensity but just steps and walking it's pretty bang on
  • tiptoethruthetulips
    tiptoethruthetulips Posts: 3,355 Member
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    "Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.

    It may be to do with your body composition.

    "You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.

    "To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."

    You didn't link where this came from, but after googling it, it comes from the site copied below for anyone interested in reading the whole article

    http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/features/what-is-metabolism
  • Verity1111
    Verity1111 Posts: 3,309 Member
    edited April 2017
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    "Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.

    It may be to do with your body composition.

    "You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.

    "To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."

    How much quicker...nobody is disputing that people have different metabolic rates...I've also never seen anything in my research over the past 4.5 years to suggest that it's some kind of vast difference where BMR is concerned.

    Like I said in my previous post...I'm extremely fidgety...that in large part contributes to a higher TDEE than some of my office counterparts.

    True when its just that. But there are so many factors. Heredity plays a part. Then you can maybe have better genes + be figity + tend to hold water + maybe you have a different body fat % than most people your size and it can add up to a significant difference or at least a noticeable one. I'm not saying it's common but if someone tells me hey I'm losing ____ steadily the same amount per week with the same calories in + out that's results to me and it's hard to argue with that. Same as if someone is not losing even though theyre following all the basic rules. Some people just burn slower and it bugs me that people argue you must not be weighing your food when they insist they are. The fact is some people have bad luck and just burn slower and telling them theyre doing something wrong can be detrimental and make them give up. Yes point out hey maybe you need to be more meticulous but if you already are, remember that everyone varies and maybe you just have a low BMR/RMR and slow metabolism. Which blows but at least its helpful information. And no one can tell me it cant happen this way because I know people who sit on their but all day eat over 3000 calories and stay thin lol so dont tell me its impossible thats not true. I def dont have that kind of ability but I do seem to lose easier. For example, my partner is 5'11", has an active job with lifting and walking 40hrs a week and when he was eating less than me he was gaining more. I'm 5'4" and I am way less active at home than he is at work. I was eating a lot more than him of the same foods and moving less but I was gaining way less weight. I dont know why but it definitely doesnt fit the rules that work for most people. I lost 6lbs in 10 days recently with no exercise. If weight loss estimates include water weight that means Id need to burn 3300 per day because I eat 1200 minimum. Even if they dont include water Id need to lose more than what makes sense... I ate more than 1200 on some days also. I went up to 1800 and I didnt exercise apart from a couple walks and at home I dont walk at all really. 2000-4000 steps per day. I dont do any hard labor. My BF even takes out the trash so no walking there. lol.
  • Verity1111
    Verity1111 Posts: 3,309 Member
    edited April 2017
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    "Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.

    It may be to do with your body composition.

    "You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.

    "To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."

    You didn't link where this came from, but after googling it, it comes from the site copied below for anyone interested in reading the whole article

    http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/features/what-is-metabolism

    Yeah I didnt feel like linking it thank you lol. This is another thing that gets me.

    "Men usually have a faster metabolism (BMR) than women do. They tend to burn more calories at rest than women. That's why on diets men and women have different calorie allowances. It's down to the fact that men generally have more muscle and muscle burns more calories than fat."

    I am weak as heck lately because I was in a wheelchair for 5 months last year. I can barely lift anything. My bf lifts easily and definitely has more muscle than I do yet I lose much faster on the same diet as him. Our BMIs are not *that* significantly different and he weighs more and is taller. But again it says "usually". People always assume its 100% of the time, but its not.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    missmince wrote: »
    If you're using more muscle, you'll burn more calories. So if you have more muscle, you'll be burning more than a less muscular person of your size with an equivalent heart rate change. If you get more fit (better cardiovascular function and more muscle), you'll burn more calories, even though a heart rate monitor won't show it. The article I linked to explains a lot of this.
    http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/caloricexp.html
    The energy released from the breakdown of ATP fuels the contraction of skeletal muscle, thereby adding to the energy demands of the body and raising caloric expenditure. Research has shown that during exercise the increase in caloric expenditure is almost entirely due to the contraction of skeletal muscle; the balance is due to an increase in the energy demands of the heart and the muscles used during ventilation.

    I'm not saying heart rate monitors are useless, but they are better for checking heart health than calorie burn. The article I linked to also points out that an equivalent heart rate rise for lower versus upper body cardio doesn't indicate equivalent calorie burn. You burn more calories when you use big muscles, which is why cycling is such a high MET, high calorie burner.

    People often say their body is more efficient when it's more muscular and fit, but that's just how they feel. The chemistry doesn't change in regard to ATP breakdown. So, yeah, you may burn more calories than a "typical" person when you exercise, and your heart rate monitor probably won't tell you.

    Agree with a lot in your quote, but you may be missing the the point with the Kravitz quote. The fact that during exercise, calorie demand increase in due to skeletal muscle contractions does NOT mean "more muscle=greater calorie burn". Muscle contractions obviously are responsible for ALL movement--cardio, weights, whatever. O2 uptake (and thus calorie burn) is driven by the metabolic demand on the muscle, not by muscle mass. The amount of muscle mass recruited for a movement will be determined by the demands of the movement itself. In other words, the body won't recruit more muscle just because more muscle is there. There will be some small differences for people of the same weight based on relative muscle mass, but they are not significant.

    Maybe I am misreading that part of your post. Sorry if that is so.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    remember that everyone varies and maybe you just have a low BMR/RMR and slow metabolism.

    I assume that you're familiar with the normal distribution curve, sometimes known as the bell curve?

    That's essentially a recognition that people are different, but that level of difference can be quantified and used statistically. We can essentially identify the shoulders of that curve, and identify a band that applies to the majority of the population. When that's used in public information it's simplified yet further to give a single figure, rather than a band.

    An example of how that's used would be drink driving limits. Yes everyone has a slightly different tolerance, but for the majority of the population the threshold is sound. There are small segments of the population with higher, or lower, tolerances. Those smaller populations become very small at the extremes.

    So yes, for the majority calories per mile is 0.33*bodyweight (lbs). For some it'll be 0.34 or 0.32. for a vanishingly small population it'll be into 0.4 multiplier range.
  • adhocNC
    adhocNC Posts: 4 Member
    One possible source of error is that the 3500 calorie per pound rule is not accurate.

    While I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to use as a guideline, it's not going to work for exacting calculations.

    I'm not a dietician so I can't explain how weight loss works in the body (beyond the basic, you burn more than you eat you will lose weight) but I do know that it is more complicated than a simple, constant, universal number.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    "Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.

    It may be to do with your body composition.

    "You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.

    "To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."

    You didn't link where this came from, but after googling it, it comes from the site copied below for anyone interested in reading the whole article

    http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/features/what-is-metabolism
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    "Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.

    It may be to do with your body composition.

    "You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.

    "To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."

    You didn't link where this came from, but after googling it, it comes from the site copied below for anyone interested in reading the whole article

    http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/features/what-is-metabolism

    And like most articles about "metabolism", it is a word salad of loosely linked non sequiturs and gobbledygook.
  • MomReborn
    MomReborn Posts: 145 Member
    That's interesting! I don't own a Fitbit, but I do use a Polar watch with a chest strap HRM. I have never tried to lose weight in a healthy fashion before, so I'm still learning. I've noticed that if I keep my calorie deficit consistently between 500-900 calories/day, I do pretty well in losing about 2 lbs./week, barring my TOM, excessive sodium intake without drinking water or water retention from workouts. I have a higher heart rate because I'm very obese (5'7 and >200 lbs.), and I suffered a bilateral pulmonary embolism that briefly stopped my heart several years back. I'm pretty sure the incident still affects its performance and efficiency.

    Some things I've noticed that even the calorie burn reports between my Polar watch, Endomondo sports Tracker and S Health (the two primary workout apps I use on my phone) vary wildly. Polar always reports the highest calorie burn, with S Health at second, and Endomondo at 3rd, reporting the lowest calorie burn for the same activity. Both apps use the heart rate data supplied by the chest strap. I always use the lowest possible estimate in terms of calorie burn between the devices I use to monitor during workouts.

