Over estimating exercise calories

2»

Replies

  • mhwitt74
    mhwitt74 Posts: 159 Member
    40two200 wrote: »
    When exercise is entered into mfp, does it match the machine? I just jumped back to using this app today after about a year long hiatus. That will be my gauge, does the mfp caloric burn estimate match the cardio machine estimate (or come fairly close)....

    It's about 200 calories different. The machine that actually measures incline says I burn more than MFP
  • mhwitt74
    mhwitt74 Posts: 159 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    The chart in the link below was developed by the American College of Sports Medicine and lists the calories burned per hour for a number of exercise activities.

    http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburned.htm

    Use this if significantly different from your exercise tracker/machine.

    Thanks for the link! I'm not having any issues with losing weight. Just an observation after reading hundreds of posts.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,222 Member
    I suspect that for some people, discrepancies between what they burn and their projected burn, according to MFP, creep in, because they just look at the start time and the finish time, and forget that they weren't going at the same intensity the whole way through.
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,973 Member
    edited April 2017
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    One day I got the notion to prove that my cardio machine in my living room couldn't possibly be helping me burn 1000 calories each hour. In the previous 7 days, I use used that machine several times to log many thousands of calories exercise burned. Also in the previous 7 days, I had meticulously weighed and recorded each food item. using my Reports of net calories and weight, I calculated the weight loss and the calorie deficit from the supposedly inaccurate cardio exercise, and derived my expected weight loss.

    Actual and derived weight loss matched.

    The one time I tried to prove that my cheap little knock-off of a nordic-track could not possibly be letting me burn 1000 calories an hour, I failed. Instead, I proved that a week of numbers matched the "1 lb fat = 3500 calories" rule.

    How did you determine start & end weight (e.g. 7-day rolling average, 10-day low, etc.)? I keep a running average of TDEE, and the result varies wildly with a tiny weight fluctuation. It seems like body weight accuracy is the weak link in the calculation. And my normal fluctuation is relatively small --2 lb at most. That leaves me exactly where @allyphoe is... it takes months of data --not one week-- to average out the fluctuations.

    Seconded. 7 days is not NEARLY enough time to separate fat losses from normal weight fluctuations. I would want a minimum of 90 days before I'd consider the data somewhat useful, and even then some smoothing would be required to filter out daily fluctuations. This is my raw daily weigh in data while in maintenance. I swing plenty of plenty of water weight due to lower/higher days and training.

    g7e6okfhu4s4.png
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,973 Member
    edited April 2017
    For running, I've found the following to be accurate:

    0.63 * Miles Run * Weight in lbs = Net Calories

    This is with years of weight tracking/food logging data and mileage ranging from 0 MPW up to 60+ MPW during that time.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,925 Member
    mhwitt74 wrote: »
    I'm not saying I disagree with you folks but I do find it odd that there are a million post or replies that say exercise calories burnt are overestimated. And it doesn't seem to matter where they come from they are all over estimated. Then there is the fact that there is no one way to accurately measure calorie burn. So if it is "common knowledge" that every number is inflated why isn't there some formula to get it closer. And wouldn't there be at least one, if not a few, calculators or machines like treadmills etc that underestimate the calories burned? I'm just saying that there has to be yin to the yang right?

    The bold part is not reality.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    The chart in the link below was developed by the American College of Sports Medicine and lists the calories burned per hour for a number of exercise activities.

    http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburned.htm

    Use this if significantly different from your exercise tracker/machine.

    Kinda useless for someone who went from 330 and is now 245. Not sure how to interpolate to a higher weight.....

    :)
  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,344 Member
    edited April 2017

    Use your own data. You can calculate your rate of loss with about 3-4 weeks data. Buyer beware of eating back mfp exercise cals
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    The chart in the link below was developed by the American College of Sports Medicine and lists the calories burned per hour for a number of exercise activities.

    http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburned.htm

    Use this if significantly different from your exercise tracker/machine.

    Kinda useless for someone who went from 330 and is now 245. Not sure how to interpolate to a higher weight.....

    :)

    I looked at a calories for a few exercises. The calories burned per pound work out pretty similar. I'd say if you just adjusted straight line based on the weight you would be in the ballpark.
  • Silentpadna
    Silentpadna Posts: 1,305 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    The chart in the link below was developed by the American College of Sports Medicine and lists the calories burned per hour for a number of exercise activities.

    http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburned.htm

    Use this if significantly different from your exercise tracker/machine.

    Thanks for that! My Fitbit is right on the money for most of what I do. Helps a ton.
  • Silentpadna
    Silentpadna Posts: 1,305 Member
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    One day I got the notion to prove that my cardio machine in my living room couldn't possibly be helping me burn 1000 calories each hour. In the previous 7 days, I use used that machine several times to log many thousands of calories exercise burned. Also in the previous 7 days, I had meticulously weighed and recorded each food item. using my Reports of net calories and weight, I calculated the weight loss and the calorie deficit from the supposedly inaccurate cardio exercise, and derived my expected weight loss.

    Actual and derived weight loss matched.

    The one time I tried to prove that my cheap little knock-off of a nordic-track could not possibly be letting me burn 1000 calories an hour, I failed. Instead, I proved that a week of numbers matched the "1 lb fat = 3500 calories" rule.

    How did you determine start & end weight (e.g. 7-day rolling average, 10-day low, etc.)? I keep a running average of TDEE, and the result varies wildly with a tiny weight fluctuation. It seems like body weight accuracy is the weak link in the calculation. And my normal fluctuation is relatively small --2 lb at most. That leaves me exactly where @allyphoe is... it takes months of data --not one week-- to average out the fluctuations.

    Seconded. 7 days is not NEARLY enough time to separate fat losses from normal weight fluctuations. I would want a minimum of 90 days before I'd consider the data somewhat useful, and even then some smoothing would be required to filter out daily fluctuations. This is my raw daily weigh in data while in maintenance. I swing plenty of plenty of water weight due to lower/higher days and training.

    g7e6okfhu4s4.png

    That graph is gold. I think you would see similar fluctuations if you weighed yourself multiple times in a day - I do because I'm an engineer and a nerd (love that username BTW) - and I love data and stats. And I argue that there is no "best time to weigh yourself for the best 'accuracy'" because of this very thing.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    mhwitt74 wrote: »
    I'm not saying I disagree with you folks but I do find it odd that there are a million post or replies that say exercise calories burnt are overestimated. And it doesn't seem to matter where they come from they are all over estimated. Then there is the fact that there is no one way to accurately measure calorie burn. So if it is "common knowledge" that every number is inflated why isn't there some formula to get it closer. And wouldn't there be at least one, if not a few, calculators or machines like treadmills etc that underestimate the calories burned? I'm just saying that there has to be yin to the yang right?

    The bold part is not reality.

    The most accurate way is with a mask strapped to the face that measures the CO2 output. Not feasible for most people, but there are useful data from these observations that can give reasonable estimates.
  • mhwitt74
    mhwitt74 Posts: 159 Member
    mhwitt74 wrote: »
    I'm not saying I disagree with you folks but I do find it odd that there are a million post or replies that say exercise calories burnt are overestimated. And it doesn't seem to matter where they come from they are all over estimated. Then there is the fact that there is no one way to accurately measure calorie burn. So if it is "common knowledge" that every number is inflated why isn't there some formula to get it closer. And wouldn't there be at least one, if not a few, calculators or machines like treadmills etc that underestimate the calories burned? I'm just saying that there has to be yin to the yang right?

    The bold part is not reality.

    How so?