My fitness pal? I Netted 975 cals yesterday????

[joenali]

I just started logging food 5 days ago. I have my goal set at .5 pound a week. I ate so much food yesterday, swam for 70 minutes and only netted 975 calories?? Are the calories set for workouts a tad high?? I know the most accurate way to measure calorie burn is with a hrm, but mine isn't working. I really don't think I burned 793 calories from swimming. What say you h&f??

[bluelikejazz]

Did you put in the time swimming or the distance?

You are likely a more efficient swimmer than the average person and burn less calories per 100 than the person they are calculating it for.

[joenali]

It's time based and then they give you speed ranges. I put in fast, vigorous swim
. But what does that mean? To one person it might mean, 1:05 per 100, to another it might mean 1:40 per 100. I guess I'll just wait a few more days to see if I lose weight.

[finallykrisb]

I find the calorie burns to be all over the place in MFP.

[Deleted]

Calorie burn for running is semi-accurate for me. Gym equipment/aerobics and weight lifting are all iffy.

[brittmk0922]

I was on there for awhile and found that from exercise to exercise you never knew what you were going to get.. they were all over the map!

[bluelikejazz]

I would guess that your calorie range is about right.

For running, a 10 minute mile is fairly common, and if you run for 70 minutes, that's about 700 calories. Swimming "vigorously" for 70 minutes is probably going to burn more calories than running for the same time.

You may have been closer to 650-700 for the whole workout...

[ebeth]

for running, I find that the calories are a little high than what I get from the HRM. but only like 50 cal or so. nothing major.

for yoga, the calories are way low compared to what I get from the HRM.

but this post reminds me that I have a bunch of HRM questions I wanted to ask y'all.

[emyinpink]

I don't bother with the "net" calories on my fitness pal, because I question the accuracy. I like tracking my workouts on there, but instead I set my calorie goal based on a formula, and just make sure that I'm within that range for overall calories vs. net.

[gumi]

May 15, 2012 11:38:17 GMT -5 bluelikejazz said:

I would guess that your calorie range is about right.

For running, a 10 minute mile is fairly common, and if you run for 70 minutes, that's about 700 calories. Swimming "vigorously" for 70 minutes is probably going to burn more calories than running for the same time.

You may have been closer to 650-700 for the whole workout...

the better you are at something, the more efficient you are. its a good thing, because you are faster, but you also use less fuel. there is no way i burn anything close to 100 cals per mile - but nor does it take me 10 minutes.

joenali is a great swimmer, and i bet super efficient. so, i would guess she burns less calories than i would in the pool but more cals than me when she runs.

everyone keeps saying that swimming burns a lot but i was always told that it burns less than other activities since it is not weight bearing? i really have no idea though. i am sure i burn plenty because i suck at it, haha.

[joenali]

May 15, 2012 15:17:25 GMT -5 gumi said:

May 15, 2012 11:38:17 GMT -5 bluelikejazz said:

I would guess that your calorie range is about right.

For running, a 10 minute mile is fairly common, and if you run for 70 minutes, that's about 700 calories. Swimming "vigorously" for 70 minutes is probably going to burn more calories than running for the same time.

You may have been closer to 650-700 for the whole workout...

the better you are at something, the more efficient you are. its a good thing, because you are faster, but you also use less fuel. there is no way i burn anything close to 100 cals per mile - but nor does it take me 10 minutes.

joenali is a great swimmer, and i bet super efficient. so, i would guess she burns less calories than i would in the pool but more cals than me when she runs.

everyone keeps saying that swimming burns a lot but i was always told that it burns less than other activities since it is not weight bearing? i really have no idea though. i am sure i burn plenty because i suck at it, haha.

Oh I most definitley burn more calories than you running! I am as slow as molases in January!!!

[bluelikejazz]

May 15, 2012 15:17:25 GMT -5 gumi said:

May 15, 2012 11:38:17 GMT -5 bluelikejazz said:

I would guess that your calorie range is about right.

For running, a 10 minute mile is fairly common, and if you run for 70 minutes, that's about 700 calories. Swimming "vigorously" for 70 minutes is probably going to burn more calories than running for the same time.

You may have been closer to 650-700 for the whole workout...

the better you are at something, the more efficient you are. its a good thing, because you are faster, but you also use less fuel. there is no way i burn anything close to 100 cals per mile - but nor does it take me 10 minutes.

joenali is a great swimmer, and i bet super efficient. so, i would guess she burns less calories than i would in the pool but more cals than me when she runs.

everyone keeps saying that swimming burns a lot but i was always told that it burns less than other activities since it is not weight bearing? i really have no idea though. i am sure i burn plenty because i suck at it, haha.

I agree. But if you were to run for 70 minutes, you'd probably run about 10 or 12 miles. You'd still be close to 700 calories burned in that time frame.

[bbgirl676]

May 15, 2012 15:17:25 GMT -5 gumi said:

everyone keeps saying that swimming burns a lot but i was always told that it burns less than other activities since it is not weight bearing?

From what I understand, although it's not weight bearing, the resistance of the water makes it actually more difficult, for most people. It's why you can get a workout (and build muscles) in the water. At least, that's what I was taught in my nutrition and dietetics classes.

I will admit it's been awhile and I could be wrong.

[smiley]

I have been using MFP on and off for over a year and the general consensus on their message board is that the calories burned working out are way higher than they should be. I have used a heart rate monitor and burned a lot less than what MFP said I would.