I am shocked & not even sure how accurate this is.

Options
MzMandi1025
MzMandi1025 Posts: 78 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So today, I took my daughter to the Botanical Garden in our area. I was considering wearing my heart rate monitor, but decided against it because I didn't want to be looking at my watch to see how many calories I was burning all day. I wanted to focus on spending time with my daughter. Anyway, we were there for 4 hours kinda strolling around. Nothing too major, & I was carrying a backpack that had like 3 32 oz bottles filled with water & powerade. I plug it into my exercise log, didn't put in that I was carrying the backpack, but it said I burned a crap ton of calories, plus I went swimming afterwards, so I burned even more. My normal calorie intake is 1660, I ate about 1630, now it's saying I only netted 153 & have over 1500 calories left to consume. Does this even sound right, & if it is, there's no way I'm consuming that many calories this late at night.

Replies

  • kooky_kiz
    kooky_kiz Posts: 22 Member
    Options
    maybe you over estimated how fast you were walking
  • leslturn8
    leslturn8 Posts: 505 Member
    Options
    i wouldnt say its wrong! ive done similar things and hey well done
  • Jorra
    Jorra Posts: 3,338 Member
    Options
    It's possible, but there's nothing wrong with leaving those calories alone if it's too late too eat. It won't hurt to have a low net for one day.
  • carrotstick2012
    carrotstick2012 Posts: 161
    Options
    Sounds unlikely but I don't really know ... I wouldn't worry about it. If you burned that much consider it a bonus. If not, you know you've had a good day of activity and eating so it's all got to count towards overall success.
  • chrystee
    chrystee Posts: 295 Member
    Options
    MFP overestimates..
    when I wear my HRM, I burn approximately half.. but my heart rate isn't as high as others, for my size.
  • 77tes
    77tes Posts: 7,979 Member
    Options
    Doing anything for 4 hours burns a lot of calories. You don't have to eat back all those calories tonight. Enjoy them tomorrow and even the next day. Next time, you can prepare with a little food before your excursion.
  • LizKurz
    LizKurz Posts: 340 Member
    Options
    Strolling is usually defined at 2.0 mph or so.

    Also, if you were out and about, you probably weren't moving every single minute, it if it were me, I would log 3 hours of walking, 2.0 mph and then my swimming.

    And the good news is, even if you are low on your net, take the day off tomorrow, yet eat like you've exercised, it will even out.
  • atjays
    atjays Posts: 798 Member
    Options
    Leisurely walking through a nature park is not going to raise your heart rate anymore than flipping channels sitting on the couch. You can log some of your swimming if you did a few laps but all total you're looking at maybe 1-200 calories burned, not 1500 . MFP also greatly overestimates caloric burns, wear a heart rate monitor and log exercise that gets your BPM over 130 for sustained periods.
  • Ginsuguy
    Ginsuguy Posts: 6
    Options
    I kind of think mfp overestimates on some exercises. I would try eating according to appetite today and tomorrow. You might find yourself extra hungry tomorrow if you did really have a higher calorie burn. Just try not to blow it ALL on ice cream. :D
  • lolcatftw
    lolcatftw Posts: 36
    Options
    Without a HRM the MFP cardio numbers are bullocks. Having said that, when I take my GPS backpacking, I am astonished by how much stopped time it logs vs moving time. MFP cardio assumes constant effort which means no stopping to gawk at this and that, to take photos, stand in line, etc.

    If I do use MFP numbers, I usually factor in a multiplier. For instance, with a 10-15 lb backpack, the 55 minute off-trail hill climb portion of this morning's trek became 30 minutes "Hiking, climbing hills (carrying <10 lb load)" = 298 kcal. Basically, I'd rather play it safe than fool myself that I burned 500-600 kcal in less than an hour.
  • AABru
    AABru Posts: 610 Member
    Options
    even if you were strolling along at 1.5 mph (very slow), you would have burned at least 400 calories, chances are that it was more with the backpack, AND you swam which burns alot of calories. 1500 could be accurate. I have found MPF overestimates for elliptical for me (by almost twice), but walking has been pretty spot on.
  • AABru
    AABru Posts: 610 Member
    Options
    Without a HRM the MFP cardio numbers are bullocks. Having said that, when I take my GPS backpacking, I am astonished by how much stopped time it logs vs moving time. MFP cardio assumes constant effort which means no stopping to gawk at this and that, to take photos, stand in line, etc.

