I suck at Math, but...

Cakepiebeer
Cakepiebeer Posts: 392
edited October 5 in Fitness and Exercise
If I have a maintenance pool of 2480 a day, divide that by 24, then I'm burning 133.3 calories an hour just being alive.

If I workout for 2 hours and my HRM shows me a 1000 cal burn, in actuality it would be a 794 burn, because 206 belongs to maintance, right?

Jeezus, do I need to start subtracting maintanence from each burn for now on?

If so, I think there might be a flaw in the MFP way of tracking calories earned.

Replies

  • SergeantSunshine_reused
    SergeantSunshine_reused Posts: 5,382 Member
    I think that instead of using the maintenance number, BMR would be more accurate?
  • aippolito1
    aippolito1 Posts: 4,894 Member
    Yep. That's what I do!
  • JfMarrs
    JfMarrs Posts: 110 Member
    I don't think you need to subtract from the workout that 1000 calories you burned was in addition to the 133.3 per hour you would have burned sleeping or whatever. I am not sure if what you call maintenance is the same as BMR but I suspect it probably is.
  • DesertSunsetRain
    DesertSunsetRain Posts: 194
    I think if you burn 1000 calories doing an exercise you are burning more than you do with your BMR. So it would be added, and not subtracted. Your BMR is one thing and then your exercise is extra... right? 133.3 times two hours... 266.66+1000... 1266.66 for those two hours of working.
  • jnanof
    jnanof Posts: 52 Member
    also note that a pound of fat is NOT 3500 calories, its 453 grams times 9 calories per gram of fat = 4077. I don't understand who came up with the 3500 calorie idea. I take into account the calories that I would have burned if I sat on the couch :)
  • Cakepiebeer
    Cakepiebeer Posts: 392
    AH! I see the problem. Yes, BMR. Ok, question solved! Thanks!
  • juliapurpletoes
    juliapurpletoes Posts: 951 Member
    Yeah i do subtract BMR calories similar to how you subtract Maintenance calories. It was explained to me when I started here that if you don't have alot of wiggle room, that is to say, you have LOTS of fat reserves, it is more accurate and smarter to subtract off these calories so you can get a more accurate day.

    So folks with over 60 pounds to lose may not have to think about it for now......but with less to loose, it really is a math game of accuracy.

    And, this also carries into weighing food with a scale and not eyeballing, guessing, etc.

    Anyway, all that worked for me so i tend to stick with it!
  • plentyoo7
    plentyoo7 Posts: 38
    Never thought about that till now....
  • Rae6503
    Rae6503 Posts: 6,294 Member
    If I have a maintenance pool of 2480 a day, divide that by 24, then I'm burning 133.3 calories an hour just being alive.

    If I workout for 2 hours and my HRM shows me a 1000 cal burn, in actuality it would be a 794 burn, because 206 belongs to maintance, right?

    Jeezus, do I need to start subtracting maintanence from each burn for now on?

    If so, I think there might be a flaw in the MFP way of tracking calories earned.

    I suppose but if it's working the way you are doing I wouldn't bother.
  • PlunderBunneh
    PlunderBunneh Posts: 1,705 Member
    Did you stop digesting food while you were exercising? Did your heart stop pumping blood throughout your entire body? Did your liver suddenly take a break, because the rest of you was working on the elliptical? Maybe you stopped breathing, and therefor those calories you burn while your body focuses on just basic bodily functions didn't actually get burned.
    Might be totally off here, but it seems to me that the calories you burn during a workout are extra, in addition to the ones your body burns just doing normal body stuffs.
    However, I would suggest having your BMR tested. Mine runs slow, at only 1470, so I don't get to eat the mfp calculated calorie amount for -2 pounds a week,1480, not if I expect to see a loss. I stick to 1300, and only eat back 200 for every 30 minutes of working out. This is what my nutritionist recommended for me, and has been working great for the last month or so.

    Reread your post and saw that you are using a HRM. I don't have any experience with those, do they readout your calorie burn accurately when you are in a resting state, or just when your heart rate is elevated?
  • Cakepiebeer
    Cakepiebeer Posts: 392
    Ok, so the BMR number is much lower, but the whole theory still sticks. If I workout for 2 hours and burn 1000, and my BMR divided by 24 = 80.7 an hour. 1000 - 161.4 = 838.6 burn for exercise

    I suppose deducting 80.7 from each hour workout must be done now if I'm really that disturbed and compulsive about it
  • charityateet
    charityateet Posts: 574 Member
    Ok, so the BMR number is much lower, but the whole theory still sticks. If I workout for 2 hours and burn 1000, and my BMR divided by 24 = 80.7 an hour. 1000 - 161.4 = 838.6 burn for exercise

    I suppose deducting 80.7 from each hour workout must be done now if I'm really that disturbed and compulsive about it

    I get what you are saying and I have questioned it myself - I just don't eat "all" of my exercise calories. Or, well - sometimes if I'm hungry, I do - if I'm not I don't. I'm no help.
  • Cakepiebeer
    Cakepiebeer Posts: 392
    Did you stop digesting food while you were exercising? Did your heart stop pumping blood throughout your entire body? Did your liver suddenly take a break, because the rest of you was working on the elliptical? Maybe you stopped breathing, and therefor those calories you burn while your body focuses on just basic bodily functions didn't actually get burned.
    Might be totally off here, but it seems to me that the calories you burn during a workout are extra, in addition to the ones your body burns just doing normal body stuffs.
    However, I would suggest having your BMR tested. Mine runs slow, at only 1470, so I don't get to eat the mfp calculated calorie amount for -2 pounds a week,1480, not if I expect to see a loss. I stick to 1300, and only eat back 200 for every 30 minutes of working out. This is what my nutritionist recommended for me, and has been working great for the last month or so.

    Reread your post and saw that you are using a HRM. I don't have any experience with those, do they readout your calorie burn accurately when you are in a resting state, or just when your heart rate is elevated?

    Well, I suppose thats the basis of my question. The HRM total burn accounts for BMR and through exercise. If thats the case then MFP is over compensating its total it rewards you with
  • Kolohe71
    Kolohe71 Posts: 613 Member
    You can subtract your BMI if you want, as it won't hurt anything. However is it really worth it?

    Let say you work out for 1 hour, 5 days a week. 5 * 80.7 = 403.5. Since you need to have a deficite of 3500 to lose 1 lb, your only looking at a diiference of .11 lbs (403.5 / 3500).

    I just go with the numbers, don't subrtact my BMI, and figure it makes up for the occassional under estimation of portion sizes.
  • Cakepiebeer
    Cakepiebeer Posts: 392
    You can subtract your BMI if you want, as it won't hurt anything. However is it really worth it?

    Let say you work out for 1 hour, 5 days a week. 5 * 80.7 = 403.5. Since you need to have a deficite of 3500 to lose 1 lb, your only looking at a diiference of .11 lbs (403.5 / 3500).

    I just go with the numbers, don't subrtact my BMI, and figure it makes up for the occassional under estimation of portion sizes.

    The problem with over "mathing" things is that if you math it out for long periods, that small amount that doesnt matter now, could matter further down the road. I'm not to concerned about it but it's just somethng to realize and think about
  • Kolohe71
    Kolohe71 Posts: 613 Member
    You can subtract your BMI if you want, as it won't hurt anything. However is it really worth it?

    Let say you work out for 1 hour, 5 days a week. 5 * 80.7 = 403.5. Since you need to have a deficite of 3500 to lose 1 lb, your only looking at a diiference of .11 lbs (403.5 / 3500).

    I just go with the numbers, don't subrtact my BMI, and figure it makes up for the occassional under estimation of portion sizes.
    The problem with over "mathing" things is that if you math it out for long periods, that small amount that doesnt matter now, could matter further down the road. I'm not to concerned about it but it's just somethng to realize and think about
    I agree in principle. If we take your numbers and extrapolate them out to a 1 year timeframe then we would end up with a net difference of just shy of 6 lbs (5.995). Not an insignificant amount. However, this assumes that you consistantly work out for an hour a day and average 5 days a week.

    If we rerun the calculation for a 110#, 5'6" female (1560 BMI) with a more realistic workout schedule of 1 hour a day 3 days a week; then the difference between subtracting BMI and not subtracting it comes out to 2.89 lbs. Still not insignificant.

    Now if you figure in that most people will underestimate their portion sizes and therefore their calorie intake the issue of whether or not to subtract BMI becomes less of an issue. Given your original numbers if you, on average, underestime your calories by more than 57 per day (28 for the 110# female) than all your math efforts were for nothing as these two values will counter one another.

    I'm not trying to tell you that you shouldn't do it because I know a lot of poeple do (I used to be one of them), but I would suggest that you evaluate if it really will make enough of a difference to offset the efforts.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    If what you are currently doing is working then leave it as is.

    Unless you are working out for LONG periods of time I can't see the minor difference affecting anything especially when you factor in the inaccuracies of people's intake logging.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories