Calorie counter: worth the investment?

Options
dawnmarie1012
dawnmarie1012 Posts: 16
in Fitness and Exercise
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?
«1

Replies

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    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.
  • milla1985
    milla1985 Posts: 153 Member
    Options
    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.
  • flabassmcgee
    flabassmcgee Posts: 659 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    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.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    Lapre79 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.
  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    Lapre79 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?
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    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.
  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    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.

  • georgygirl
    georgygirl Posts: 104 Member
    Options
    I must admit buying a fitbit has helped me
  • DamieAnne
    DamieAnne Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    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!
  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    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.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    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.

  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    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?



  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    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.
  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    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..
  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    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.
  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    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.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Adding some light reading for you.
    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1044313/this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories

Categories