Does myfitnesspal factor gender in "calories burned" from exercise?
Replies
-
Just going to give myself 5 points for Ravenclaw since I, by the skin of my teeth, was able to craft my responses cordially.14
-
For those who I've recently been made to know may need additional explanation:
The phrase “on the rag” is a slang term for menstruation. This phrase likely originated sometime during the late 19th century. When a woman was menstruating, she was “on the rag,” a phrase that literally described the way women of the day managed their menstruation.15 -
Okay serious question though, why doesn't it? I understand that it may be too complicated to factor in things like gender and height into an exercise calorie calculator, and so MET is good enough, but men do burn through exercise (even if slightly) more calories than women, don't they? If one was doing a TDEE formula, that would be accounted for, since that is based off of BMR and multipliers. For instance, my BMR on MFP is 1,846 calories a day. But if I switch my gender to female, it is 1690. If I use a TDEE calculator to include my exercise and activity (which uses a BMR that's basically identical to MFP), I get 2,870 as man and 2,613 as a female. So it essentially adds a around 100 extra calories based on my exercise activity for me being male than female.
I understand the explanation of METS being developed with both men and women, and it working as a general "good enough" for most people. And using it doesn't mean that MFP is set up for men and not women. But the idea that men and women burn somewhat different amounts doing the same exercise doesn't seem to be a wrong idea. If it is, then BMR and TDEE calculators wouldn't factor gender in the calculations.4 -
For those who I've recently been made to know may need additional explanation:
The phrase “on the rag” is a slang term for menstruation. This phrase likely originated sometime during the late 19th century. When a woman was menstruating, she was “on the rag,” a phrase that literally described the way women of the day managed their menstruation.
This made me laugh WAY too hard.6 -
For those who I've recently been made to know may need additional explanation:
The phrase “on the rag” is a slang term for menstruation. This phrase likely originated sometime during the late 19th century. When a woman was menstruating, she was “on the rag,” a phrase that literally described the way women of the day managed their menstruation.
It's currently a way to insinuate that women are being irrational or witchy due to menstruation, so I would not use it in polite conversation, or on MFP.14 -
Okay serious question though, why doesn't it? I understand that it may be too complicated to factor in things like gender and height into an exercise calorie calculator, and so MET is good enough, but men do burn through exercise (even if slightly) more calories than women, don't they? If one was doing a TDEE formula, that would be accounted for, since that is based off of BMR and multipliers. For instance, my BMR on MFP is 1,846 calories a day. But if I switch my gender to female, it is 1690. If I use a TDEE calculator to include my exercise and activity (which uses a BMR that's basically identical to MFP), I get 2,870 as man and 2,613 as a female. So it essentially adds a bit over 100 extra calories based on my exercise activity for me being male than female.
I understand the explanation of METS being developed with both men and women, and it working as a general "good enough" for most people. And using it doesn't mean that MFP is set up for men and not women. But the idea that men and women burn somewhat different amounts doing the same exercise doesn't seem to be a wrong idea. If it is, then BMR and TDEE calculators wouldn't factor gender in the calculations.
Where gender causes the biggest difference for BMR is the size of the most metabolically active organs.
Same age, height, weight - not that huge of difference.
Those organs though ....
That fact is also why the BMR formulas (like Katch) based off LBM actually show a variation between genders even though it's not a gender specific formula.
Now that's a formula worth complaining about.
Same LBM between genders is more metabolic organ for the men, more muscle for the women.
And we all know how much little extra calories muscle actually burns.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1522233
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022732
Buried in a spreadsheet somewhere is what that difference above and below the formula resulted in for reality.
3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Do the MFP calorie estimates depend on what color clothes I'm wearing? I really don't want to get this wrong.
Not sure about calories, but as for velocity...the red ones are fastah...
THAT'S NOT TRUE!!1! This Google search says everyone who participats is fastest!
I rebut:
How can I argue with this? Google, why have you failed me???5 -
Okay serious question though, why doesn't it? I understand that it may be too complicated to factor in things like gender and height into an exercise calorie calculator, and so MET is good enough, but men do burn through exercise (even if slightly) more calories than women, don't they? If one was doing a TDEE formula, that would be accounted for, since that is based off of BMR and multipliers. For instance, my BMR on MFP is 1,846 calories a day. But if I switch my gender to female, it is 1690. If I use a TDEE calculator to include my exercise and activity (which uses a BMR that's basically identical to MFP), I get 2,870 as man and 2,613 as a female. So it essentially adds a around 100 extra calories based on my exercise activity for me being male than female.
I understand the explanation of METS being developed with both men and women, and it working as a general "good enough" for most people. And using it doesn't mean that MFP is set up for men and not women. But the idea that men and women burn somewhat different amounts doing the same exercise doesn't seem to be a wrong idea. If it is, then BMR and TDEE calculators wouldn't factor gender in the calculations.
You're co-mingling a lot here. BMR between men and women of similar proportions may be different. TDEE may be different. The goal of this topic is focused on additional energy expenditure, with an emphasis on caloric expenditure differences relating to anatomy alone (all else being equal).
I won't paraphrase what OP's written, I'll just say her posits are proven incorrect. Regardless of your genitalia, running a mile is a mile, and lifting 150lbs is 150lbs.
Sad to see name calling terms like "mansplaining" come into play, especially considering a vast amount of responders are women.11 -
Okay folks, I am not asking the question "Does gender matter for calorie estimates?" The answer to that has already been determined.
Right ... it doesn't matter.That is why I am asking the question. I want to be relatively accurate in my estimates
Estimates being the key word.
When it comes to exercise, estimate low and if you're losing weight a bit too fast, estimate a little higher.
9 -
Okay serious question though, why doesn't it? I understand that it may be too complicated to factor in things like gender and height into an exercise calorie calculator, and so MET is good enough, but men do burn through exercise (even if slightly) more calories than women, don't they? If one was doing a TDEE formula, that would be accounted for, since that is based off of BMR and multipliers. For instance, my BMR on MFP is 1,846 calories a day. But if I switch my gender to female, it is 1690. If I use a TDEE calculator to include my exercise and activity (which uses a BMR that's basically identical to MFP), I get 2,870 as man and 2,613 as a female. So it essentially adds a around 100 extra calories based on my exercise activity for me being male than female.
I understand the explanation of METS being developed with both men and women, and it working as a general "good enough" for most people. And using it doesn't mean that MFP is set up for men and not women. But the idea that men and women burn somewhat different amounts doing the same exercise doesn't seem to be a wrong idea. If it is, then BMR and TDEE calculators wouldn't factor gender in the calculations.
Body composition.
All these algorythms are based upon military or Olympic baselines, so were dealing with some massive generalizations - even so still works as the biochemical pathways remain the same, just expanded out in terms of mass.
The average man has more muscle mass in comparison to the average woman. Now if you wanted precision and accuracy you could incorporate a variance to account for body fat and lean muscle mass, but this variance is so minor it is nearly undetectable as it lies just above the error rate of instrumentation.0 -
Just for fun I did a “simple google search” as the OP suggested (even though I knew the answer already).
A study (one of many that have been done over the years) from 1999 tested the accuracy of the ACSM metabolic prediction equation for running (the equation that is programmed into every commercial treadmill, and the Compendium, and probably the MFP database).
As part of the literature review, the study listed a number of previous studies that had investigated the same topic. Of 13 studies listed, 5 included all female subjects (138 female subjects total). The specific study I read was half male, half female.
Upon reviewing the initial data, the authors stated:
“Regression analysis revealed there was no signifi- cant (p 0.05) sex difference in the oxygen cost of running once running speed was controlled for. Running speed was statistically controlled by entering it into the regression model first. Since there was no sex difference in the oxygen cost of running, the data were combined in all subsequent analyses.”
27 -
What *I* want to know, is why doesn't MFP give me those ~30 extra calories I'll burn on my period??14
-
I almost posted when I could have been the first poster - so glad I didn't because I don't do well with this whole Men versus Women angle.