    As for the walks, I walk 3 miles in the morning, and 3 in the evening outdoors. Each mile includes at least one pretty steep incline (yay, Colorado). It takes me about an hour to walk that, and I burn around 500 calories/walk according to my lowest estimate. When I first started walking, it was mostly flat, for about an hour, and I would burn approximately 275 calories. Would it be possible that you've started increasing the intensity of your workouts, in terms of speed/effort? It almost makes me want to review my workouts to see if i can get a little more sweat out of myself :D

    Also, MyFitnessPal recently posted an article (March 28, 2017) about wearing a backpack while walking. You may be on to something there in terms of calorie burn, especially if its over 5 lb.:

    http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/walking-weights-boost-weight-loss/?utm_source=FACEBOOK&utm_medium=FB MyFitnessPal

    Whatever it is you're doing sounds like it's working, so good luck to you!
  • Verity1111
    Verity1111 Posts: 3,309 Member
    adhocNC wrote: »
    One possible source of error is that the 3500 calorie per pound rule is not accurate.

    While I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to use as a guideline, it's not going to work for exacting calculations.

    I'm not a dietician so I can't explain how weight loss works in the body (beyond the basic, you burn more than you eat you will lose weight) but I do know that it is more complicated than a simple, constant, universal number.

    IDK how I feel about that but we have been wrong before so who knows!
  • Verity1111
    Verity1111 Posts: 3,309 Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    "Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.

    It may be to do with your body composition.

    "You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.

    "To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."

    You didn't link where this came from, but after googling it, it comes from the site copied below for anyone interested in reading the whole article

    http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/features/what-is-metabolism
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    "Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.

    It may be to do with your body composition.

    "You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.

    "To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."

    You didn't link where this came from, but after googling it, it comes from the site copied below for anyone interested in reading the whole article

    http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/features/what-is-metabolism

    And like most articles about "metabolism", it is a word salad of loosely linked non sequiturs and gobbledygook.

    If you are implying that everyone has the same metabolic rate that is utter nonsense and I will assume you have zero background education in Nutrition or Medicine.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    adhocNC wrote: »
    One possible source of error is that the 3500 calorie per pound rule is not accurate.

    There's probably some validity to this..

  • Verity1111
    Verity1111 Posts: 3,309 Member
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    remember that everyone varies and maybe you just have a low BMR/RMR and slow metabolism.

    I assume that you're familiar with the normal distribution curve, sometimes known as the bell curve?

    That's essentially a recognition that people are different, but that level of difference can be quantified and used statistically. We can essentially identify the shoulders of that curve, and identify a band that applies to the majority of the population. When that's used in public information it's simplified yet further to give a single figure, rather than a band.

    An example of how that's used would be drink driving limits. Yes everyone has a slightly different tolerance, but for the majority of the population the threshold is sound. There are small segments of the population with higher, or lower, tolerances. Those smaller populations become very small at the extremes.

    So yes, for the majority calories per mile is 0.33*bodyweight (lbs). For some it'll be 0.34 or 0.32. for a vanishingly small population it'll be into 0.4 multiplier range.

    You are still ignoring the recent studies that incorporate height which would make for a larger difference as well. Plus genetics. And those things added together can equal a larger difference. I am positive based on even just simple experience with seeing thin people who eat a ton and barely move and some who are athletic and barely eat but gain easier that not everyone burns the same. There are definitely exceptions. RARE yes of course! Thats why I made the thread to see who else burns less or more than whats normal. As I said there is a NORM there is consistency! BUT there are exceptions. Rare as they may be I believe in some cases they are pretty obvious differences.
  • Verity1111
    Verity1111 Posts: 3,309 Member
    MomReborn wrote: »
    That's interesting! I don't own a Fitbit, but I do use a Polar watch with a chest strap HRM. I have never tried to lose weight in a healthy fashion before, so I'm still learning. I've noticed that if I keep my calorie deficit consistently between 500-900 calories/day, I do pretty well in losing about 2 lbs./week, barring my TOM, excessive sodium intake without drinking water or water retention from workouts. I have a higher heart rate because I'm very obese (5'7 and >200 lbs.), and I suffered a bilateral pulmonary embolism that briefly stopped my heart several years back. I'm pretty sure the incident still affects its performance and efficiency.

    Some things I've noticed that even the calorie burn reports between my Polar watch, Endomondo sports Tracker and S Health (the two primary workout apps I use on my phone) vary wildly. Polar always reports the highest calorie burn, with S Health at second, and Endomondo at 3rd, reporting the lowest calorie burn for the same activity. Both apps use the heart rate data supplied by the chest strap. I always use the lowest possible estimate in terms of calorie burn between the devices I use to monitor during workouts.

    As for the walks, I walk 3 miles in the morning, and 3 in the evening outdoors. Each mile includes at least one pretty steep incline (yay, Colorado). It takes me about an hour to walk that, and I burn around 500 calories/walk according to my lowest estimate. When I first started walking, it was mostly flat, for about an hour, and I would burn approximately 275 calories. Would it be possible that you've started increasing the intensity of your workouts, in terms of speed/effort? It almost makes me want to review my workouts to see if i can get a little more sweat out of myself :D

    Also, MyFitnessPal recently posted an article (March 28, 2017) about wearing a backpack while walking. You may be on to something there in terms of calorie burn, especially if its over 5 lb.:

    http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/walking-weights-boost-weight-loss/?utm_source=FACEBOOK&utm_medium=FB MyFitnessPal

    Whatever it is you're doing sounds like it's working, so good luck to you!

    I still walk about 3 miles per hr and burn 500 and hr like you said! I weigh less than you (188) but its not a HUGE difference I guess? what 30lbs? Yes I stated I wear a backpack too or push a stroller. Thats why Im saying its not even as big of a difference as people insist. And sometimes its up to 50lbs.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    "Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.

    It may be to do with your body composition.

    "You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.

    "To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."

    You didn't link where this came from, but after googling it, it comes from the site copied below for anyone interested in reading the whole article

    http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/features/what-is-metabolism
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    "Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.

    It may be to do with your body composition.

    "You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.

    "To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."

    You didn't link where this came from, but after googling it, it comes from the site copied below for anyone interested in reading the whole article

    http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/features/what-is-metabolism

    And like most articles about "metabolism", it is a word salad of loosely linked non sequiturs and gobbledygook.

    If you are implying that everyone has the same metabolic rate that is utter nonsense and I will assume you have zero background education in Nutrition or Medicine.

    You are wrong about adzak, he has posted many thought provoking threads.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/search?adv=1&search=&title=&author=Azdak&cat=all&tags=&discussion_d=1&within=1+day&date=

  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    "Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.

    It may be to do with your body composition.

    "You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.

    "To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."

    You didn't link where this came from, but after googling it, it comes from the site copied below for anyone interested in reading the whole article

    http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/features/what-is-metabolism
    Verity1111 wrote: »
    "Unfair as it seems some people simply burn calories quicker than others. The hereditary aspect of metabolism is not fully understood.

    It may be to do with your body composition.

    "You are born with a certain type of body type, you may be naturally lean with low body mass or you may be more portly," says Dr Naufahu.

    "To a certain extent we do inherit our metabolic rate from our parents," according to Miguel Toribio-Mateas, chairman of the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy."

    You didn't link where this came from, but after googling it, it comes from the site copied below for anyone interested in reading the whole article

    http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/features/what-is-metabolism

    And like most articles about "metabolism", it is a word salad of loosely linked non sequiturs and gobbledygook.

    If you are implying that everyone has the same metabolic rate that is utter nonsense and I will assume you have zero background education in Nutrition or Medicine.

    You are wrong about adzak, he has posted many thought provoking threads.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/search?adv=1&search=&title=&author=Azdak&cat=all&tags=&discussion_d=1&within=1+day&date=


    Shhh...that will be our little secret.
  • sunburntgalaxy
    sunburntgalaxy Posts: 455 Member
    My Garmin says I have walked 6077 steps today and have supposedly burned 6708 calories. They are not even remotely correct for me ever because there is no way I have come even close to that. And that is typical for how mine is. I use it for the steps, honestly if it hadn't been free I would never have gotten the hear rate monitor function because I know that is what is screwing up my calorie burn numbers.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Just for comparison. Yesterday i did 16,145 steps or 11.46kms, 146 active minutes. Total burn was 2,392 calories. Calories imported into mfp was 652 cals.

    5"8
    149lbs
    age 45
    Fitbit Alta (no HR monitor)