Calorie counter: worth the investment?

Options
2»

Replies

  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    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+
  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    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%.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    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.

  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    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.

  • Zombierawr
    Zombierawr Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    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.

  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    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.

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    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.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    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?


  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    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.

    Agreed, but unfortunately people like believing they burned 500 calories in 30 minutes doing a DVD or YouTube video.
  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    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?


    At this point you are just arguing to argue. You do what works for you, I'll do what works for me, and she can take into account the suggestions and decide what works for her.



  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Lapre79 wrote: »
    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?


    At this point you are just arguing to argue. You do what works for you, I'll do what works for me, and she can take into account the suggestions and decide what works for her.



    I'm arguing for the sake of arguing? I am giving you facts that are common knowledge on this board. You are coming back with N=1 anecdotes and statements that just aren't right. I am telling you the same thing that HRM manufacturers as well as anyone who has done any research on HRMs would tell you..ie..facts. I would say you are the one arguing to just argue.


  • Soundwave79
    Soundwave79 Posts: 469 Member
    Options
    Well those anecdotes and false statements are working just fine for me.

    The OP asked for opinions on calorie trackers and I offered mine on the Polar and my results with it. It works well for me and I have found it to be pretty accurate. She's capable of Googling and researching the science behind them just as I did when I purchased mine. If she feels like it matches well with her activity then hey great. If not that's also great. I'm not even the only one who suggested the Polar. It's a pretty popular tool used across the home fitness crowd on here. I offered my experience, you offered yours. Let's move on.

Categories