    If I do use MFP numbers, I usually factor in a multiplier. For instance, with a 10-15 lb backpack, the 55 minute off-trail hill climb portion of this morning's trek became 30 minutes "Hiking, climbing hills (carrying <10 lb load)" = 298 kcal. Basically, I'd rather play it safe than fool myself that I burned 500-600 kcal in less than an hour.
    I do this as well...
  • daves160
    daves160 Posts: 600
    Options
    If you put your activity level at sedentary, walking will definitely burn more cals. Subtract your BMR and it will probably be good. Don't worry about eating back ALL those cals. Your body will tell you if you need more food.
  • Jacwhite22
    Jacwhite22 Posts: 7,012 Member
    Options
    Leisurely walking through a nature park is not going to raise your heart rate anymore than flipping channels sitting on the couch. You can log some of your swimming if you did a few laps but all total you're looking at maybe 1-200 calories burned, not 1500 . MFP also greatly overestimates caloric burns, wear a heart rate monitor and log exercise that gets your BPM over 130 for sustained periods.

    Elevated heart rate is not needed for calorie burn............walking (even leisurely) will burn substantially more calories than sitting on the couch flipping channels......
  • kdeaux1959
    kdeaux1959 Posts: 2,675 Member
    Options
    I would not worry about it. If you are not hungry... don't eat. One day probably won't hurt you.
  • tinkermommc
    tinkermommc Posts: 562 Member
    Options
    Sounds about right. If I swim I have to bump up my calories at every meal that day, so if I do anything with the kids on top of a swim I can't eat all my calories back. I second what everyone else says(well except the guy that makes me think I shouldn't exercise and should take up channel surfing...) don't worry about today. Just keep it in mind for the future :-) Great burns BTW!!
  • MzMandi1025
    MzMandi1025 Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    Thanks for all the responses. I knew that MFP either over estimates or understimates. My speed varied, I think the speed it gives you for a stroll is 2.5. We weren't moving every single minuet. We did take some breaks here & there, I was carrying a backpack that had about 10lbs worth of stuff in it & it was hotter than Hades, we live in Az & at times I had to chase after my 3 1/2 year old. I'm gonna log about 1/2 the time we were out & I don't plan on eating those calories back, but I'll take into consideration the little bit of wiggle room I now have. Next time, I'll wear my monitor. Lol.
    Thanks again with all the responses!
  • wolfchild59
    wolfchild59 Posts: 2,608 Member
    Options
    It's hard without knowing your stats, but I highly doubt that you burned that amount in four hours. I wear a BodyMedia fit and 16 hours of walking around Disneyland, along with the other 8 hours of the day, combined, usually gives me around a 3000-3200 calorie burn. Walking around San Diego Comic Con/San Diego which doesn't have as much sitting down time as Disneyland, but about the same amount of "out of bed and on the go time" burned 3200-3800 calories on those days.

    I'm female, 32 and the weights would be different on the different trips, but it varies from about 140-155 pounds during the different times.
  • MzMandi1025
    MzMandi1025 Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    I'm 28, 5'1 & as embarassing as it is to admit, my weight is 216. It was also 85-90 degrees outside, & I was carrying a backpack with 10 lbs of stuff. I didn't even account for the backpack when I entered it it. There was a combination of liesurely walking, speed walking to catch up with my daughter & squatting for photo purposes. I knew I should have worn my heart rate monitor, I just wasn't expecting the calories burned to be THAT high according to MFP. Usually they lowball me on some of my cardio. Next weekend we're going to the zoo, so I'll wear my monitor & do a comparison.

Categories