Boy, was I way off on my exercise calories!

dennis_n

I started the whole dieting and exercise routine this past summer.
Like most people, I assumed the exercising equipment overestimated my calorie burn, so I ate only about 80% of those calories back. Yet I wanted to buy a chest strap heart beat sensor to make sure I have more accurate calorie burn estimates.
So this Christmas I finally bought the Wahoo Tickr Run, and on the first tests it surprised me in a big way.
Boy was I killing myself over the summer! It gave me an average of 50% more calories burned during exercise on my magnetic wheel indoor bike and almost 95% on my treadmill!
Meaning, the treadmill said I burned 300 calories during a 40 minute fast walk on 20% incline but in reality (by the wahoo app) I burned nearly 578 calories. For a moment I thought maybe my sensor is busted, but its readings are identical to those on my indoor bike, and the Wahoo app has my data in it as well, like weight age etc.

So what are your thoughts? Should I go by the sensor/app readings from now on?

20yearsyounger

Most people do say that the exercise equipment overstate the burn. That wasn't the case for me either especially if you are over the standard 150lbs for many machines. I just went with my HRM readings but didn't eat back calories unless I needed to.

toofatnomore

Interesting...I don't have any advice...however, today I burned 501 calories on an arc trainer Tlanet fitness in 30 minutes and I really pushed...typically I am about 75 less. Now I am thinking am I needing a more accurate measure of cals burned? Thanks for the thought!

CarrieCans

I don't trust my bikes HRM the numbers go from super high to super low the whole time i am peddling. I just ordered a tracker and monitor so i can't wait to see the difference. When it finally arrives....

JeffseekingV

If the cardio machines have a provision to input your weight and age, it gets a bit more accurate. As said, if you are heavier than the machine's default, it will register low. Which is fine for me

MeanderingMammal

dennis_n wrote: »

Meaning, the treadmill said I burned 300 calories during a 40 minute fast walk on 20% incline but in reality (by the wahoo app) I burned nearly 578 calories. For a moment I thought maybe my sensor is busted, but its readings are identical to those on my indoor bike, and the Wahoo app has my data in it as well, like weight age etc

I'm on my tablet so can't see your current weight, but even 300 cals strikes me as high for what you describe.

I don't have a simulator for Wahoo and don't know how the algorithms compare to others, but It would take me over an hour of running to burn 600 cals. I suspect you were right to reduce the quantities that you were replenishing.

The key test is your rate of weight loss though. If it was on plan, stick with what you were doing, ahead of plan then possibly increase your recovery consumption.

DawnieB1977

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

dennis_n wrote: »

Meaning, the treadmill said I burned 300 calories during a 40 minute fast walk on 20% incline but in reality (by the wahoo app) I burned nearly 578 calories. For a moment I thought maybe my sensor is busted, but its readings are identical to those on my indoor bike, and the Wahoo app has my data in it as well, like weight age etc

I'm on my tablet so can't see your current weight, but even 300 cals strikes me as high for what you describe.

I don't have a simulator for Wahoo and don't know how the algorithms compare to others, but It would take me over an hour of running to burn 600 cals. I suspect you were right to reduce the quantities that you were replenishing.

The key test is your rate of weight loss though. If it was on plan, stick with what you were doing, ahead of plan then possibly increase your recovery consumption.

I agree with this. I'd burn around 300 calories doing a 5K run, so the 300 calorie burn for your 40 minute walk sounds more likely than over 500.

How has your weight loss been while using the previous calorie burns?

Mr_Knight

dennis_n wrote: »

Meaning, the treadmill said I burned 300 calories during a 40 minute fast walk on 20% incline but in reality (by the wahoo app) I burned nearly 578 calories.

There are a billion threads on MFP explaining why HRMs will give vastly over-estimated burn readings for exercises like walking.

Go with the lower number, at most.

autumnblade75

All of you who are suggesting 300 calories is a big burn for a 40 minute walk - are you glossing over the 20% incline? My favorite calculator indicates that you'd have to be under 90 lbs. to burn that few. http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html I'm assuming a 3mph pace (because that's how slow I have to walk with the treadmill angled that high) but speed would influence results. At that same pace, a 578 calorie burn would be typical of an individual weighing 172 lbs.

Mr_Knight

The rule of thumb is 1 calorie per 1 metre of elevation change per 100kg of body weight. If the OP could tell us how far he walked, we could work out a good number for the added work of the 20% incline.

At that same pace, a 578 calorie burn would be typical of an individual weighing 172 lbs.

for the base distance -> 0.3 * 172 * (3*40/60) -> ~100 calories

for the elevation change @20% -> (172/220 * ((40/60* 1600) * 0.2)) -> ~166

Total -> 100 + 166 -> ~270 calories net burn.

kathleennf

Here's my 2 cents. I have been on MFP for 4 years. I eat back all my exercise calories. I use the estimates from the machines at the gym when I use the machines at the gym. For dog walking, weight lifting, and yoga I use whatever MFP estimates. They have all been right on target for me. I either lost weight at an appropriate rate (when I had my calories set to lose weight), or maintained my weight. I have 4 years of good data. But yes- I weigh under 150 lb!

mrprytania

Mr_Knight wrote: »

There are a billion threads on MFP explaining why HRMs will give vastly over-estimated burn readings for exercises like walking.

Go with the lower number, at most.

Yes, they can give off readings if you're not working out with the exercise it was calibrated for.

I use a Polar HRM, a Garmin, and compare them with cardio equipment or other known units of measure (ex: seems that to run a mile always costs about 100 calories as a rule of thumb.) That is what tells me what devices I can trust to note progress over time or intensity at the moment.

You can use your numbers to judge the intensity of your workout from one week to the next and to note progress and increases in levels of fitness.

If one of your devices tells you on a given exercise that you burned 600 calories and the other says 300 calories then what does your scale tell you later after a week of them? If you're eating the 300 and really burning the 600 you'll still slowly lose. If you are really burning the 300 and are eating the 600 then you'll slowly gain. The truth is out there.

I'd say forget the calorie numbers as far as diet is concerned (ie don't eat them) and record them only to feel great about your progress of active health and to push yourself to do better. Pick the unit that seems the most consistent for your activities and have fun.

autumnblade75

Mr_Knight wrote: »

The rule of thumb is 1 calorie per 1 metre of elevation change per 100kg of body weight. If the OP could tell us how far he walked, we could work out a good number for the added work of the 20% incline.

At that same pace, a 578 calorie burn would be typical of an individual weighing 172 lbs.

for the base distance -> 0.3 * 172 * (3*40/60) -> ~100 calories

for the elevation change @20% -> (172/220 * ((40/60* 1600) * 0.2)) -> ~166

Total -> 100 + 166 -> ~270 calories net burn.

I don't understand your elevation change math. What do you calculate for the elevation change? I get 2112 feet, converted to 643.74 meters. (2 miles walked, for the 40 minutes, assuming 3mph) So, 644 * 172/220 = 503. That's a little less than my calculator gives me, but not as far off as your 270 figure. Oh, wait - is that supposed to be a differential on top of the calories burned to walk the same distance on flat land? In that case: 503 + 126 = 629. That's only off by about 50 calories from what my calculator says (but roughly double what you've calculated) but I have no idea what that first equation is even supposed to represent.

Your way seems very complicated, especially with the first equation using weight in pounds and the second using kilograms. What, specifically, are the 0.3 and the 3*40/60 all about? I don't understand why you're multiplying by 1600, either. I know that's how many meters in a mile, and I figure the 40/60 is representing time, and the .2 for incline, right? I don't think you're doing the math right, though. 2/3 of an hour times the number of meters in a mile times weight in units of 100kg isn't the equation you describe. I think the thing you've actually calculated is the number of calories per mile? In which case 270*2 = 540 which is right in the ballpark.

dennis_n

DawnieB1977 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

dennis_n wrote: »

Meaning, the treadmill said I burned 300 calories during a 40 minute fast walk on 20% incline but in reality (by the wahoo app) I burned nearly 578 calories. For a moment I thought maybe my sensor is busted, but its readings are identical to those on my indoor bike, and the Wahoo app has my data in it as well, like weight age etc

I'm on my tablet so can't see your current weight, but even 300 cals strikes me as high for what you describe.

I don't have a simulator for Wahoo and don't know how the algorithms compare to others, but It would take me over an hour of running to burn 600 cals. I suspect you were right to reduce the quantities that you were replenishing.

The key test is your rate of weight loss though. If it was on plan, stick with what you were doing, ahead of plan then possibly increase your recovery consumption.

I agree with this. I'd burn around 300 calories doing a 5K run, so the 300 calorie burn for your 40 minute walk sounds more likely than over 500.

How has your weight loss been while using the previous calorie burns?

I with the previous calorie calculations from my exercise equipment, I eventually hit a plateau after 22 pounds (couldn't lose anymore no matter what)and kinda gave up on the diet and exercise for a while, then for the next 4 months without counting food portions or doing exercise, I didn't add a single pound. Seriously it doesn't make any sense.

dennis_n

So if people think that 300 cal burn on 40 minute walk/jog on the treadmil is a lot, then why is my heart monitor calculating way over that? My main point for this thread was to evaluate whether my heart monitor and its app calculates my calorie burn accurately. Cause everyone says you get better readings by knowing what how fast your heart is beating etc.

jlahorn

dennis_n wrote: »

So if people think that 300 cal burn on 40 minute walk/jog on the treadmil is a lot, then why is my heart monitor calculating way over that? My main point for this thread was to evaluate whether my heart monitor and its app calculates my calorie burn accurately. Cause everyone says you get better readings by knowing what how fast your heart is beating etc.

HRMs, while better than nothing and (usually) much better than estimates on the machines or in apps, are still far from perfect.

Here's how you tell if your old counts or your new HRM counts are more accurate:
You say you've been tracking since summer and eating 80% of your exercise calories back.

For every ~3500 calories of deficit, did you lose a pound? If so, then the old numbers were probably closer to correct.
For every ~3500 calories of deficit, did you lose MORE than a pound? If so, then the new numbers were probably closer to correct.

I'm with everybody who's telling you that those new counts sound really high, though. If I were you, I might call the company and see if there's something wrong with the calibration. Sorry to be a downer, but unless you're like 7 feet and 400 lbs, 578 calories for a 40 minute inclined walk sounds super high.

MeanderingMammal

dennis_n wrote: »

So if people think that 300 cal burn on 40 minute walk/jog on the treadmil is a lot, then why is my heart monitor calculating way over that? My main point for this thread was to evaluate whether my heart monitor and its app calculates my calorie burn accurately. Cause everyone says you get better readings by knowing what how fast your heart is beating etc.

Notwithstanding the point I made upthread about how your progress was, and reinforced in more detail immediately above, HRMs have an effective range of operation.

If ones HR is below the effective range then the algorithms that extimate calorie expenditure are accounting for far more of your BMR than they're designed for, and if the HR is too high then one is working in a range where HR isn't a meaningful proxy for calorie expenditure.

Identifying the correct range for the HRM to be meaningful within accurately depends on knowing ones maximum heart rate using something far more reliable than 220-age, and understanding lactate threshold and resting heart rate. MHR and lactate threshold are best determined in a lab for these purposes.

For me, a fast walk won't give me more than 105bpm, so never enough to get a meaningful calorie expenditure figure. It'll be too high.

To put the point about 220-age in perspective, using that formula my MHR would be 176 bpm. The highest I've recorded was in excess of 200 bpm during a sprint intervals session. A tempo run will generally get me into the 160-170 range for 20-30 minutes at a time. Anything using 220-age as the basis, even including my weight, build etc, will be well out.

It's a question of recognising the strengths and weaknesses of the tools in use. An HRM can be a useful training aid, but as a means of estimating calorie expenditure it has a fairly narrow range of useful operability.

autumnblade75

@dennis_n: I still think that 300 is LOW for a 40 minute brisk walk on a 20% incline. I don't think anyone is taking how steep that is into consideration. On flat land, 300 calories might be a little high, depending on your weight and speed. I tend to burn only 57 calories per mile on flat land, walking. I might be able to sustain 4mph for 40 minutes, which would still be less than 3 miles, and under 170 calories. That's at 155 lbs.

JoRocka

dennis_n wrote: »

So if people think that 300 cal burn on 40 minute walk/jog on the treadmil is a lot, then why is my heart monitor calculating way over that? My main point for this thread was to evaluate whether my heart monitor and its app calculates my calorie burn accurately. Cause everyone says you get better readings by knowing what how fast your heart is beating etc.

You're assuming it's a direct correlation- the reality is you could have just been scared sh!tless- and technically because your heart is racing- you burned a lot of calories.

It's an algorithm. It's to help correlate- but it does not mean it's a direct 1 to 1 thing. Which is why people play it safe.

Ultimately in the end the only one you're 'cheating' is yourself. When you come back in 3-4 month and wonder why you don't have any results- well- here's the answer.

20yearsyounger

This calculator doesn't even go up to 20% but 15% still gives a fairly high number compared to level.

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

autumnblade75

20yearsyounger wrote: »

This calculator doesn't even go up to 20% but 15% still gives a fairly high number compared to level.

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

That calculator gives gross calories, rather than net. http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html This calculator will give either, and also works for running, as well as walking. And you can calculate a 20% incline.