calorie counter correct?

[PeterO]

Fitbit says I mostly burn around 2400 cal a day, but My Fitnesspal (a really good food/calorie tracker says intake is around 1200 cal. One of them must be wrong. Any experience with this combo?
Thanks.

[SunsetRunner]

---

@PeterO wrote:
Fitbit says I mostly burn around 2400 cal a day, but My Fitnesspal (a really good food/calorie tracker says intake is around 1200 cal. One of them must be wrong. Any experience with this combo?
Thanks.

---

Depending on your gender and height (let's say male at average height) you have a resting metabolic

rate of about 2,000 calories per day (that's if you sleep all day). So, you would "burn" 2,400 per day.

The "calorie tracker" may be measuring your food intake, and that could be 1,200 per day, on days

you don't eat much. Calories used (being alive plus exercise) are not the same as calories eaten.

[kelfran]

Do you have MFP set to 'sedentary'? If so, then it is only accounting for your resting metabolism calories (the ones you burn by being alive for 24 hours). On top of that, MFP will subtract out a set # of calories based on what your specified weight loss rate is (0.5lb/week, 1.0lb/week, etc.) I thought I was pretty sedentary when I first got on MFP, but turns out I move around and use more calories than I realized. THis might account for the discrepancy, since the Fitbit presumably 'knows' how active you really are.

[Heybales]

---

@PeterO wrote:
Fitbit says I mostly burn around 2400 cal a day, but My Fitnesspal (a really good food/calorie tracker says intake is around 1200 cal. One of them must be wrong. Any experience with this combo?
Thanks.

---

Do you actually have them synced?

Because if you do, then MFP will correct daily burn to match whatever Fitbit provides, take off the deficit (which you still could have made unwisely high for amount to lose), and increase your daily goal correctly.

Then again, for heavy app users of MFP and Fitbit, syncing is a bit sketchy now.

Look at your Exercise Diary tab, should be a Fitbit calorie adjustment, and the "i" for more info should show the time and amount of last update from Fitbit.

If not within 100 calories of current Fitbit daily burn - you got issues.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-a...

[PeterO]

Thanks for replies. Don't quite understand how calories burned and eaten are not the same? In simplified terms I would assume that a balance would be the norm, at least for constant weight. Only food can bring in calories.

Did not know MFP and fitbit can sync. Good idea.

To clarify,I only use fitbit for activity tracker and do not enter any info manually e.g. food and exercises. I use MFP only for tracking food intake. So therefore ideally the burn calories from fitbit should be more or less equal to the food intake from MFP. Or what?

[SunsetRunner]

---

@PeterO wrote:
"So therefore ideally the burn calories fromfitbit should be more or less equal to the food intake fromMFP. Or what?"

---

Not really. If you did 1,000 calories of exercise and had a base metabolic rate of 2,000 calories, then

your "burn calories" would be a total of 3,000. If you had low "food intake" it could be 1,500 calories.

The calories in (food) don't equal the calories out (base rate plus exercise).

[bdaniels04]

Calories burned are the calories you expend during exercise as well as the low, constant level your body burns as you go throughout your regular every day activities. Your body has to burn calories for energy so you are constantly burning something. Calories taken in are calories that you've eaten or drank. Calories are not just in food, they are also in any sodas you might drink that are not "zero", any flavored waters that aren't zero, juices, milk, tea, hot chocolate, etc. That is how they are not the same, one is what you are burning from simply being alive plus any additional from physical activity, the other is from everything within the parameters of your intake for the day. Hope this helps.

[wildfern]

I believe I read once that if all you did was breathe for 24 hours you would still burn appx. 1200 calories.  When I get up in the morning my tracker says I have burned 400 calories and I have done absolutely nothing  I think that's why a lot, well most, diet plans that have come out over the years have you restricting to 1200-1800 calories a day.  It's a basic metabolic need

[kelfran]

---

@wildfern wrote:

I believe I read once that if all you did was breathe for 24 hours you would still burn appx. 1200 calories.  When I get up in the morning my tracker says I have burned 400 calories and I have done absolutely nothing  I think that's why a lot, well most, diet plans that have come out over the years have you restricting to 1200-1800 calories a day.  It's a basic metabolic need

---

Yes, that is exactly right. It varies based on your body mass, but is typically between 1200-1700 calories/day for basic metabolic use (staying alive). If you fall below this basic metabolic calorie intake (I've heard of people on a 'strict 800 calories/day' ), then it is not terribly healthy for your muscles and organs. You can do serious harm by chronically undercuting calories by more than 1/3 of your total needs each day.

Interestingly, I read an article a couple years back that showed that a slight caloric deficit in ape diets was correlated with an increase in longevity. I don't know if the researchers concluded a causation on that though, so better to just eat healthy foods toward your full calorie allottment. I don't like that MFP only rewards you for being under your calorie goal for the day by posting it on your wall. I wish that they gave credit for coming within +/- 100 cal of your target. 

[wildfern]

I saw a group of people several years ago on one of those magazine news shows that believed in chronic restriction of calories. They profiled a husband and wife.  The husband stayed around 1400 a day, the wife at 1200.  They claimed they were healthier and had more energy and stellar labs. They were both thin. Personally, I don't know how anyone could build or maintain muscle on that.  We naturally lose 2% muscle mass a year after the age of 35 or so.  If something isn't done to offset this loss we get weak, flabby, and old. Exercising, staying active and eliminating processed food is what I believe in, as well as taking in above the recommended amount of protein grams per day.  Link to the CR website:  http://www.longevitydiet.info

[Heybales]

---

@kelfran wrote:

Interestingly, I read an article a couple years back that showed that a slight caloric deficit in ape diets was correlated with an increase in longevity. I don't know if the researchers concluded a causation on that though, so better to just eat healthy foods toward your full calorie allottment. I don't like that MFP only rewards you for being under your calorie goal for the day by posting it on your wall. I wish that they gave credit for coming within +/- 100 cal of your target. 

---

Several animal studies like that, more than slight deficit though.

Basically it did exactly what studies show happens to dieters - it slows the metabolism and daily burn down.

That might be great living life and making it slightly longer that way if you don't enjoy food that much and already at goal weight -  but it's a bear to try to lose weight that way.

Yes, so many aspects of MFP encourage undereating or confusion to make it happen, but then they have recently increased warnings about it too.

But you know, cause more weight loss no matter what it is exactly the first 1-2 months, they got you hooked for ad dollars. The fact you have issues because of that for 6-9 months just means you stick around trying to figure it out, more ad dollars.

[Heybales]

---

@wildfern wrote:

I believe I read once that if all you did was breathe for 24 hours you would still burn appx. 1200 calories.  When I get up in the morning my tracker says I have burned 400 calories and I have done absolutely nothing  I think that's why a lot, well most, diet plans that have come out over the years have you restricting to 1200-1800 calories a day.  It's a basic metabolic need

---

Called BMR, and it's different for people, based on surface area and heat lost, and what the body is doing, and size of main metabolic organs.

Most people it's higher than 1200. A 40 yr old female 120 lbs and 5' 4" is about 1200 for comparison.

The 1200 actually came about from some simple research on average diets and what it took in calories to get the minimum daily requirements in following the general eating guidelines, for the average sized guy and gal.

You can of course reach those guidelines on less calories if you work hard enough, and you could totally miss them eating 2 x as much also.

And of course a bigger body needs more, smaller body needs less - hence the reason why they are different for male and female, the average body size is different.

But just as those nutritients are to help you not become vitamin or mineral deficient in some way and have negative side-effects, there are calorie levels too that are pretty person specific depending on activity level and their BMR.

You can just as easily become too calorie deficient with some other negative side-effects.

[TandemWalker]

BMRs are different for men and women, not so much because men are generally bigger in size, which of course will indeed be a factor; but primarily because men usually have a greater muscle mass and a lower body fat percentage than women; thus the higher basal metabolic rate for men. Women who seriously persue bodybuilding for example will eventually achieve a BMR burn a lot closer to their male cohorts, in spite of their smaller frame.

    TW     

(If this tip solved the problem for you, please mark this post solved, as this will be helpful to other users experiencing similar issues.)