Actual calories burned: best tracking method?

exstromn
exstromn Posts: 176 Member
edited November 11 in Fitness and Exercise
I have read that people often overestimate calories burned by relying on sometimes inaccurate or inflated numbers provided by mfp or fit bit etc. I am looking for a simple answer if there is one. Would a heart rate monitor do this? I'm looking for solid info to use for actual calories burned to track my activity better. Something not super expensive, something water proof not just water resistant that you have used and actually works. My main activities are walking and swimming. Thanks!

Replies

  • hill8570
    hill8570 Posts: 1,466 Member
    Based on experience over the past year, it really doesn't matter for any typical exercise schedule. Unlike a lot of people, I've found that a HRM tends to seriously overestimate my burns, and the MFP burns correlate well with my weight loss. Basically, pick a method you can use every time, don't eat back the calories at first, and if you're losing too fast, start eating back some percentage of your burns. Trying to get more analytical than that assumes that the numbers (both calories in and calories out) are w-a-a-a-a-y more precise than they are in practice.
  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    I find that MFP overestimates my actual burn by as many as 100 calories, so I went out and purchased a Polar HRM. My Polar FT 7 while not 100% either, tends to give a more accurate burn rate. MFP and other sites don't know how hard you are actually working out or what your HR is.
  • successgal1
    successgal1 Posts: 996 Member
    I'm finding that mfp is underestimating for me, assuming the online calorie burn/heart rate calculation I found is accurate.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    successgal1 wrote: »
    ...assuming the online calorie burn/heart rate calculation I found is accurate.

    It's not.

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    A lab.

    Outside of that the rest are just estimates. HRMs have limitations. They are useful for steady state moderate intensity cardio activity.

    I had no problem losing with MFP's calorie estimates.

    There is no one method outside of a lab that is going to be "most" accurate for a wide variety of activities. They are all just starting points. Pick something to follow, track progress and adjust as necessary.

    Here are a couple of blogs that may help answer some questions for you.

    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

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak?month=201201
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    exstromn wrote: »
    My main activities are walking and swimming. Thanks!

    An HRM wouldn't help you with walking, with swimming it depends how you're swimming. For say 3-4km per hour front crawl, then yes, for leisurely breast stroke, then no.

    They're optimised to work on steady state aerobic level activity.

    fwiw most people saying that MFP is wrong and advocating an HRM are just substituting one wrong value for a different wrong value.

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    exstromn wrote: »
    My main activities are walking and swimming. Thanks!

    An HRM wouldn't help you with walking, with swimming it depends how you're swimming. For say 3-4km per hour front crawl, then yes, for leisurely breast stroke, then no.

    They're optimised to work on steady state aerobic level activity.

    fwiw most people saying that MFP is wrong and advocating an HRM are just substituting one wrong value for a different wrong value.

    All of this.

    Walking estimates are pretty well established. As long as you know time and distance, you can get a pretty good estimate from activity tables (explained in the link above).

    For swimming - most HRMs do not work in water. Yes, many are 'waterproof' but that does not mean they transmit signal in water. I think there might be one or two that do, if any.
  • 47Jacqueline
    47Jacqueline Posts: 6,993 Member
    I use a Polar FT7 heart rate monitor for cardio. It only works for walking if you're doing a zippity pace. I actually don't know if it's waterproof. If anyone reads this and knows - PM me, please.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    For swimming - most HRMs do not work in water. Yes, many are 'waterproof' but that does not mean they transmit signal in water. I think there might be one or two that do, if any.

    My FT60 did, I think polar generally do. The problem I had with the FT60, and previous polars was that with a good training pace the heart rate pod didn't stay in place, it would always end up around my waist after a couple of lengths.
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    edited February 2015
    I just use the numbers from whichever cardio machine I'm on, but you can also just take your pulse & get your heart rate - get it a few times so you have an average:

    http://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/heart/prevention/exercise/pulse-target-heart-rate

    and then go here to get the calories burned from that:

    http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html

    ***
    whoa. I just checked my burn from my bike session today... machine said 150 cals for 35 mins; calories burned by heart rate (which ranged from 149 to 155) using the method above = 499 calories. will continue to log the machine's numbers!
  • successgal1
    successgal1 Posts: 996 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    successgal1 wrote: »
    ...assuming the online calorie burn/heart rate calculation I found is accurate.

    It's not.

    Oh really wowza! Thanks for such a thorough and complete answer! Why even bother responding? Troll.
  • hill8570
    hill8570 Posts: 1,466 Member
    successgal1 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    successgal1 wrote: »
    ...assuming the online calorie burn/heart rate calculation I found is accurate.

    It's not.

    Oh really wowza! Thanks for such a thorough and complete answer! Why even bother responding? Troll.

    Not trolling, just very terse. Treating an HRM-derived calorie burn or a burn derived from a single heart rate measurement as somehow "more accurate" than a burn estimate extrapolated from a MET database (aka, the MFP estimated burn) is fantasy. If you are lucky (or rich), you can get your oxygen consumption measured while you are exercising and get a pretty accurate measurement for the amount of energy you're burning while doing that particular exercise at that particular point in time. For the rest of us, we get to start with an estimated energy intake (and, yes, even with weighing of everything that goes into our mouths, our energy intake has a pretty wide error band), an estimated base metabolic burn (again, with a very wide error band), and an estimated exercise / movement burn (with, yet again, a very wide error band). So, with all of these numbers with giant uncertainties, why are we even bothering to track them? Because, although they have low absolute accuracy, their relative accuracy for a given individual is quite a bit better, so once you have a month or two under your belt, you have a pretty good idea what a given deficit translates into for weight loss for you. How you track isn't that important -- what's important is that you do it consistently and compare it to your real-world results.

    The long and the short of it: track your estimated calories; track your burn (both exercise and not), compare your weight loss over time to the estimated one, and adjust either calories or burn over time to calibrate things for your situation.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories