Calorie counter: worth the investment?
dawnmarie1012
Posts: 16
I'm not sure if the calories I am burning are accurate on here or not. I just use what the app estimates. I know there are a whole bunch of wristband calorie counters out there now- the fitbit especially. Is a calorie counter worth the investment? Is there a knock off brand that is less expensive than the fitbit but still effective?
0
Replies
-
Depends what you do in terms of training.
If you think that it would help motivate you to have a step counter, then get one. Personally I don't see the point, but for others they're a useful tool.0 -
As above, it depends on what you do training-wise.
I have got a Polar FT7 HRM that I use to track calories burnt on my workouts, which I find to be much more accurate than the MFP values. It consists of a strap that you wear round your chest under your clothes and a wristwatch that shows time, calories burnt etc.
I used to have the Jawbone UP which was good for tracking sleep patterns and steps taken but not so good for tracking calories burnt on a workout. However it broke whilst still under warranty so I took it back and got my money back. Didn't feel it was worth getting another one.0 -
I have a FitBit. I love it because it adjusts my calorie goal each day according to my activity level. It also shows me how much of a deficit I created and lets me know if I'm "at goal" for my -500 calories in a day.
I have some thyroid issues, so I do eat a little less than what it says my estimated calorie burn is but it really does help me keep on track.
Before, I was using the estimated TDEE method and wasn't losing. FitBit showed me that I WAY overestimated my activity level. Now I've seen consistent loss. Your mileage may vary.0 -
Like milla1985 I also use a Polar HRM and I find it to be the most accurate. MFP's numbers can be way off. For reference a 40 minute Insanity video like Pure Cardio I will burn between 450-480 cals. Where as a 25 minute T25 video like Speed 2.0 I will be around 330-350 cals burned. Something less active like say P90X3 CVX I will burn like 280-300 in the 30 mins. It's very easy to overestimate your burns so I would recommend getting one.0
-
For reference a 40 minute Insanity video like Pure Cardio I will burn between 450-480 cals.
If you're basing that on an HRM then you've got a significant overestimate, as they're not designed to support that type of activity.
Hence my initial comment about the utility of an estimation tool depending on the phys one does.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »For reference a 40 minute Insanity video like Pure Cardio I will burn between 450-480 cals.
If you're basing that on an HRM then you've got a significant overestimate, as they're not designed to support that type of activity.
Hence my initial comment about the utility of an estimation tool depending on the phys one does.
Please explain the bolded. If an HRM isn't designed to support a cardio session then what exactly was it designed for?
0 -
The algorithms are based on research that was conducted on steady state aerobic range activity. The relationship between calorie expenditure and HR is reasonably linear in that type of activity.
Where exertion undulates then the lag leads to error, and where one goes into the anaerobic range then the relationships break down completely.
Your error in the types of activity that you describe are anything from 25 to 50% over the top.0 -
No idea what any of that means. How about giving it to us in layman terms.
I do know when I try and enter just general 40 minutes of circuit training into MFP at my height and weight it logs it as 530-550 cals burned. I also know I've lost 30+ pounds using my HRM and MFP in conjunction. So the HRM certainly can't be that far off.
So if you say I am overestimating my burns with the HRM, then MFP is extravagantly overestimating it which leads back to the OP's question. You say an HRM is useless, how about giving her an answer to her question then? Because if you are telling her to trust MFP's numbers then that is some pretty bad advice.
0 -
I must admit buying a fitbit has helped me0
-
I use a Garmin Vivofit with HRM which I love, although it is pretty pricey. If you do steadystate cardio it is pretty helpful - I do a lot of walking, and have taken up running for example. I find MFP exercise calories can under or over estimate, depending on what the exercise is.
As MeanderingMammal said, it's not good for interval work, as it over estimates calorie burn. I do still use mine for my interval stuff, however I don't class the cals it awards me as an accurate reading - I mainly just like to see the trends of my HR overtime, to see if I'm improving!0 -
If you are talking about it being less accurate during intervals due to the rest periods between circuits, and the stretching periods then I understand. I pause the HRM during those times to try and keep it as accurate as possible. No one said the Polar HRM is 100% accurate. But it's a hell of alot closer then the general numbers MFP will give you.0
-
No idea what any of that means. How about giving it to us in layman terms.
My first post was laymans terms - That's not what they're designed for. you wanted an explanation, and that's as simple as it gets.You say an HRM is useless, how about giving her an answer to her question then? Because if you are telling her to trust MFP's numbers then that is some pretty bad advice.
I'm not saying an HRM is useless, it's a tool and when used for the purpose for which it's been designed, it can be useful. I use my own to help me train, currently trying to improve my half marathon times.
My original response upthread asks for further elaboration on what the OP wants to use a calorie counter for. There are three potential answers:- Step counter like Fitbit et al - suitable if it's about background activity and walking
- HRM - suitable if it's about running, cycling, rowing, swimming etc
- Calculators/ web based - suitable if it's resistance training or fitness DVDs
All have pros and cons, lots of people will unthinkingly recommend what they have, regardless of the question asked.
In the example you cite, a calculator is probably most appropriate as the instrumentation of either a step counter or HRM is designed for a difference scenario.
0 -
Ok fair enough. Googled some circuit training calculators.
http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/activity/calculators/circuit_training/result?calculators=/health-fitness/activity/calculators/circuit_training&met=8.0&weightPounds=193&duration=40&activity=&submit.x=54&submit.y=22
^ 193 pounds, 40 mins that one there told me 490 cals burned which is right on par with my HRM
http://insanitycalories.com/
^ Put in 193 pounds, selected Pure Cardio at medium intensity 40 mins. Says I burned 528 cals. Put it to high and says 739 cals burned.
http://www.healthdiscovery.net/links/calculators/calorie_calculator.htm
^ Put in 193 pounds, 40 mins. For circuit training gives 494 cals burned....
So me logging my pure cardio at 450-480 cals certainly is not 25-50% overstated as you claim. Is there a certain calculator you use that perhaps I missed?
0 -
So me logging my pure cardio at 450-480 cals certainly is not 25-50% overstated as you claim. Is there a certain calculator you use that perhaps I missed?
Don't personally use it, I don't acount for any calorie expenditure that's not endurance performance related as the odd 300 cals aren't that important to me.
Notwithstanding that, there are a couple fairly regularly recommended on here that are generally about a third lower, and grounded in the science. If you have a dig around you'll probably find the links.
fwiw I checked the running and cycling outcomes in the latter of the three that you cite there, and they're both about 30% higher than I'd normally measure for a 2 hour run or cycle at my weight; 160lbs. The spread of running speeds if very broad as well, suggesting that the algorithm behind the page is questionable; pace doesn't make a huge difference to calorie expenditure in running.0 -
Oh and here is a T25 calculator
http://www.t25calories.com/
193 pounds at 25 minutes doing Speed 2.0 it says 345 cals burned. As you can see above my HRM puts me around 330-350 so right on the money there too..0 -
I think I'm done here. To the original poster. Get a Polar HRM or use an online calculator. Seems like both are pretty ballpark. Nothing is going to be 100% accurate but as long as you are ballpark you will be ok. What I don't recommend is using MFP's general numbers because I find those to be insanely high.0
-
Oh and here is a T25 calculator
http://www.t25calories.com/
193 pounds at 25 minutes doing Speed 2.0 it says 345 cals burned. As you can see above my HRM puts me around 330-350 so right on the money there too..
That's great that you got lucky where the expenditure displayed by the HRM is on par with what you are burning as it seems to be working. Just know that it is just "getting lucky".
HRMs are designed for steady state cardio. That's how they were manufactured and designed. Just because you might be getting the right answer, doesn't mean the math to get there was accurate. It's just an algorithm in the watch and if you aren't doing steady state cardio, you are basically changing up one of the integers of said equation.
You seem to be getting defensive about it. Not sure why that is. MeanderingMammal is just telling you the facts. It's not a knock on HRMs in general. Just remember, they are HRMs. Not calorie counting tools. HRMs are used best for training purposes.0 -
How is it "getting lucky" when every video mentioned above is just about spot on when I compare my HRM calorie count to an online calculator? Perhaps the point is both will get you into enough of a ballpark number to be effective.
I'm not being defensive but what I saw here was a question from the OP asking if she is getting accurate counts from MFP. The answer is probably no. I gave a suggestion and a sample of the numbers I get using my HRM and those numbers were called into question as 25-50% to high. Then to supposedly get more accurate numbers he suggested a calculator. So I googled a bunch of them and found my HRM is about spot on with the calculators.
So if an HRM is inaccurate but I am getting the same numbers as the calculators then they must be inaccurate too. So how does a person get an accurate calories burned count when doing something like Insanity: Pure Cardio?
I guess the point is stop telling us what is inaccurate and give us what actually is because it seems like there is nothing. And if that's true then I'm gonna roll with my HRM, and suggest it to the OP until someone gives me something better lol.0 -
How is it "getting lucky" when every video mentioned above is just about spot on when I compare my HRM calorie count to an online calculator? Perhaps the point is both will get you into enough of a ballpark number to be effective.
I'm not being defensive but what I saw here was a question from the OP asking if she is getting accurate counts from MFP. The answer is probably no. I gave a suggestion and a sample of the numbers I get using my HRM and those numbers were called into question as 25-50% to high. Then to supposedly get more accurate numbers he suggested a calculator. So I googled a bunch of them and found my HRM is about spot on with the calculators.
So if an HRM is inaccurate but I am getting the same numbers as the calculators then they must be inaccurate too. So how does a person get an accurate calories burned count when doing something like Insanity: Pure Cardio?
I guess the point is stop telling us what is inaccurate and give us what actually is because it seems like there is nothing. And if that's true then I'm gonna roll with my HRM, and suggest it to the OP until someone gives me something better lol.
Like I said, your numbers just happen to work with your particular HRM. I could do the exact same thing you are doing with my HRM and it would be super inflated compared to the calculators. So, if I was the OP and you suggested the same thing, I would then have even worse #s than MFP says based off of an HRM. Again, just because your numbers are working doesn't make it a right answer. If you don't like how HRMs are designed, that would be something to take up with the manufacturer I would guess.
How do you get accurate calorie counts? You watch your intake, you see how your body reacts. Does it go up? Does it go down? You go from there.
The OP asked if the calorie counters are worth the investment which is why it was necessary to know what type of training she was doing. If she is doing Insanity videos, then no, they may not be worth the investment if calorie counts are what she is worried about. If she is a runner? It probably is worth the investment. If she wants to use the HRM for training purposes which is what it is intended for then any activity could benefit with HR monitoring.
As it stands right now, if she doesn't say what she is doing and what she wants to use an HRM for, you are just supplying her with a wrong answer.
0 -
Adding some light reading for you.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1044313/this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories
0 -
What exactly am I doing other then taking a specific number off my HRM and comparing it to an online calculator? How am I influencing the numbers in any way?
If she buys the HRM it will ask her age, weight, and height and calculate from there just like the calculators. I gave her samples of what I burn just as ballparks. Obviously that will not be applicable to her. But if MFP is giving me burns 100-200 cals higher them my HRM then I think it's safe to say it's probably doing the same for her.
The whole point of MFP and it's algorithm is it puts you in a calorie deficit. When you do a video like Insanity you have to know a ballpark of what you burned so you know what to eat back. This number can change drastically day to day depending on the video you do. Especially doing something like T25 where one video is on the floor abs you might burn 125 cals, and another is Speed 2.0 and you are burning 300+0 -
Adding some light reading for you.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1044313/this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories
I've read it before. And again I never stated the HRM was 100% accurate. Only ballpark. But closer to the pitchers mound then MFP's general entries. If you pause the HRM during the stretching and breaks you will get a close enough number to work with. Or you could even subtract a certain percentage to make up for the inaccuracy. But certainly not 50%.
0 -
For reference a 40 minute Insanity video like Pure Cardio I will burn between 450-480 cals.
At your weight, that's equivalent to running 6 km in those same 40 minutes. If that is roughly your fitness level, then the number may well be approximately correct.
However....you happen to be the ballpark fitness level HRMs are typically geared for...most MFPers (based on forum postings) are not, in which case their HRMs will over-estimate considerably. It's not unusual to see burn numbers 2x or 3x reality in people's diaries.
Comparing to online calculators generally doesn't provide a reality check for the same reason comparing two broken rulers to each other won't tell you where to cut the 2x4.
0 -
For reference a 40 minute Insanity video like Pure Cardio I will burn between 450-480 cals.
At your weight, that's equivalent to running 6 km in those same 40 minutes. If that is roughly your fitness level, then the number may well be approximately correct.
However....you happen to be the ballpark fitness level HRMs are typically geared for...most MFPers (based on forum postings) are not, in which case their HRMs will over-estimate considerably. It's not unusual to see burn numbers 2x or 3x reality in people's diaries.
Comparing to online calculators doesn't provide a reality check for the same reason comparing two broken rulers to each other won't tell you where to cut the 2x4.
Well I can't speak for all models but mine specifically asked for Age, Sex, Weight, Height, and I believe BF% in the initial setup. So the calorie burn algorithm will be different for each person who wears it.
And I agree people log 2x-3x higher then they should. I've seen people log the same 40 minute Insanity video at 900 cals on my MFP friends list.
0 -
dawnmarie1012 wrote: »I'm not sure if the calories I am burning are accurate on here or not. I just use what the app estimates. I know there are a whole bunch of wristband calorie counters out there now- the fitbit especially. Is a calorie counter worth the investment? Is there a knock off brand that is less expensive than the fitbit but still effective?
I've had a polar loop, an upband, and the misfit one. I broke three Up bands - I liked them, but they would stop working easily. All under warranty, so I got my money back. I loved my polar loop in theory because it was to relate to my HRM and the daily percentage was based on activity rather than steps (so about 12K steps a day without my HRM was 100%). I eventually just went back to my HRM though because a. charging it every night was frustrating, and b. it wouldn't always connect properly to my HRM. Now that HTC has one, I'm super considering it.
There has been articles discussing if a fitness band actually improves anything. IMO, it's kind of a placebo affect, for lack of a better word. It does hold you more accountable - I know it does for me. Plus, I have chronic insomnia, and it's good to see how my sleep is reflected.0 -
For reference a 40 minute Insanity video like Pure Cardio I will burn between 450-480 cals.
At your weight, that's equivalent to running 6 km in those same 40 minutes. If that is roughly your fitness level, then the number may well be approximately correct.
However....you happen to be the ballpark fitness level HRMs are typically geared for...most MFPers (based on forum postings) are not, in which case their HRMs will over-estimate considerably. It's not unusual to see burn numbers 2x or 3x reality in people's diaries.
Comparing to online calculators doesn't provide a reality check for the same reason comparing two broken rulers to each other won't tell you where to cut the 2x4.
Well I can't speak for all models but mine specifically asked for Age, Sex, Weight, Height, and I believe BF% in the initial setup. So the calorie burn algorithm will be different for each person who wears it.
And I agree people log 2x-3x higher then they should. I've seen people log the same 40 minute Insanity video at 900 cals on my MFP friends list.
Right, but there is a denominator in that algorithm that is relying on statistical information for STEADY STATE CARDIO. Once you start doing something other than that, the whole equation becomes wrong. Take 3 + 2 = 5 . That doesn't mean that 3 + 3 = 5 (because close enough). Once you change one of the parts of the equation, the whole equation is wrong.
0 -
Sure. And I get that for STEADY STATE CARDIO it's the most accurate. But for HIIT programs like Insanity and T25 you can still get a relatively reasonable ballpark figure to work with. If you have to double check it against a calculator or MFP then fine. Take the lessor of the three and log that minus a certain percentage you feel comfortable with. But to just trust MFP's numbers I certainly wouldn't recommend that.
Again for like the 5th time. I was giving the OP some ballpark numbers that my HRM was giving me just as a reference for her. Those numbers correlate well with the calculators as you have seen. I feel like if she wants a MORE ACCURATE number to work with she can attain one with an HRM if she is doing HIIT videos like me. That was the extent of my suggestion to her.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Honestly, IMO, most people are better served by not having HRMs at all. Just go out for a 2 mile run to get a baseline fitness level, then scale using MET. Simple, and way less prone to the kinds of catastrophic errors we routinely see on MFP.
If you can't run 2 miles, you aren't fit enough to burn a meaningful amount anyway, so don't bother logging it until your fitness level improves.
0 -
Sure. And I get that for STEADY STATE CARDIO it's the most accurate. But for HIIT programs like Insanity and T25 you can still get a relatively reasonable ballpark figure to work with. If you have to double check it against a calculator or MFP then fine. Take the lessor of the three and log that minus a certain percentage you feel comfortable with. But to just trust MFP's numbers I certainly wouldn't recommend that.
Again for like the 5th time. I was giving the OP some ballpark numbers that my HRM was giving me just as a reference for her. Those numbers correlate well with the calculators as you have seen. I feel like if she wants a MORE ACCURATE number to work with she can attain one with an HRM if she is doing HIIT videos like me. That was the extent of my suggestion to her.
And again, I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. Seriously, if you end your paragraph with "for you" then it might be accurate, but you are assuming that it would work the same for everyone else. That's not the case. MFP numbers are actually closer to my burns than an HRM is (if I'm not doing steady state cardio). So how does that work for your "MORE ACCURATE" numbers?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions