Link?join the footballguys group
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=630239&st=0Link?join the footballguys group
I think the running should be lower than 878 too. But calorie counters in general are notoriously inaccurate so I wouldn't put much stock in any of them.I do disagree with some of their estimates for burning calories for different exercises.For example, if I lift weights for 60 minutes, it's saying I'll burn 293 calories.If I run for 60 minutes at a 5.2 mph pace, it's saying I'll burn 878.I'm not saying that the two should be even, but the weight lifting calories should definitely be higher than 293.
It gives Pringles a C- grade? Oh come on!another good app to use is Fooducate. Using the bar code scanner to get the grades for some of the grocery store items I pick up is pretty eye opening.
Ive found their exercise estimates to be way too high.I do disagree with some of their estimates for burning calories for different exercises.For example, if I lift weights for 60 minutes, it's saying I'll burn 293 calories.If I run for 60 minutes at a 5.2 mph pace, it's saying I'll burn 878.I'm not saying that the two should be even, but the weight lifting calories should definitely be higher than 293.
That running estimate is high (at ~180lbs you'd burn roughly 110 calories per mile, so it should be around 570 calories for the run), but the weight lifting estimate is high as well. If you think lifting weights even comes close to burning as many calories as running then you're sorely mistaken.Weight training will help in the long run as added muscle does increase your metabolism a bit, but from a pure calorie burn perspective the two aren't even close. Plus, increased metabolism (and weight-lifting in general) is going to make you eat more anyway.I do disagree with some of their estimates for burning calories for different exercises.For example, if I lift weights for 60 minutes, it's saying I'll burn 293 calories.If I run for 60 minutes at a 5.2 mph pace, it's saying I'll burn 878.I'm not saying that the two should be even, but the weight lifting calories should definitely be higher than 293.
On your first pt, I am there right now. I can tell you how many calories are in 90% of foods without even looking them up now. I still use the site but often times I find myself only logging breakfast & lunch so I know how many calories I have left for dinnerOn your second point, this is so true. I try to eat around 600 calories for dinner. If one day Im craving pizza, I'll only eat 2 slice and thatll be 700 calories. As long as I dont eat a 3rd slice (which I used to do) or anything else for dinner its not even like a cheat meal.I used it for a few months and it worked great. It gives you awesome perspective on how many calories are in things. I don't even need to use it anymore, just what I learned with a few months of using it has totally turned my lifestyle around. Now I just go around inwardly laughing/scoffing at the people that think they're being "healthy" and really aren't. A lot of people go to Subway because it's a "healthy" place but probably 95% of the things I see people order in there are worse for you than a Big Mac, with many of them being 2x as many calories or more for something that "seems" healthy.
It also gives you some good insight on stuff that can satisfy your cravings without destroying you. A Big Mac isn't *that* bad for you. It's when you combine it with fries and a 32oz soda or milkshake that things really get out of hand. To satisfy my burger cravings every couple of weeks I'll grab a bag of baked lays and grab a Big Mac with it for lunch. ~800 calories for a "cheat" meal that puts that greasy burger urge back at bay is a great deal.
The iPhone version of the app also gives you a pretty cool graph that really helps (my wife has an Android phone and couldn't find that option on the Android version of the app). It's really good because the graph turns red when you're failing your goal and that really calls out to your competitive spirit to get your #### in check and get that graph green again.
I usually weight lift for a half hour and estimate about 100 caloriesThat running estimate is high (at ~180lbs you'd burn roughly 110 calories per mile, so it should be around 570 calories for the run), but the weight lifting estimate is high as well. If you think lifting weights even comes close to burning as many calories as running then you're sorely mistaken.Weight training will help in the long run as added muscle does increase your metabolism a bit, but from a pure calorie burn perspective the two aren't even close. Plus, increased metabolism (and weight-lifting in general) is going to make you eat more anyway.I do disagree with some of their estimates for burning calories for different exercises.For example, if I lift weights for 60 minutes, it's saying I'll burn 293 calories.If I run for 60 minutes at a 5.2 mph pace, it's saying I'll burn 878.I'm not saying that the two should be even, but the weight lifting calories should definitely be higher than 293.
Sentfeel free to friend request meshadyridr@yahoo.com
Well it also depends on your level of effort. If you're running at a 5.2mph pace and your heart rate is 170 you are working harder i.e. burning more calories than if you are the same pace and your heart rate is 120. It's tough to blanket calories because everyone is so different and at different spots in their fitness cycle.The one I really like is the mowing the yard estimate or outdoor work. Those are insanely high, I typically dial them back by about 3/4 of their estimates.That running estimate is high (at ~180lbs you'd burn roughly 110 calories per mile, so it should be around 570 calories for the run), but the weight lifting estimate is high as well. If you think lifting weights even comes close to burning as many calories as running then you're sorely mistaken.Weight training will help in the long run as added muscle does increase your metabolism a bit, but from a pure calorie burn perspective the two aren't even close. Plus, increased metabolism (and weight-lifting in general) is going to make you eat more anyway.I do disagree with some of their estimates for burning calories for different exercises.For example, if I lift weights for 60 minutes, it's saying I'll burn 293 calories.If I run for 60 minutes at a 5.2 mph pace, it's saying I'll burn 878.I'm not saying that the two should be even, but the weight lifting calories should definitely be higher than 293.
Gym, always. Running is pretty close on MFP but everything else is nuts. Example, helped a guy move yesterday for 3 hrs or 180 minutes. MFP told me I burned 2466 calories. I'd have to run a marathon to burn that amount of calories.would you trust the machine at the gym for # of calories burned, or whatever it said on the myfitnesspal site? Assume gym, right? And I know neither are exact
Yep, this thing is great as long as you keep up with it. Don't slack is my biggest bit of advice. I've hit my target weight, a while ago actually, and still use this religiously everyday. Great little app for those of us that need that extra little bit of motivationThanks for the tip on this guys... looks awesome
I'm down around 10 lbs in the last month but still have about 50 to go. Every little bit helps!
I would lean towards the gym equipment number but I'd do some quick research on-line. The gym equipment tends to be off sometimes.would you trust the machine at the gym for # of calories burned, or whatever it said on the myfitnesspal site? Assume gym, right? And I know neither are exact
Much better than loseit. I used loseit for about a year, once i tried myfitnesspal i switched over.So is myfitnesspal > lose it? I used lose it and lost over 50 lbs from Jan to may. Have lost my focus some this summer and am looking to get back in track.
I wouldn't rely on either number. The whole thing is varies greatly between individuals and machines. The best way to go would probably be to get a heart rate monitor that you can program your age, weight & VO2 max into and use that.I would lean towards the gym equipment number but I'd do some quick research on-line. The gym equipment tends to be off sometimes.would you trust the machine at the gym for # of calories burned, or whatever it said on the myfitnesspal site? Assume gym, right? And I know neither are exact
The smartphone app is actually why this worked for meETA: Biggest thing for me will be just remembering to enter things throughout the day.
What's your 40 time and how much do you bench tough guy?I'm right about where I want to be at 6'3" 195lbs
It is a PITA at first but after the first week most people tend to eat the same thing so you simply pick from a list of food you've already entered. If you eat the same thing everyday for a meal you have the option to make it a "meal" on MFP and then simply choose that instead of entering everything over & over.Entering all of the data seems like a pain in the ### but since people are actually getting results I'll get it a shot.
Or you could just not cheat on exercise or the diet.It really doesn't matter which app like this you use as long as you actually use it.
I don't know but I can punch a hole through a cow.What's your 40 time and how much do you bench tough guy?I'm right about where I want to be at 6'3" 195lbs
fisting cows ain't cool, manI don't know but I can punch a hole through a cow.What's your 40 time and how much do you bench tough guy?I'm right about where I want to be at 6'3" 195lbs
I just ran across it the other day on this guys blog. The one thing I really like about it is the bar code scanner on the mobile app. That way if I buy a piece of junk food on the road I just scan it.I just downloaded it.
I just...I don't know...Damn that was funny.fisting cows ain't cool, manI don't know but I can punch a hole through a cow.What's your 40 time and how much do you bench tough guy?I'm right about where I want to be at 6'3" 195lbs