How are people burning so many cals?
Options
Replies
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »jenniferinfl wrote: »My Polar HRM said I burned 415 calories for my 5k walk this morning.
You can't use an HRM for activity like that and expect accurate numbers. The only way to get that burn on that distance is to weigh 450 pounds. Since you're around 200 pounds, that's a 100%+ over-estimate!
There really needs to be a sticky for HRMs....
Why not? Walking fast gets your heart rate up. I mean, I'm confused... can't use HRMs for intervals, can't use HRMs for lifting, can't use HRMs for steady cardio... then why bother with HRMs at all?
450 calories for 3.5 miles doesn't seem that crazy for a 200 pounds person, if she's walking fast, especially if there are hills etc.
The algorithms are based on steady state moderate intensity cardio. I can't remember the exact definitions but I do not believe walking would fall under that.
But to your other point - why bother using them at all - for heart rate training. Hrms were meant for use as that. They are not calorie counters. They can give estimates but their degree of accuracy will strongly depend on how they are used.
This is why it bothers me so much when people tell new people they need to get a HRM.
The thing is that even if we see a 450 cal burn walking 60 min for 5km you actually need to subtract 80-100 cals on Mfp. Your net additional cals are only about 350 from that walk.0 -
I do a lot of walking and quite a lot of it isn't flat . I allow myself 50 cals per mile , my pace is pretty much always between 3-4 mph. I am sure I was burning more previously when I was out of shape but now I am very used to it
A lot of the calculations people use are bogus and many are for 300lb people who are out of condition or from people inflating their burns so they can pork some more grub
You have to work out how much you burn as an individual but it will all be guesswork and nobody can give you the exact answer
If in doubt, half it0 -
Fitness Blender have some "1000 Calorie Workouts" on youtube that you could try, I'm pretty small and estimate my burn about 550-600 calories doing everything with full effort, but I may be underestimating because I've lost at about 1.5-2lb/week rate since starting these 2-3 times a week. They are very doable, but take about 90 minutes and have a video to explain how they estimate the calories burnt so that you can get an idea of where you fit in too. Most of these workouts include warm up/cool down, HIIT, strength and abs/back-focussed sections and have made a big difference to my stamina.
Before then (I still do this sometimes) I'd do 15 minutes rowing, 50 minutes spinning (I usually do 1-2 mile 'sprints' if you get what I mean), some stretches and straight into the pool for 30-60 minutes.0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »jenniferinfl wrote: »My Polar HRM said I burned 415 calories for my 5k walk this morning.
You can't use an HRM for activity like that and expect accurate numbers. The only way to get that burn on that distance is to weigh 450 pounds. Since you're around 200 pounds, that's a 100%+ over-estimate!
There really needs to be a sticky for HRMs....
Why not? Walking fast gets your heart rate up. I mean, I'm confused... can't use HRMs for intervals, can't use HRMs for lifting, can't use HRMs for steady cardio... then why bother with HRMs at all?
450 calories for 3.5 miles doesn't seem that crazy for a 200 pounds person, if she's walking fast, especially if there are hills etc.
The algorithms are based on steady state moderate intensity cardio. I can't remember the exact definitions but I do not believe walking would fall under that.
But to your other point - why bother using them at all - for heart rate training. Hrms were meant for use as that. They are not calorie counters. They can give estimates but their degree of accuracy will strongly depend on how they are used.
This is why it bothers me so much when people tell new people they need to get a HRM.
The thing is that even if we see a 450 cal burn walking 60 min for 5km you actually need to subtract 80-100 cals on Mfp. Your net additional cals are only about 350 from that walk.
This is what I did before I switched to TDEE - Simply because I would have burned 100 calories an hour anyway, just by being and that's already included in my goals.
Yep, mostly using a fixed TDEE method myself. Except I do add a few hundred extra based on specific training days or long bike rides. When I log. But I still let my HRM or phone auto sync with Mfp which means that my recorded burns can be epic.
I think my HRM posted a 5000+ calorie burn on a hike last week (elevation change was important) but that certainly wasn't true. Closer to 1100 NET for 3 hrs.
0 -
When you are out of shape its really hard to burn lots of calories. Once you get in moderate shape its easy to burn 1000 cal in 90 min or less of moderate intensity running every day in once or twice a day sessions0
-
GalactusEmpire wrote: »I can easily burn over 1500 calories. If you don't think it is possible to burn that much, then you don't know exactly how it works. Of course it will never be exact, it is almost impossible to find the exact number.
But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
1) a 3 hour hike is not what most people would call "easily" or can fit in their daily routine
2) You are 100 lbs heavier than me. So, for me (and I suspect the OP) to burn this kind of calories, it would require almost running a marathon.0 -
I cycle in and out of work, about 10kms (6 miles) each way. It beats city traffic but obviously you can only do it if your work has shower and change facilties like mine. I never go to the gym anymore. Even a leisurely cycle will burn 500 calories (250 each way). I have bad knees and a dodgy back so it's much more relaxing than being on a treadmill.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »jenniferinfl wrote: »My Polar HRM said I burned 415 calories for my 5k walk this morning.
You can't use an HRM for activity like that and expect accurate numbers. The only way to get that burn on that distance is to weigh 450 pounds. Since you're around 200 pounds, that's a 100%+ over-estimate!
There really needs to be a sticky for HRMs....
Why not? Walking fast gets your heart rate up. I mean, I'm confused... can't use HRMs for intervals, can't use HRMs for lifting, can't use HRMs for steady cardio... then why bother with HRMs at all?
450 calories for 3.5 miles doesn't seem that crazy for a 200 pounds person, if she's walking fast, especially if there are hills etc.
The algorithms are based on steady state moderate intensity cardio. I can't remember the exact definitions but I do not believe walking would fall under that.
But to your other point - why bother using them at all - for heart rate training. Hrms were meant for use as that. They are not calorie counters. They can give estimates but their degree of accuracy will strongly depend on how they are used.
This is why it bothers me so much when people tell new people they need to get a HRM.
The thing is that even if we see a 450 cal burn walking 60 min for 5km you actually need to subtract 80-100 cals on Mfp. Your net additional cals are only about 350 from that walk.
Does this only apply to HRM's ?
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »jenniferinfl wrote: »My Polar HRM said I burned 415 calories for my 5k walk this morning.
You can't use an HRM for activity like that and expect accurate numbers. The only way to get that burn on that distance is to weigh 450 pounds. Since you're around 200 pounds, that's a 100%+ over-estimate!
There really needs to be a sticky for HRMs....
Why not? Walking fast gets your heart rate up. I mean, I'm confused... can't use HRMs for intervals, can't use HRMs for lifting, can't use HRMs for steady cardio... then why bother with HRMs at all?
450 calories for 3.5 miles doesn't seem that crazy for a 200 pounds person, if she's walking fast, especially if there are hills etc.
The algorithms are based on steady state moderate intensity cardio. I can't remember the exact definitions but I do not believe walking would fall under that.
But to your other point - why bother using them at all - for heart rate training. Hrms were meant for use as that. They are not calorie counters. They can give estimates but their degree of accuracy will strongly depend on how they are used.
This is why it bothers me so much when people tell new people they need to get a HRM.
The thing is that even if we see a 450 cal burn walking 60 min for 5km you actually need to subtract 80-100 cals on Mfp. Your net additional cals are only about 350 from that walk.
Does this only apply to HRM's ?
Normally the Fitbit, if set correctly only adds net calories. If you are exercising and logging that on Mfp make sure you set the time correctly or you will be double dipping. Make sure your parameters on the Fitbit site are properly entered too. Weight, etc..
Me? I might run with my Fitbit, mapmyrun and a HRM watch (or two if I'm testing them) which results in 4x or more entries on Mfp - doesn't matter - I ignore that.
Mapmyride, strata, etc add total cals and not net, AFAIK. It's probably programming issue.0 -
amyclavey10 wrote: »hi,
So I'm fairly new to exercise. I've always danced and took to jogging last year, but at the gym I struggle. From a few PT sessions I've learnt some good weight exercises but even when combining these with cardio I'm still only burning 2-300 cals before I burn out or my hours up.
How are people burning 500+ ?
How do u calculate calories burned from weights? Am I just lazy?
I have an HRM
In 24 minutes of steady state cardio I will burn roughly 200 calories
I then go into a calisthenics programme including weights and resistance work (compound lifts, push-ups, squats, pull-ups, lunges and other resistance work) for an hour with my PT and my HRM shows another 600 .. I tend to take about 3-400 of these and have seen from my weight on the scale over time (months) that this method works for me
When I do 20 mins cardio followed by 25 mins on my own I burn around 350 calories
(same as I burn by simply managing 10K steps over the day)0 -
Best I can do is use whatever data I can get. Whether that be a calculation based on weight and exercise, using HRM, or even comparing my weekly calorie intake to my weight change.
Here's some comparative data I received for the same 4 mile run route, averaging around 11:20 min/mile (some higher, some lower):
Endomondo + chest strap HRM = 780 calories
MapMyFitness = 860 calories
MyFitnessPal (11.5 min/mile run for 45 minutes) = 730 calories
Digifit + optical wrist HRM = 819 calories
Runners Connect Calorie Calculator (235 pounds for 45 minutes at 11min/mile) = 707 calories
The numbers are all over the place, but the variance is +/- 75 calories from average, or 10%. I don't think overeating by 75 calories is really that damn important. Unless of course I ran a half marathon making the variance more than 3 times that...nearing 250 calories. Now we are talking a half pound/week. But how often do you run a half marathon? I've only run 3 in the last year myself (none before that). So I don't think the variance is really worth sweating over.0 -
I don't log anything from weightlifting. I feel its a safer bet to "pretend" you dont burn any calories while lifting to force yourself to stay on track with food. I found with past clients and friends that when they would monitor their calories burned during lifting they used that as an excuse to eat more crap and follow the IIFYM style. While there is no problem with that either, people need to focus on the quality of food they are eating ALONG with the amount.
I calculate my calories burned based on my weight, height and gender along with HR and time and intensity of exercise and enter it in manually on MFP. There are a couple of different sites and aps that you can use to enter that information into and calculate it yourself. I find that MFP is off on their estimate fairly often (but usually only by 30-40. For my size it usually over estimates my calories burned.0 -
amyclavey10 wrote: »hi,
So I'm fairly new to exercise. I've always danced and took to jogging last year, but at the gym I struggle. From a few PT sessions I've learnt some good weight exercises but even when combining these with cardio I'm still only burning 2-300 cals before I burn out or my hours up.
How are people burning 500+ ?
How do u calculate calories burned from weights? Am I just lazy?
There are a lot of factors that go into calorie burn...I for example, would burn more calories than you for the same exercise simply because I have more mass to move. That said, a lot of people also vastly over-estimate their calorie burns. Nobody is burning 900 calories for 60 minutes of recreational swimming for example...jenniferinfl wrote: »My Polar HRM said I burned 415 calories for my 5k walk this morning.
You can't use an HRM for activity like that and expect accurate numbers. The only way to get that burn on that distance is to weigh 450 pounds. Since you're around 200 pounds, that's a 100%+ over-estimate!
There really needs to be a sticky for HRMs....
Why not? Walking fast gets your heart rate up. I mean, I'm confused... can't use HRMs for intervals, can't use HRMs for lifting, can't use HRMs for steady cardio... then why bother with HRMs at all?
450 calories for 3.5 miles doesn't seem that crazy for a 200 pounds person, if she's walking fast, especially if there are hills etc.
HRM's are outstanding tools for measuring your HR. That's about all you're going to get that is exact. It's not the HRMs fault that people want it to do something it was never designed to do.
For some people and some training applications, knowing your HR is important and that is ultimately what that tool is designed for; nothing more, nothing less. Calorie burn is just an estimation based on a simple algorithm...how anyone could think that is going to be absolutely accurate is beyond me.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Yeah it's all just bullsh*t. You can't trust anything these expensive gadgets say...
Outside of a lab you can't trust any one method of calorie estimating. Every method, from the exercise tables to fancy gadgets have their strengths and their limitations. Understanding how they work will give help figure out where to start. Then following a method and tracking over a period of time will tell you how accurate it is.
0 -
GalactusEmpire wrote: »But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
A hiking MET of 6 requires significant hills and/or carrying a meaningful load. You also need to subtract ~1 from the MET number, or you're double-counting your BMR burn.
It's certainly possible to do, though, for someone fit enough.
0 -
Fitbit gives me around 550 calories out a day on those days I have walked 6 miles (a mile of that using intervals) and an hour or so of full body strength training (which I log as "light" although lifting iron repeatedly does not feel light).0
-
jenniferinfl wrote: »My Polar HRM said I burned 415 calories for my 5k walk this morning.
You can't use an HRM for activity like that and expect accurate numbers. The only way to get that burn on that distance is to weigh 450 pounds. Since you're around 200 pounds, that's a 100%+ over-estimate!
There really needs to be a sticky for HRMs....
Wow! You can be that dogmatic without knowing fitness level or heart rate data? I doubt it.
I weigh 250 lbs. and am not very fit yet. MFP tells me I'm burning about 200 cal in 30 min at 3 mph. That's about the same rate of cal. burn per unit of distance as the 415 cal. for 5k. You say categorically "that's a 100%+ over-estimate!" Without knowing fitness level or heart rate data. With an exclamation point! Makes me wonder.
During the 30 min at 3 mph I'm at 85% heart rate max within a few minutes and 95% by the end.Taking heart rate into account, Polar calculates my calorie expenditure higher than MFP which makes sense to me. As my fitness improves, heart rate for the same time and distance will go down and so will the calories.0 -
GalactusEmpire wrote: »I can easily burn over 1500 calories. If you don't think it is possible to burn that much, then you don't know exactly how it works. Of course it will never be exact, it is almost impossible to find the exact number.
But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
1) a 3 hour hike is not what most people would call "easily" or can fit in their daily routine
2) You are 100 lbs heavier than me. So, for me (and I suspect the OP) to burn this kind of calories, it would require almost running a marathon.
I only replied to this because there are many people saying that it is impossible to burn over 1000 calories. Have you seen the replies? People saying that logging 1000 calories burned is false, or some even saying people use it as an excuse to eat more food.
While I don't burn over 1000 on a regular basis, it DOES happen. Nobody is the same size, nobody exercises the same.GalactusEmpire wrote: »But I am currently 225, and for a 3 hour hike, using MET with a 6 intensifier puts me at over 1800 calories burned.
A hiking MET of 6 requires significant hills and/or carrying a meaningful load. You also need to subtract ~1 from the MET number, or you're double-counting your BMR burn.
It's certainly possible to do, though, for someone fit enough.
Even using a MET number of 3, I get a calorie burn of 960 for a 3 hour hike. I am not trying to brag or say anything other than that calorie burns over 1000 aren't impossible like many people are saying.
0 -
jenniferinfl wrote: »My Polar HRM said I burned 415 calories for my 5k walk this morning.
You can't use an HRM for activity like that and expect accurate numbers. The only way to get that burn on that distance is to weigh 450 pounds. Since you're around 200 pounds, that's a 100%+ over-estimate!
There really needs to be a sticky for HRMs....
Wow! You can be that dogmatic without knowing fitness level or heart rate data? I doubt it.
I weigh 250 lbs. and am not very fit yet. MFP tells me I'm burning about 200 cal in 30 min at 3 mph. That's about the same rate of cal. burn per unit of distance as the 415 cal. for 5k. You say categorically "that's a 100%+ over-estimate!" Without knowing fitness level or heart rate data. With an exclamation point! Makes me wonder.
During the 30 min at 3 mph I'm at 85% heart rate max within a few minutes and 95% by the end.Taking heart rate into account, Polar calculates my calorie expenditure higher than MFP which makes sense to me. As my fitness improves, heart rate for the same time and distance will go down and so will the calories.
The science supports his postion, not yours. The amount of net energy needed to move a person from point A to point B is primarly a function of mass and distance. You're trying to factor things in that are not part of the equation and that illustrate why HRMs are inaccurate for what you're trying to do. The range of activities for which a HRM can come close to an accurate estimation of caloric burn is relatively narrow and walking is not one of those activities that they do well.
0 -
Um, I seriously hope nobody is actually going by the number of calories the eliptical says that you burned. My friend was doing that, until she got an HRM and realized it was WAY OVER.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions