Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Somebody help me wrap my head around this.

123468

Replies

  • heybalesheybales Posts: 17,138Member Member Posts: 17,138Member Member
    heybales wrote: »
    Scanned the pages and didn't see.

    Does he get a lot of steps in over his active day? 10K or more?

    Because it's the distance from the steps that makes the non-exercise non-HR based calorie burn given.

    Workouts with higher HR are done differently, and depending on workouts (like HIIT and strength training) they are inflated too.
    But if it's minor time spent in otherwise active day, the inflation is small % of the day.
    If the workouts is main way he gets high calorie burn in otherwise very sedentary day - that inflated burn could be a problem.

    And if his stride length is off from default - he could be getting a high estimated calorie burn for daily activity - but really isn't.

    Yes, over 15K. Other days are between 6K and 9K.

    The fitbit is new, so not that much data.

    Sedentary day: 8K steps - 3,174 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K steps - 2,981 cal

    Work on house day: 15.7K steps - 4,247 cal

    Gym day: 9.5K - 3,274 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K - 3,067 cal

    Gym day: 8.6K - 3,375 cal

    We haven't measured his stride, he is within an inch of the height of an average American male - I'm over 3" shorter than an "average" female so I did mine, and it was barely an adjustment. My running stride was the same as the default.

    First major comment on attempting to use that external TDEE calc at same time as MFP.

    That calc - almost assuredly based on the 1919 study by Harris and replaced with more better calcs since then (like Harris BMR calc has been also).
    That calc is ONLY about exercise, and an otherwise sedentary lifestyle - which you said he is not - because family responsibilities. It only mentions exercise.
    Bump it up a level since pretty active on non-workout days and family responsibilities.

    And the default stride length calc using gender and height doesn't take into account differences in leg length vs upper body length. Short legs take more steps. Long legs could take more steps.

    Best for him (and you if desired) to walk a known 1/2 - 1 mile distance at 2 mph (mid-speed of paces through the day) - and see if Fitbit got the distance right.

    Tweaking would help that part.
    Because that is a lot of steps, and a small % of error can be lots of calories.

    The other thing you need to do - is get away from comparing steps to daily burn, or MFP Adjustment (which is the same effect). Distance is what matters, distance daily can vary.

    Fitbit old or new doesn't matter for distance or stride length - that is not auto-correcting because it doesn't know how far you went to correct itself.
    Gotta measure and compare.
  • ExistingFishExistingFish Posts: 896Member Member Posts: 896Member Member
    heybales wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    Scanned the pages and didn't see.

    Does he get a lot of steps in over his active day? 10K or more?

    Because it's the distance from the steps that makes the non-exercise non-HR based calorie burn given.

    Workouts with higher HR are done differently, and depending on workouts (like HIIT and strength training) they are inflated too.
    But if it's minor time spent in otherwise active day, the inflation is small % of the day.
    If the workouts is main way he gets high calorie burn in otherwise very sedentary day - that inflated burn could be a problem.

    And if his stride length is off from default - he could be getting a high estimated calorie burn for daily activity - but really isn't.

    Yes, over 15K. Other days are between 6K and 9K.

    The fitbit is new, so not that much data.

    Sedentary day: 8K steps - 3,174 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K steps - 2,981 cal

    Work on house day: 15.7K steps - 4,247 cal

    Gym day: 9.5K - 3,274 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K - 3,067 cal

    Gym day: 8.6K - 3,375 cal

    We haven't measured his stride, he is within an inch of the height of an average American male - I'm over 3" shorter than an "average" female so I did mine, and it was barely an adjustment. My running stride was the same as the default.

    First major comment on attempting to use that external TDEE calc at same time as MFP.

    That calc - almost assuredly based on the 1919 study by Harris and replaced with more better calcs since then (like Harris BMR calc has been also).
    That calc is ONLY about exercise, and an otherwise sedentary lifestyle - which you said he is not - because family responsibilities. It only mentions exercise.
    Bump it up a level since pretty active on non-workout days and family responsibilities.

    And the default stride length calc using gender and height doesn't take into account differences in leg length vs upper body length. Short legs take more steps. Long legs could take more steps.

    Best for him (and you if desired) to walk a known 1/2 - 1 mile distance at 2 mph (mid-speed of paces through the day) - and see if Fitbit got the distance right.

    Tweaking would help that part.
    Because that is a lot of steps, and a small % of error can be lots of calories.

    The other thing you need to do - is get away from comparing steps to daily burn, or MFP Adjustment (which is the same effect). Distance is what matters, distance daily can vary.

    Fitbit old or new doesn't matter for distance or stride length - that is not auto-correcting because it doesn't know how far you went to correct itself.
    Gotta measure and compare.

    It uses the Mifflin-St Jeor Formula. I don't know anything about that.

    I'll look into adjusting his stride length. I'm not sure how to know he's using 2mph or 1.8 or 2.4 etc etc. We don't have a handy walking track or anything. I guess you could do it on the treadmill?
  • Lillymoo01Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,485Member Member Posts: 2,485Member Member
    Better off downloading an app that measures both time and distance. Something like Strava or Map My Walk.
  • heybalesheybales Posts: 17,138Member Member Posts: 17,138Member Member
    heybales wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    Scanned the pages and didn't see.

    Does he get a lot of steps in over his active day? 10K or more?

    Because it's the distance from the steps that makes the non-exercise non-HR based calorie burn given.

    Workouts with higher HR are done differently, and depending on workouts (like HIIT and strength training) they are inflated too.
    But if it's minor time spent in otherwise active day, the inflation is small % of the day.
    If the workouts is main way he gets high calorie burn in otherwise very sedentary day - that inflated burn could be a problem.

    And if his stride length is off from default - he could be getting a high estimated calorie burn for daily activity - but really isn't.

    Yes, over 15K. Other days are between 6K and 9K.

    The fitbit is new, so not that much data.

    Sedentary day: 8K steps - 3,174 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K steps - 2,981 cal

    Work on house day: 15.7K steps - 4,247 cal

    Gym day: 9.5K - 3,274 cal

    Sedentary day: 7.5K - 3,067 cal

    Gym day: 8.6K - 3,375 cal

    We haven't measured his stride, he is within an inch of the height of an average American male - I'm over 3" shorter than an "average" female so I did mine, and it was barely an adjustment. My running stride was the same as the default.

    First major comment on attempting to use that external TDEE calc at same time as MFP.

    That calc - almost assuredly based on the 1919 study by Harris and replaced with more better calcs since then (like Harris BMR calc has been also).
    That calc is ONLY about exercise, and an otherwise sedentary lifestyle - which you said he is not - because family responsibilities. It only mentions exercise.
    Bump it up a level since pretty active on non-workout days and family responsibilities.

    And the default stride length calc using gender and height doesn't take into account differences in leg length vs upper body length. Short legs take more steps. Long legs could take more steps.

    Best for him (and you if desired) to walk a known 1/2 - 1 mile distance at 2 mph (mid-speed of paces through the day) - and see if Fitbit got the distance right.

    Tweaking would help that part.
    Because that is a lot of steps, and a small % of error can be lots of calories.

    The other thing you need to do - is get away from comparing steps to daily burn, or MFP Adjustment (which is the same effect). Distance is what matters, distance daily can vary.

    Fitbit old or new doesn't matter for distance or stride length - that is not auto-correcting because it doesn't know how far you went to correct itself.
    Gotta measure and compare.

    It uses the Mifflin-St Jeor Formula. I don't know anything about that.

    I'll look into adjusting his stride length. I'm not sure how to know he's using 2mph or 1.8 or 2.4 etc etc. We don't have a handy walking track or anything. I guess you could do it on the treadmill?

    So better TDEE calc to start with better BMR, but if still "workouts 1-3 days (or hours)" weekly, 3-5, ect, then it's the 1919 study calc. MFP uses more recent study results for instance.
    It least it gives a number to compare the Fitbit to. At least to 5 rough levels.

    Treadmill can work - hopefully a gym one is calibrated - you can ask them if they do it during normal maintenance intervals like every treadmill manufacturer says to do.

    Otherwise high school track - just have to confirm if US or metric markings, and if metric know what the mile one is.

    And 2 mph will feel so slow, hence treadmill may be better.
    Start the walk, when it flips to 0.1 distance start the Fitbit workout to log it.
    At 1.1 stop the workout and save it.
    Now you have steps, you have 1 mile known walked, and math for stride length can be done to get feet and decimal inches.
    Unless Fitbit said you did 1 mile right on. Then it's good.
    edited July 27
  • ssurvivorssurvivor Posts: 132Member, Premium Member Posts: 132Member, Premium Member

    He has not. I am glad you recognize your perspective might be skewed.

    Are you sure? I may not know a lot about men's weights, but I know, from my own experience (and years of ED counseling), that everyone gets to a point where the scale stops being important. You mentioned that he's losing a bunch of inches. Don't you think that is more important than the number on the scale?
  • kimondo666kimondo666 Posts: 177Member Member Posts: 177Member Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    ssurvivor wrote: »
    2% BF% Actually, is BFP was measured using a caliper.

    You make some interesting points.

    But either through simple misunderstanding, a typo, or perhaps just incorrect recollection you keep referring to a 2% body fat figure which you keep associating with a 195lb man.

    2% body fat is at OR BELOW the lowest level of ESSENTIAL fat for a man. It is a level of fat availability at which death becomes imminent and a level to which maybe some pharmacologically enhanced body builders have dipped to for a short period of time during competitions...

    So you can perhaps understand why making and supporting such a claim detracts from your points.

    Aye, at 5% bfp, he would have like abs on the stomach and so on.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,339Member Member Posts: 5,339Member Member
    ssurvivor wrote: »
    CICO works to a certain point. 5'10" 195 is pretty low for an adult man. It could be that he is already at an optimal weight for his constitution. The fact that he has lost inches speaks volumes.


    5'10" at 195lbs is overweight for an adult man.
    edited July 30
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,339Member Member Posts: 5,339Member Member
    ssurvivor wrote: »
    My BF is 5'11" (179cm) 198 and wears a S/M. Now that I think about it, his BFP is usually around 2% so maybe that's why he looks so small.

    5'11", 198lbs at 2% body fat? Are you sure? I would recheck that...

Sign In or Register to comment.