What is the best way to track calories burned during a work out?

kaylabean92

I have read many different forums stating that you cannot depend on machines to tell you how many calories you have burned during a work out, which I understand. Now, I am a newbie and I am just now starting food logging to track my calories. I want to eventually get an elliptical machine or something so I can do some cardio exercises. I also want to know exactly how many calories I am burning so I don't under-eat each day. I am current consuming anywhere from 1200-1500 calories a day currently, because I am not exercising. How do I track calories from a work out and determine how many calories I should consume from food to do some exercising? Thanks!

debubbie

I use a polar heart rate monitor and the Polar Beat app on my phone to track the calories that I burn during a workout. I find that it is more accurate than the machines and way more accurate than the calories burned estimates that MFP gives you when you log it into your diary.

I hope this helps! You can add me as a friend if you would like.

47Jacqueline

A heart monitor is the most accurate for workouts and an activity tracker or pedometer for steps. The calorie counts on workouts in activity trackers are as inaccurate as the ones on MFP. I have a Polar F7 and a Jawbone Up.

kaylabean92

Thank you both for the advice! I will definitely make that purchase

morkiemama

Just wanted to share some info :

HRMs are for tracking steady state cardio only. It is important to note that HRMs are not accurate for weight lifting and will not give you an accurate burn. They are also not meant for HIIT. Temperature extremes and daily burn tracking (e.g. I wear it all day to find out what I should be taking in) are also inaccurate. HRMs are for steady state aerobic exercise only!

This is a helpful blog post for understanding HRMs:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

HRMs are not 100% accurate even when they are used for their intended purpose (steady state cardio). They still have a margin of error. That being said, when HRMs are used for purposes they are not intended for they can become grossly inaccurate. It really isn't much better than pulling a number out of nowhere if the device is being used for things it was never designed to handle.

I personally have both a Bodymedia Fit (for daily activity tracking) and a HRM (for my steady state cardio). I love them both! However, it is important to know what these devices are actually designed to track. They are very helpful when they are used correctly!

gruffdris

I use a power meter for cycling but hrm is going to be more accurate than with out

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/how-accurate-is-that-calorie-reading

999tigger

Whats been said hrm for steady state cardio, but the ultimate test in terms of weight loss and effectiveness on your calorie deficit is the scale. Monitor loss on that and adjust. In the meantime play with eating none of your calories back and a %, so that you can see the difference and adjust. You can and should also use other measures i.e tape, visual, performance etc.

I'd say a more important target is to exercise regularly and keep up duration and effort. As morkie saud its a tool and should be used correctly.

WalkingAlong

Nothing will 'track' or tell you 'exactly how many you burned'. All the tools are just estimators. You don't need to have excellent estimates. Let your results be your guide. If you're not losing, you're overestimating calories burned or underestimating intake. You can change A or B, same result.

Mr_Knight

Step 1: Determine out how far you can run in 30 minutes.
Step 2: Calculate base burn calories for your run (0.65 * weight in pounds * miles run)
Step 3: Scale for your activity using the appropriate MET factor and adjusting for exercise time.

If you aren't fit enough to run for 30 minutes, don't eat back any exercise calories.

sijomial

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Step 1: Determine out how far you can run in 30 minutes.
Step 2: Calculate base burn calories for your run (0.65 * weight in pounds * miles run)
Step 3: Scale for your activity using the appropriate MET factor and adjusting for exercise time.

If you aren't fit enough to run for 30 minutes, don't eat back any exercise calories.

The bit in bold is a completely weird idea.
The whole idea of calorie counting is to achieve the correct calorie balance to achieve your goals, so you need to attempt to track both input and output - applying some completely random fitness qualification is frankly bizarre.

Maybe someone who isn't fit enough to run 30 minutes but can walk briskly for several hours would be an example of how silly that statement is.

Mr_Knight

sijomial wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Step 1: Determine out how far you can run in 30 minutes.
Step 2: Calculate base burn calories for your run (0.65 * weight in pounds * miles run)
Step 3: Scale for your activity using the appropriate MET factor and adjusting for exercise time.

If you aren't fit enough to run for 30 minutes, don't eat back any exercise calories.

The bit in bold is a completely weird idea.
The whole idea of calorie counting is to achieve the correct calorie balance to achieve your goals, so you need to attempt to track both input and output - applying some completely random fitness qualification is frankly bizarre.

The reason for it is that someone not fit enough to run (not walk - run) for 30 minutes is highly unlikely to be generating a meaningful caloric burn anyway, so it generally becomes an exercise in how far they overestimate. It's an extremely common occurrence on MFP, so the least-wrong option is usually to just not eat them back.

Maybe someone who isn't fit enough to run 30 minutes but can walk briskly for several hours would be an example of how silly that statement is.

The percentage of people who can't (*can't*) run for 30 minutes but regularly hike for multiple hours is extremely small. What is silly is basing general rules on outliers...also an extremely common occurrence on MFP.

sijomial

Mr_Knight wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Step 1: Determine out how far you can run in 30 minutes.
Step 2: Calculate base burn calories for your run (0.65 * weight in pounds * miles run)
Step 3: Scale for your activity using the appropriate MET factor and adjusting for exercise time.

If you aren't fit enough to run for 30 minutes, don't eat back any exercise calories.

The bit in bold is a completely weird idea.
The whole idea of calorie counting is to achieve the correct calorie balance to achieve your goals, so you need to attempt to track both input and output - applying some completely random fitness qualification is frankly bizarre.

The reason for it is that someone not fit enough to run (not walk - run) for 30 minutes is highly unlikely to be generating a meaningful caloric burn anyway, so it generally becomes an exercise in how far they overestimate. It's an extremely common occurrence on MFP, so the least-wrong option is usually to just not eat them back.

Maybe someone who isn't fit enough to run 30 minutes but can walk briskly for several hours would be an example of how silly that statement is.

The percentage of people who can't (*can't*) run for 30 minutes but regularly hike for multiple hours is extremely small. What is silly is basing general rules on outliers...also an extremely common occurrence on MFP.

So if someone walks an hour a day for exercise you don't think 7 hours of exercise (which is extremely simple to estimate a reliable burn for) is significant over the course of a week?

Or how about someone that lifts heavy, or cycles or swims but doesn't or can't run?

And you think not eating back exercise calories applies equally well to those on a small calorie allowance or have a small amount of weight to lose as others with a large calorie allowance and a whole load of weight to lose?

Mr_Knight

sijomial wrote: »

So if someone walks an hour a day for exercise you don't think 7 hours of exercise (which is extremely simple to estimate a reliable burn for) is significant over the course of a week?

160 pounds * 3 mile walk -> ~170 calorie net burn

No, it's not worth bothering with, especially for anybody even slightly logging-challenged.

Or how about someone that lifts heavy, or cycles or swims but doesn't or can't run?

I didn't say *doesn't* run - I said *can't* run. There is a big difference...

sijomial

Mr_Knight wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

So if someone walks an hour a day for exercise you don't think 7 hours of exercise (which is extremely simple to estimate a reliable burn for) is significant over the course of a week?

160 pounds * 3 mile walk -> ~170 calorie net burn

No, it's not worth bothering with, especially for anybody even slightly logging-challenged.

Or how about someone that lifts heavy, or cycles or swims but doesn't or can't run?

I didn't say *doesn't* run - I said *can't* run. There is a big difference...

I have damaged knees - I more often than not can't run. (But I can cycle for 100 miles.)
And yes 170 cals for someone on a 1200 calorie a day allowance would be significant (14%). Especially when you start to multiply it by 7 days a week or 30 days a month.

You have a lot of weight still to lose so a large calorie deficit may be appropriate to you but that's not the same for everyone. Which is why context is needed and not blanket rules.

BWBTrish

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Step 1: Determine out how far you can run in 30 minutes.
Step 2: Calculate base burn calories for your run (0.65 * weight in pounds * miles run)
Step 3: Scale for your activity using the appropriate MET factor and adjusting for exercise time.

If you aren't fit enough to run for 30 minutes, don't eat back any exercise calories.

I cant run for 30 minutes. Not even Jog..... i walk at 3.1mph an hour and jog at the same speed 2x 10 minutes.
My Polar HT7 counts about 455 calories for that.
On top of it i do some light strength training.
150 times rowing ( 30 kilo)
50 times leg curls plus 50 times leg extensions.
and 50 times arm lifts all at 30 kilos

Total burned calories in 1.5 hour a day around the 650 to 700 ( depends on how hot it is in the gym)
Now i think my Polar HRM is over calculating ( sites say 25%) but i count 50% Just to make sure.
Is 350 burned calories. This 7 days a week.

And you think i dont have to eat back any of that???
I dont agree, my body needs nutrition after doing this.

WalkingAlong

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Step 1: Determine out how far you can run in 30 minutes.
Step 2: Calculate base burn calories for your run (0.65 * weight in pounds * miles run)
Step 3: Scale for your activity using the appropriate MET factor and adjusting for exercise time.

If you aren't fit enough to run for 30 minutes, don't eat back any exercise calories.

If that's based solely on that Runner's World article, I have serious doubts about the formulas in that for net burn.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1392879

I "can't" run 30 minutes either (due to loose knee ligaments, not lack of fitness) but I walk 20+ miles a week and lost weight fine using Fitbit TDEE estimates.

Mr_Knight

TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »

I cant run for 30 minutes. Not even Jog..... i walk at 3.1mph an hour and jog at the same speed 2x 10 minutes.
My Polar HT7 counts about 455 calories for that.

HRMs will almost always vastly over-estimate walking and short run calorie burns, that's not the purpose they're built for.

The number you've given would be the right burn for those distances if you are around 275 pounds. If you're significantly less, scale downwards accordingly.

BWBTrish

I do give in my right weight, in my polar watch and in the treadmill. Always!

WalkingAlong

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Step 1: Determine out how far you can run in 30 minutes.
Step 2: Calculate base burn calories for your run (0.65 * weight in pounds * miles run)
Step 3: Scale for your activity using the appropriate MET factor and adjusting for exercise time.

If you aren't fit enough to run for 30 minutes, don't eat back any exercise calories.

METS values for running span from 6-10 for most typical speeds.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/running

Subtract 1 for the net burn by definition, so 5-9. The formula above would give me only about 50 calories per mile (at any speed). Just looking at the slowest jog- 4mph, METS would estimate the net burn at 15BMR calories per minute times 5 METS equals 75 calories per mile net. A more typical 5mph run would be 7.3X15=110 calories/mile net.

That puts us closer to what you read so often-- around 100 calories per mile (more for the obese), which is nearly double what the RW formula estimates.