Calories Burnt
pookey26
Posts: 42 Member
Just back to grips with Mfp and exercise, just want to know if the numbers I have today sound about right for calories burnt .... aware to take them with a pinch of salt
Female 5ft 173lbs
Calorie target intake 1450
Today 16k steps total , this included a 3 mile run and an hour's circuit class tracked with fitbit heart rate monitor total 1150 calories burnt
Does this sound right , I have consumed a 400 ish cal light meal post workout to bring my total intake today to 1900 cals
Female 5ft 173lbs
Calorie target intake 1450
Today 16k steps total , this included a 3 mile run and an hour's circuit class tracked with fitbit heart rate monitor total 1150 calories burnt
Does this sound right , I have consumed a 400 ish cal light meal post workout to bring my total intake today to 1900 cals
0
Replies
-
The 3 mile run can be anywhere from 400 to 1000 depending on if it was an actual run, the weather. And previous fitness level.
I don't do the steps thing, so I set my level to sedentary. But it sounds good0 -
-
[/quote]
The weather shouldn't have an impact on the calories burnt on a run.[/quote]
running into the wind vs the opposite direction5 -
I've never known anyone to burn 1,000 calories on a three mile run.
What is your activity level set at?
I would say that the steps equate to about 650 if you take out about 3,000 steps for normal activity. I don't find that my calorie expenditure is that much higher for running - I just get the steps in faster.
That would leave about 500 for the class.
I'd say it's feasible.1 -
The 3 mile run can be anywhere from 400 to 1000 depending on if it was an actual run, the weather. And previous fitness level.
I don't do the steps thing, so I set my level to sedentary. But it sounds good
Well I'm a bit slower than I was but I'd say it was a run, I've been running for the last 10 years completing regular 10ks and a couple of half, don't understand the weather bit though!1 -
I've never known anyone to burn 1,000 calories on a three mile run.
What is your activity level set at?
I would say that the steps equate to about 650 if you take out about 3,000 steps for normal activity. I don't find that my calorie expenditure is that much higher for running - I just get the steps in faster.
That would leave about 500 for the class.
I'd say it's feasible.
My active on here is set at lightly active, I'd agree I've never burnt a 1000 cals on a 3 mile run either would be nice though0 -
-
Just to be clear... the 1150 cals from the fitbit, what does that cover/represent? Just cals burned for the run and the class? Total cals for the day? Total cals for the day so far?
Assumptions being what they are, you probably burned in the neighborhood of 350 calories on the run. An hour's circuit class at 10ish cals per minute = 600ish cals. For my money, I'd have you at 900-1000 cals burned for the 2 activities.0 -
Ahhh... Yah.
Here an article about running in the summer sun over terrain.
http://www.active.com/running/articles/how-many-calories
Weather: are you running in the sun or rain, is it humid? Are you running at altitude, is the wind at your back.
I'm just trying to be as accurate as possible0 -
Ahhh... Yah.
Here an article about running in the summer sun over terrain.
http://www.active.com/running/articles/how-many-calories
Weather: are you running in the sun or rain, is it humid? Are you running at altitude, is the wind at your back.
I'm just trying to be as accurate as possible
When I click that link I get an error message.0 -
That 1150 is the MFP adjustment using the Fitbit total daily burn at 2:44 (or look at stats for exact time of that adjustment) sync.
It's not just or only exercise - merely the difference between MFP with no expectation of exercise activity level, and what Fitbit is reporting, with estimate of daily burn added on.
You could have no exercise and be very active and have big adjustment.
You could have big workout and then lazy and have no adjustment.
So 1150 by midafternoon and 2 workouts - seems reasonable. It'll keep shrinking as the day goes on - unless you really are Lightly-Active as you've set MFP for assuming. Of course the evening time sitting on couch and dinner and sleep won't be, so big decrease there.
It's why most with activity trackers set to Sedentary - MFP's going to attempt to correct itself to better estimate anyway.
Oh - if Fitbit is within first couple weeks of use - it's still adjusting the HR-based calorie burn for exercise, and where does that start.
And if someone is very out of shape, inflate HR could be kicking off that usage incorrectly. But that shouldn't be you. So it could be inflated for first reason.
Might read through this to understand the arrangement better.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy/p1
1 -
The 1150 is my whole day burn as before I went out it was showing as approx 200 so majority is workouts , Thanks for all replies I'll check my activity level on here but Fitbit HR I'm a long term user x0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Ahhh... Yah.
Here an article about running in the summer sun over terrain.
http://www.active.com/running/articles/how-many-calories
Weather: are you running in the sun or rain, is it humid? Are you running at altitude, is the wind at your back.
I'm just trying to be as accurate as possible
When I click that link I get an error message.
Thats probably the correct answer.
6 -
The 1150 is my whole day burn as before I went out it was showing as approx 200 so majority is workouts , Thanks for all replies I'll check my activity level on here but Fitbit HR I'm a long term user x
Still a misunderstanding then as to how it integrates with MFP.
1150 was NOT your whole day then unless you wake up about 3 am and saw that 200 then.
Are you actually looking at the Fitbit if it has a screen for total daily burned? or Fitbit (not MFP) app or website for total daily burned?
Or are you looking on MFP, under exercise, where it says Fitbit adjustment?0 -
Yeah just looking at adjustment on mfp for calories earned by exercise0
-
Please reread what I said above then if you want to understand what that means.
That figure is NOT exercise calories.1 -
Ahhh... Yah.
Here an article about running in the summer sun over terrain.
http://www.active.com/running/articles/how-many-calories
Weather: are you running in the sun or rain, is it humid? Are you running at altitude, is the wind at your back.
I'm just trying to be as accurate as possible
Your link is broken, but... you're probably getting too far down in the weeds/splitting hairs for an average workout for an average person--CICO is all kind of an estimate anyways...2 -
Ahhh... Yah.
Here an article about running in the summer sun over terrain.
http://www.active.com/running/articles/how-many-calories
Weather: are you running in the sun or rain, is it humid? Are you running at altitude, is the wind at your back.
I'm just trying to be as accurate as possible
Your link is broken, but... you're probably getting too far down in the weeds/splitting hairs for an average workout for an average person--CICO is all kind of an estimate anyways...
This is my thought. Sometimes we're running with the wind, sometimes we're running against it. Counting those individual variations for something that is likely to average out over time seems like overkill to me.
I don't see how running in the rain will change the calories burnt on any meaningful level.3 -
Fortunately while that may be strictly true - we all have a clue what we are talking about because of common nomenclature that gets the point across.1
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
Sometimes we're running with the wind, sometimes we're running against it. Counting those individual variations for something that is likely to average out over time seems like overkill to me.
This is my philosophy on life. Also, "Sometimes we're running with the wind, sometimes we're running against it." sounds like something Forrest Gump should have said. I'm going to have it printed on a t-shirt.3 -
Ran 7 miles saturday, 9:40 was my pace and burnt 840 calories, nice morning.2
-
Running and walking calories are based on distance and weight. Thus for running it is roughtly
weight in lbs * distance in miles * 0.63 or 0.68 (sorry, I forgot)
It changes a bit with elevation change and wind, but probably not much, really.
If you walked those steps then you can use the multiplier of 0.3 instead of the 0.63 or 0.68 above. If it's part of your daily work, then it should probably be part of your activity level.0 -
Running and walking calories are based on distance and weight. Thus for running it is roughtly
weight in lbs * distance in miles * 0.63 or 0.68 (sorry, I forgot)
It changes a bit with elevation change and wind, but probably not much, really.
If you walked those steps then you can use the multiplier of 0.3 instead of the 0.63 or 0.68 above. If it's part of your daily work, then it should probably be part of your activity level.
Runner's World has several articles with the calculations: https://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn
0 -
There is newer more accurate formula from a study that takes into account height now.
But since I haven't found it used anywhere.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
0 -
There is newer more accurate formula from a study that takes into account height now.
But since I haven't found it used anywhere.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
I'm not sure if this is the same, but there's an even newer one published last year (I think). It actually takes into account height, weight, and velocity (the taller you are, the more efficient you are at walking, very similar to how the calorie burn from running actually decreases once you get past a certain speed/stride length in the chart you've posted).
On the chart you've listed, I believe that those are the 'gross' burn numbers. That is, they include the calories that your body would have burned even without the activity.
Funny enough, I've played around with the newest formula and it looks like it might come reasonably close to 100 calories per mile as a general rule. What is old is new again!
0 -
There is newer more accurate formula from a study that takes into account height now.
But since I haven't found it used anywhere.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
Hmmm. If you're still going 3 mph, what really differentiates running from walking at that pace that the burn is nearly 2x???
1 -
Hmmm. If you're still going 3 mph, what really differentiates running from walking at that pace that the burn is nearly 2x???
Runner's World actually tried this out (unscientifically, just one journalist trying to figure it out). Apparently, running below 5mph is really hard to do. I'm guessing that the extra calorie burn comes from the exaggerated motions you need to do in order to maintain a running stride while still moving slowly. Kind of like doing high knees or running in place.
Likewise, walking above 5mph is very tough. Above that point and you're actually going to burn more calories then running at an equivalent speed.
1 -
Hmmm. If you're still going 3 mph, what really differentiates running from walking at that pace that the burn is nearly 2x???
Runner's World actually tried this out (unscientifically, just one journalist trying to figure it out). Apparently, running below 5mph is really hard to do. I'm guessing that the extra calorie burn comes from the exaggerated motions you need to do in order to maintain a running stride while still moving slowly. Kind of like doing high knees or running in place.
Likewise, walking above 5mph is very tough. Above that point and you're actually going to burn more calories then running at an equivalent speed.
I'm guessing that all ties into how efficient or inefficient the activity is. Working harder to run slower because it's awkward increases cals burned compared to slightly faster running at a more natural pace/gait. Similar application to walking excessively fast vs a more natural pace.1 -
There is newer more accurate formula from a study that takes into account height now.
But since I haven't found it used anywhere.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
I'm not sure if this is the same, but there's an even newer one published last year (I think). It actually takes into account height, weight, and velocity (the taller you are, the more efficient you are at walking, very similar to how the calorie burn from running actually decreases once you get past a certain speed/stride length in the chart you've posted).
On the chart you've listed, I believe that those are the 'gross' burn numbers. That is, they include the calories that your body would have burned even without the activity.
Funny enough, I've played around with the newest formula and it looks like it might come reasonably close to 100 calories per mile as a general rule. What is old is new again!
Yes, that is gross on the chart, and option for gross in the link calculator - just like every HRM, database, and machine is going to give you.
And when dealing with an activity tracker where you are _replacing_ calories it estimated, gross is the correct value to use.
NET would be more accurate for MFP to use if no tracker was synced in.
Actually, that's not even true, as MFP already has accounted for you to burn so much per day which is based on a certain level of activity, just not exercise.0 -
There is newer more accurate formula from a study that takes into account height now.
But since I haven't found it used anywhere.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html
I'm not sure if this is the same, but there's an even newer one published last year (I think). It actually takes into account height, weight, and velocity (the taller you are, the more efficient you are at walking, very similar to how the calorie burn from running actually decreases once you get past a certain speed/stride length in the chart you've posted).
On the chart you've listed, I believe that those are the 'gross' burn numbers. That is, they include the calories that your body would have burned even without the activity.
Funny enough, I've played around with the newest formula and it looks like it might come reasonably close to 100 calories per mile as a general rule. What is old is new again!
Yes, that is gross on the chart, and option for gross in the link calculator - just like every HRM, database, and machine is going to give you.
And when dealing with an activity tracker where you are _replacing_ calories it estimated, gross is the correct value to use.
NET would be more accurate for MFP to use if no tracker was synced in.
Actually, that's not even true, as MFP already has accounted for you to burn so much per day which is based on a certain level of activity, just not exercise.
Yes, I just wanted to make sure it was clear that those numbers were gross since most on this board follow the 'base + exercise" method of calculating calorie targets. Too many people misunderstand the concept and end up doubling their incremental calories for exercise (another reason that the general guidance to only eat back 50% of exercise calories makes sense).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions