Working out calories burned for a workout
mellissaflegg
Posts: 15
I need to work out how may calories burned for a 30 minute walking dance workout I have just completed on youtube, wouldnt even know where to start when working these things out, I did the whole 30 minutes and I would say it was a little more than moderate I dont think I was swinging about quite as much as the lady in the video but I dont think I was slow by any standards 
any help would be appreciated 
any help would be appreciated 0
Replies
-
Google search "calories burned for different activities" gave many links. One was www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/lookup When I chose "Dancing, aerobic, ballet or modern, twist" and put my weight to 82 kg plus 30 minutes of that activity, it said: Calories burned: 197
These are estimates, of course. As a general rule of thumb I follow the ´sweat trail´. When my heart beats reach about 70% of my max heart rate, then I begin to sweat lightly. If I then keep that level, while eg. walking or jogging, I´ll burn circa 80 kcal per 10 minutes. It´s not much, considering that a small apple is about 90 kcal, so the real key is to reduce the food intake.0 -
Heart rate monitors are great investments. You can get them as low as $40-60. I got a little bit of a higher end one for xmas and have already used its worth a few times over.0
-
Think I may just have to invest in one of those wristband things, they seem to be so much help but until I can afford one ill probably use the google thing, thank you0
-
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
For someone 200 pounds, you're looking at somewhere around 100 calories.0 -
mellissaflegg wrote: »I need to work out how may calories burned for a 30 minute walking dance workout
Log it as circuit training or light aerobics, let MFP calculate your expenditure.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html
According to the above study, Polar HRMs overestimate energy expenditures by 25% during aerobic dance. I wouldn't call that vast, but it's significant. Garmin often scores better: 7-10% off, and HRMs are more accurate for some activities than for others. I'd take the dance HRM estimate, subtract 10-25%, and call it a day. It's a "good enough" estimate--in the same way official nutrition labels in the USA are only required to be accurate +/- 10%. I'm satisfied with my HRM, unless and until we have a more precise way and widely available way to measure calorie burns.0 -
mellissaflegg wrote: »Think I may just have to invest in one of those wristband things, they seem to be so much help but until I can afford one ill probably use the google thing, thank you
HRMs (with a chest strap) are pretty decent estimates for steady state cardio. The wrist only jobs are not as accurate....arm movements throw things off.
Just us low impact (or general) aerobics in MFP (for now)....Leslie Sansone, Jessica Smith type "walks" fit into this general category.0 -
mellissaflegg wrote: »Think I may just have to invest in one of those wristband things, they seem to be so much help but until I can afford one ill probably use the google thing, thank you
HRMs (with a chest strap) are pretty decent estimates for steady state cardio. The wrist only jobs are not as accurate....arm movements throw things off.
Just us low impact (or general) aerobics in MFP (for now)....Leslie Sansone, Jessica Smith type "walks" fit into this general category.
It was a jessica smith dance walk thing, Ill change it over to low impact aerobics then
0 -
CA_Underdog wrote: »According to the above study, Polar HRMs overestimate energy expenditures by 25% during aerobic dance. I wouldn't call that vast, but it's significant.
That 25% is only valid for certain levels of fitness. The nasty part is that the worse shape someone is in, the worse the over-estimate and hence greater the risk of over-eating back calories.
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
Turn it around - why do you think it *would* be accurate?
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
Turn it around - why do you think it *would* be accurate?
Primarily for the reason I stated: Exertion raises heart rate. Therefore I would think the integration of HR over time would be a reasonable approximation of exertion and thus calories burned, regardless of whether you are running, shoveling snow, etc.
That's why I'm curious why a HRM algorithm would be dismissed outright for some kinds of activity.
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
Turn it around - why do you think it *would* be accurate?
Primarily for the reason I stated: Exertion raises heart rate. Therefore I would think the integration of HR over time would be a reasonable approximation of exertion and thus calories burned, regardless of whether you are running, shoveling snow, etc.
That's why I'm curious why a HRM algorithm would be dismissed outright for some kinds of activity.
How does a HRM know if you're dancing, shovelling snow, or running?
Which of those activities have the scientific study to establish an accurate algorithm for caloric estimation?
0 -
I wear a smart health watch and usually put it on low sensing just incase it overestimates. It's been working for me so far. Not saying it's perfect, but it seems to be consistent when I do a number of the same workouts over and over. So, it doesn't give me random numbers.
http://www.amazon.com/Smarthealth-Walking-Fit-Activity-Tracker/dp/B007WQKT1K/ref=sr_1_1?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1425400055&sr=1-1&keywords=smart+health+watch
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
Turn it around - why do you think it *would* be accurate?
Primarily for the reason I stated: Exertion raises heart rate. Therefore I would think the integration of HR over time would be a reasonable approximation of exertion and thus calories burned, regardless of whether you are running, shoveling snow, etc.
That's why I'm curious why a HRM algorithm would be dismissed outright for some kinds of activity.
Because the numbers that make the algorithm are input based on the person doing steady state cardio. It's a math equation, if they numbers are off on one part (the part of the equation that references steady state cardio) then the whole equation is off (the calories burned number).
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
Turn it around - why do you think it *would* be accurate?
Primarily for the reason I stated: Exertion raises heart rate. Therefore I would think the integration of HR over time would be a reasonable approximation of exertion and thus calories burned, regardless of whether you are running, shoveling snow, etc.
That's why I'm curious why a HRM algorithm would be dismissed outright for some kinds of activity.
Because the numbers that make the algorithm are input based on the person doing steady state cardio. It's a math equation, if they numbers are off on one part (the part of the equation that references steady state cardio) then the whole equation is off (the calories burned number).
Ok, thanks. I didn't know that "steady state" was one of the algorithmic assumptions. That would explain why it works on running and cycling better than aerobic dance and cardiokick. I had thought it was based on the integration of HR, in which case peaks and valleys would count, but just not as much as consistently high HR.
Does that mean HRM calorie algorithms are not as accurate on 2 minute interval sprints done for 30 minutes?
0 -
HRMs are only semi-accurate for steady state cardio.0
-
mellissaflegg wrote: »Think I may just have to invest in one of those wristband things, they seem to be so much help but until I can afford one ill probably use the google thing, thank you
A "fitness tracker" isnt the same as a heart rate monitor with a strap around your body. You will be fine using MFP or Google as well. If you don't seem to be losing weight over a few weeks, then your estimates are too high. Tweak and reassess. It's an ongoing process with weight loss.
For those who are against a HRM, what method to you suggest? Using MFP or Google leaves out a key ingredient to the equation as well - intensity. I did a class last night that falls under circuit training. Take another girl who was doing the same thing (same stats as me) but not going as hard as I was (less reps, steps, etc). She did not burn as many calories as I did. But if we both look up 60 min of circuit training we will get the same calorie burn....No?0 -
For those who are against a HRM, what method to you suggest?
Broadly, pick a consistent method and stick with it, then test and adjust according to progress.
I cycled through London this afternoon, did about 5 miles averaging about 10mph. My heart rate was high throughout, largely as a result of having to be alert to someone in a cage intentionally trying to kill me. An HRM would massively overestimate calorie expenditure as a result of that. The stress level wouldn't have burned anything extra over and above moving me and the bike around.
As long as you stick with a consistent method then you can account for it. If you're using a method that won't give consistent error then you're shooting at a moving target, from a moving platform.0 -
Garmin (firsbeat) HRMs scores within 7-10% accuracy. Whatever we call that level of accuracy, it's better than that offered by online calculators (within 20-60%), and slightly better than the accuracy promised by US food labels (within 10%). Until new technology comes along in a few years, it's probably the best widely-available tool for determining how much to eat back.HRMs are only semi-accurate for steady state cardio.
At the very least, it's been working well enough for me! For hiking, mine also measures elevation gain, further improving its accuracy vs. MFP's calculator.
http://www.firstbeat.com/userData/firstbeat/Energy_Expenditure_Estimation.pdf
0 -
CA_Underdog wrote: »
Garmin (firsbeat) HRMs scores within 7-10% accuracy. Whatever we call that level of accuracy, it's better than that offered by online calculators (within 20-60%), and slightly better than the accuracy promised by US food labels (within 10%). Until new technology comes along in a few years, it's probably the best widely-available tool for determining how much to eat back.HRMs are only semi-accurate for steady state cardio.
At the very least, it's been working well enough for me! For hiking, mine also measures elevation gain, further improving its accuracy vs. MFP's calculator.
http://www.firstbeat.com/userData/firstbeat/Energy_Expenditure_Estimation.pdf
One of the first things required by firstbeat is VO2 max data.
Reading the references there shows how limited of scope the testing was. It isn't Zumba or some workout DVD ... it's controlled stationary bike testing in the Pulkkinen tests ... "well trained" test subjects in the Montgomery. The commonly used, low end HRMs don't offer VO2 estimation tests or direct input from lab testing. The activities conducted don't match the controlled environments. For the most part, MFP members are not the "well trained" lab subjects.
Under ideal circumstances and controlled exercises, well trained athletes measure similarly between HR only estimates and lab cart measured data.0 -
CA_Underdog wrote: »
Garmin (firsbeat) HRMs scores within 7-10% accuracy.HRMs are only semi-accurate for steady state cardio.
I'd observe that from that white paper, five of the six tests conducted were similar to those used to develop the algorithms used in the Polar range of devices and low end consumer grade devices. As you observe, this is the kind of algorithm that's used in higher end devices, that also use pace and elevation data to corroborate the HR estimation.
That said they've jumped from the description of the method, noting that the sample size is both small and already conditioned, to a claim of 7-10% error cf 15-20%, without articulating how that applies to each of the five use cases assessed. I'd suggest that the five non interval cases probably skew that quite a lot.
Notwithstanding all of that, picking a method and sticking with it is the important thing here, the issue with HRMs, particularly low end consumer devices, is that the error is neither known, nor consistent. Of course self reporting of exertion isn't a known error either, but at least it's more likely to be consistent over time, hence allowing the individual to test and adjust their intake according to their progress.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions