Does myfitnesspal factor gender in "calories burned" from exercise?

Options
13

Replies

  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Options
    MikePTY wrote: »
    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.
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    magnusthenerd wrote: »
    dritta81 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/
    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
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    Options
    heybales wrote: »
    dritta81 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.

    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.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,979 Member
    Options
    kazminchu 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.)
  • debrakgoogins
    debrakgoogins Posts: 2,034 Member
    Options
    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...

Categories