Why can't we all just get along? A person who makes a First Post in the forums that is about divisive topics really doesn't need me to . . .
10 -
You are correct in that it isn't an efficiency difference worth altering calorie statistics from them. I probably should have put in the cavaet that as far as I'm aware, these numbers don't even get worse than a 10% difference when looking at the differences in biomechanics between dieted and undieted walking gates. The difference between an elite cyclist and the average joe who knows how to ride a bike might be 1% or less - I actually am unsure of those ranges for that activity. It is the kind of thing that matters in terms of winning events because of power output between first and second place, instead of who actually loses 10 pounds and who is posting on MFP that CICO doesn't work.magnusthenerd wrote: »Okay folks, I am not asking the question "Does gender matter for calorie estimates?" The answer to that has already been determined (YES IT DOES). The average body composition of men and women is different, and that impacts average calorie burn during exercise.
A simple google search will bring up this information. (for example, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508)
So, all the replies above claiming that it doesn't make a difference are objectively, scientifically wrong. They are also not answering my question.
Does myfitnesspal factor in gender differences in their calorie estimates for exercise, or are they basing those estimates on the [male-based] data from the past? If they are basing those estimates on male data, then I, as a woman, need to subtract 10-30% of the calories from EVERY EXERCISE in order to accurately track my calories for the day. As an active woman, that is a big impact for my planning. It also means that it takes me longer to accurately track my calories, as I have to do math in my head for every exercise I log.
That is why I am asking the question. I want to be relatively accurate in my estimates, and having every exercise 10-30% over on the calorie count is a significant barrier to being accurate.
A simple Google search will bring up a lot of things, like which aliens built the pyramids. That isn't the same thing as that being an objective fact. Your link doesn't even seem to one that has this 10-30% difference you're claiming.
Regardless, what most people are trying to get across is that the numbers from MFP are estimates to begin with. Someone who's practiced at an exercise will also burn less calories. MFP never asks your experience level, so clearly it can't be taking that into account.
I'd have to see what research you're using for the numbers, but I'd honestly guess the differences between women and men would come from exercise estimates that include the basal component - a difference that tends to stem from men at the same weight tending to have more muscle mass and less fat mass than women, as muscle uses more energy.
The bolded isn't necessarily so, either, in my (very inexpert) understanding. The same work means the close to same calories, I believe, with some caveats. Some exercises (cycling, for example) have a very narrow range of efficiencies, as I understand it. Someone pedaling the same bike on the same route at a slow rate who's huffing and puffing is burning in the reasonable vicinity of the same calories as an experienced cyclist for whom it's super easy. It feels way easier to one vs. the other, and a heart rate monitor may (probably will) give a very different calorie estimate for each (lower for the fit person), but the work is the work, +/- a fairly narrow efficiency range.
Other things can have a wider variation in efficiency (with skill vs. the lack thereof), but I'm not sure the efficiency always affects the calorie burn in the way it might seem, and it will matter what's doing the estimating (an exercise machine, for good or ill; a METS-based estimating method like the one under the covers at MFP; a basic heart rate monitor (which will be able to estimate some activities more closely than others, but quite a margin); a fitness tracker that knows what exercise your doing, so has at least the potential to shift methods to use one that's likely to be the best fit for that particular activity; . . . .)
OP, I believe MFP is using the METS-based exercise estimating method, which has its own limitations, as does any method. There are various places where you can learn more about how METS-based exercise calorie estimation works, one of which is here:
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/
2 -
Gender is not irrelevant. I realize that muscle mass is not some magical man-thing. And I know how physics works.
I also know that ALL estimates of calories burned are ESTIMATES. Duh. And now I know that ALL estimates on this platform are based on men, and not on women. Yes, they are still estimates. And they are estimates that fail to account for half of the population. That means for ALL women on this platform, the estimates are less good than for ALL of the men. And yes, I believe that is a problem.
Male bodies are not the default. Men's data is not "good enough" for women, especially when it is falsely presented as "neutral". My source for the "10-30%" statistic is the book "Invisible Women: Data bias in a world designed for men", which has sources, but also does not go in depth about the specific numbers because (surprise!) those numbers are very hard to find unless you are a fitness researcher or a multi-million dollar fitness platform that has the resources to search them out.
My question was asking "how good is this data for the average women?" and it has been answered. The answer is: not very good at all. Thanks to everyone for the patronizing and mansplaining along the way.
Incorrect to bolded.
The exercise database is based on public METS database, which is based on studies with BOTH men and women included. You can pick an exercise, read the study, and see those facts.
Some types of exercise lend themselves to more or all male merely because of who would join the study.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/references
Since the calorie burn values during the exercise studies is divided by their measured BMR (which is gender related) to arrive at METS, they are included in the bell curve where the avg value is chosen from.
So women did count in the resulting values. That are then converted to mass usage for this database and others.
Fitbit for example keeps the METS values and exercise (and daily step/distance activity) is per gender BMR.
And no, gender doesn't matter where moving mass is the key factor for calorie burn.
If a less muscular female of same weight as more muscular male doing some workout at same pace in endurance style - then the muscles being called on to work harder will likely burn more carbs for the female, more fat for the male - but calorie burn would be similar. The difference in efficiency (running, biking) would bigger factor than gender.
I think I see the intuit there but my understanding is the real world difference is men burn more carbs during exercise than women. Making matters even more confusing is the higher intra-workout carb burning of men means their EPOC is more fat burning for compensation. And of course, it ends up mattering next to nothing in terms of calories for losing weight.1 -
-
OP - After all of this, if you are still convinced that there is a significant difference in calorie burns between men and women and that the MFP database is based on the calorie burns of an average male the best thing to do would be to only eat back a portion (lets say 90%) of your calories from exercise and adjust based on results. Honestly that is what a lot of people end up doing here anyway because again they are estimates. Even if the baselines were based on men the calorie counts still won't be perfectly accurate for every man.
"Overthinking - The art of creating problems that never existed"14 -
I take great pride in my first mansplaining offense. I've been accused of many things in my life but this is a first. Go me!!!29
-
Justin_7272 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Gender is not irrelevant. I realize that muscle mass is not some magical man-thing. And I know how physics works.
I also know that ALL estimates of calories burned are ESTIMATES. Duh. And now I know that ALL estimates on this platform are based on men, and not on women. Yes, they are still estimates. And they are estimates that fail to account for half of the population. That means for ALL women on this platform, the estimates are less good than for ALL of the men. And yes, I believe that is a problem.
Male bodies are not the default. Men's data is not "good enough" for women, especially when it is falsely presented as "neutral". My source for the "10-30%" statistic is the book "Invisible Women: Data bias in a world designed for men", which has sources, but also does not go in depth about the specific numbers because (surprise!) those numbers are very hard to find unless you are a fitness researcher or a multi-million dollar fitness platform that has the resources to search them out.
My question was asking "how good is this data for the average women?" and it has been answered. The answer is: not very good at all. Thanks to everyone for the patronizing and mansplaining along the way.
If you get on a bike with a power meter and you put out the same wattage as I do you're going to burn less calories than me because I'm a guy? Funny...
It depends; are you going downhill fast?
No, but this thread sure did!
14 -
Okay folks, I am not asking the question "Does gender matter for calorie estimates?" The answer to that has already been determined (YES IT DOES). The average body composition of men and women is different, and that impacts average calorie burn during exercise.
A simple google search will bring up this information. (for example, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508)
So, all the replies above claiming that it doesn't make a difference are objectively, scientifically wrong. They are also not answering my question.
Does myfitnesspal factor in gender differences in their calorie estimates for exercise, or are they basing those estimates on the [male-based] data from the past? If they are basing those estimates on male data, then I, as a woman, need to subtract 10-30% of the calories from EVERY EXERCISE in order to accurately track my calories for the day. As an active woman, that is a big impact for my planning. It also means that it takes me longer to accurately track my calories, as I have to do math in my head for every exercise I log.
That is why I am asking the question. I want to be relatively accurate in my estimates, and having every exercise 10-30% over on the calorie count is a significant barrier to being accurate.
The language regarding gender differences in the mayo clinic link is about calories burned just to keep your body going (BMR), not calories burned during exercise.5 -
What about hairstyle?6
-
For those who I've recently been made to know may need additional explanation:
The phrase “on the rag” is a slang term for menstruation. This phrase likely originated sometime during the late 19th century. When a woman was menstruating, she was “on the rag,” a phrase that literally described the way women of the day managed their menstruation.OP wrote:Thanks to everyone for the patronizing and mansplaining along the way.
For those who may need additional explanation.
^^ Women explaining that the same work requires the same energy regardless of the gender of the person performing it is definitely not mansplaining.
A man explaining what "on the rag" means might be mansplaining.
Signed, Still Trying to Adjust to Thinking of Myself as a Little Old Lady12 -
^^ Women explaining that the same work requires the same energy regardless of the gender of the person performing it is definitely not mansplaining.
right? I mean ironic OP is ironic. She's irritated that there is some perceived gender bias in exercise reporting.
Same pay(off) for the same work is just about the definition of feminism.11 -
What *I* want to know, is why doesn't MFP give me those ~30 extra calories I'll burn on my period??
You don't burn extra calories on your period. You burn them earlier in the month while your body is creating the blood to line your uterus. (OK, if you have cramps during your period, you may be burning a couple of calories for the muscle contractions.)3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
For those who I've recently been made to know may need additional explanation:
The phrase “on the rag” is a slang term for menstruation. This phrase likely originated sometime during the late 19th century. When a woman was menstruating, she was “on the rag,” a phrase that literally described the way women of the day managed their menstruation.OP wrote:Thanks to everyone for the patronizing and mansplaining along the way.
A man explaining what "on the rag" means might be mansplaining.
Definitely agree; I wouldn't dare use the phrase "on the rag" without expecting to be slapped. Note, though, OP used mansplaining far before that came in to play.
I'm a white middle-aged man. I realize I'm considered privileged in many ways. But to denigrate me based on my man parts ("mansplaining") is no better than to consider a female an inferior being based on her lady parts ("on the rag").
Both are wrong and I won't subscribe to either. OP received her answer, but came with an agenda.11 -
debrakgoogins wrote: »I take great pride in my first mansplaining offense. I've been accused of many things in my life but this is a first. Go me!!!
I feel like we should start a group: women who have been accused of mansplaining.12 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »What *I* want to know, is why doesn't MFP give me those ~30 extra calories I'll burn on my period??
You don't burn extra calories on your period. You burn them earlier in the month while your body is creating the blood to line your uterus. (OK, if you have cramps during your period, you may be burning a couple of calories for the muscle contractions.)
But don't you burn calories when donating blood? So isn't having your period sorta like giving blood?
Also, menopause is awesome because NO MORE PERIODS!6 -
Justin_7272 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
For those who I've recently been made to know may need additional explanation:
The phrase “on the rag” is a slang term for menstruation. This phrase likely originated sometime during the late 19th century. When a woman was menstruating, she was “on the rag,” a phrase that literally described the way women of the day managed their menstruation.OP wrote:Thanks to everyone for the patronizing and mansplaining along the way.
A man explaining what "on the rag" means might be mansplaining.
Definitely agree; I wouldn't dare use the phrase "on the rag" without expecting to be slapped. Note, though, OP used mansplaining far before that came in to play.
I'm a white middle-aged man. I realize I'm considered privileged in many ways. But to denigrate me based on my man parts ("mansplaining") is no better than to consider a female an inferior being based on her lady parts ("on the rag").
Both are wrong and I won't subscribe to either. OP received her answer, but came with an agenda.
That's why the mansplaining of "on the rag" was so funny. People were already being accused of it.
And I actually don't have a problem with euphemisms like that. It's the tone (that I deliberately used) that's wrong.8 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »debrakgoogins wrote: »I take great pride in my first mansplaining offense. I've been accused of many things in my life but this is a first. Go me!!!
I feel like we should start a group: women who have been accused of mansplaining.
Raises hand...2
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
- 426 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