How do I accurately count the calories I'm burning?

24

Replies

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    edited June 2015
    TnTWalter wrote: »
    my polar knows my age, height, weight VO2 level. It's not perfect but much better than the machines or the fitbits IMHO.

    How does it know your V02 level?
    FYI.
    Higher spec ones allow you to custom set your VO2 max. Think that my FT60 is the cheapest one in their range that allows it.
    It also has a proxy "fitness test" to estimate VO2.
    How accurate that is... open to debate.
    I use the number I got in a sport lab test of VO2 and HR max.

    For true steady state cardio it compares very accurately to a power meter. As soon as you deviate from that with intervals or even simply getting hot the numbers start to diverge significantly.

    But hey - it's a gadget so the numbers must be true!
    /sarcasm.
  • krdews
    krdews Posts: 124 Member
    Rather I'm using MFP Fitbit or any other type of device or equipment I always decrease by 20-25% to adjust for error. And, I do not try to eat back my calories I worked hard to burn.
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    I see many comments on what doesn't work, but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.

    Estimate. Or use the number on whatever tool you're using, but cut it by about 50% so you have a margin of error.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    ...but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.

    That would be pick a method, stick with it, test and adjust based on your progress.

    There is no reliable and consistent method to measure calorie expenditure in all circumstances. Some methods are less inaccurate than others in specific circumstances...
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    I see many comments on what doesn't work, but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.

    A lot of folks here also use the TDEE method and therefore, don't add exercise calories to their day.
  • GolfSunFit
    GolfSunFit Posts: 1 Member
    Get a heart rate monitor

    To give a third inaccurate number...

    Newbie here...does everyone think heart rate monitors are inaccurate? I was thinking about adding one. ..
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    I see many comments on what doesn't work, but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.

    A lot of folks here also use the TDEE method and therefore, don't add exercise calories to their day.

    If using the TDEE method they add an average estimate for exercise calories to their day, not quite the same as no exercise calories.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    GolfSunFit wrote: »
    Get a heart rate monitor

    To give a third inaccurate number...

    Newbie here...does everyone think heart rate monitors are inaccurate? I was thinking about adding one. ..

    People who understand how they work recognise the limitations and how they can be used as a tool for performance improvement.

    Lots of people uncritically think that a gadget will give them accurate information.

    They have a role, but they're not accurate for calorie estimation in a very wide range of situations.
  • NofatdaddyMike
    NofatdaddyMike Posts: 574 Member
    TnTWalter wrote: »
    my polar knows my age, height, weight VO2 level. It's not perfect but much better than the machines or the fitbits IMHO.
    I agree! I think Polar does a pretty good job.
  • ScubaSteve1962
    ScubaSteve1962 Posts: 612 Member
    edited June 2015
    I use a heart rate monitor, and have heard all the arguments about how wrong they are, but seeing as there is really no exact measure, I go by what it says 100%. I have a Polar V800 did the orthostatic test, and fitness test. I've used the Loop, and FT80 and went by them 100% also. If you decide to get one, make sure it gives you tests, and just doesn't read your heart rate.

    Side note: 95% of my workout is Cardio, here are the guidelines

    http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/adults.html
  • burnsjulia
    burnsjulia Posts: 50 Member
    This probably isn't the best answer, but here's what I did.

    1) I decided not to stress it too much since it feels to me (gut feeling, no "scientific" basis) that all the measurement methods are a little voodoo.

    2) I used a Nike Fuel on several occasions to measure "calorie burn" for the exercises I do most frequently. The only reason I used the Fuel was because my husband was given one as a gift - I can't imagine actually spending money for it or for a Fit Bit. (Again, personal opinion there.)

    3) I took the average and created my own exercise in MFP which then become scalable by the minutes. So for me, a "tae kwon do class" burns 22 calories in 10 minutes, while "tae kwon do" exercise (actively kicking without the wait times involved in a class) burns 93 calories in 10 minutes.

    4) I use MFP's calorie estimates on walking & running. Enough people have said they're close enough and they did sort of match up with my Fuel average method.

    So this isn't a perfect solution. I might go to a class and work a whole lot harder one day than another. But I figure it all averages out.

    I did mostly eat back all my calories and it did work for me. But I noticed it worked faster (no surprise) if I didn't eat them all back. :smile:
  • MamaBirdBoss
    MamaBirdBoss Posts: 1,516 Member
    With circuit training, at least, my average exertion doesn't vary a HUGE amount. I'd care about higher accuracy if I were bulking or just recomposing my body. I'm not. I'm chubby. Lol. I'm mostly losing weight and incidentally getting stronger and building more muscle. Since I have no intention of eating my deficit, like the OP shouldn't be, it falls under "nice to know" instead of "my success depends on this."
  • MamaBirdBoss
    MamaBirdBoss Posts: 1,516 Member
    With circuit training, at least, my average exertion doesn't vary a HUGE amount. I'd care about higher accuracy if I were bulking or just recomposing my body. I'm not. I'm chubby. Lol. I'm mostly losing weight and incidentally getting stronger and building more muscle. Since I have no intention of eating my deficit, like the OP shouldn't be, it falls under "nice to know" instead of "my success depends on this."
  • MamaBirdBoss
    MamaBirdBoss Posts: 1,516 Member
    We will also see how accurate it is versus my expected weight loss. ;) I'll let you know. If I were in better shape, it would probably be less accurate. I'm so out of it, though, that almost everything I hit my max in. Very sad, but it makes the workouts work better, I suppose!
  • jaga13
    jaga13 Posts: 1,149 Member
    alohajudy wrote: »
    I do 60 minutes of cardio when I go to the gym, either the bicycle or the treadmill.
    I enter my age, weight in the machines and they read I've used around 320 calories, but when I enter the cardio in My Fitness Pal it reads I've burned over 650. Which do you think is accurate? Some days I want to eat those extra calories and cannot afford to make a mistake.

    I would use the lower amount, just to be safe. My treadmill is so old, I can't even enter my stats (imagine that!), so that number is way higher than what MFP gives me (since MFP does know my stats). So I use the MFP number. It isn't perfect, but I continue to lose weight so it's Good Enough.
  • punkrockgoth
    punkrockgoth Posts: 534 Member
    I usually use what the machine says since it knows how much effort I put in, my weight, my approximate heart rate while MFP doesn't take any of that into consideration, just spits out a number. And then I subtract about 30% of what the machine says since machines can be off by as much as 30%.

    If I get hungry, I eat something. I log it. I don't overthink it or beat myself up or post long *kitten* statuses justifying why I went over. Some days, I'm just hungrier and as long as I'm filling the hunger with nutrient dense foods, than I don't worry. If I find that I am hungry almost every day and going over despite eating whole nutrient dense foods, I readjust my calorie goal until I find that I'm no longer starving, but still losing.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    ...Since I have no intention of eating my deficit,

    This is a very relevant point, and one that surfaces frequently in these threads where people promote an HRM as the answer, then concede that they don't actually use the data that the HRM provides to guide their calorie intake.

    MFP is designed so that one identifies a deficit and it provides a calorie target to deliver that deficit. If one trains off some calories, then one should really replace them, to retain the deficit at the planned level for the rate of weight loss. Some people eat back everything they burn off, others don't.

    Not compensating for the calories expended may be as a result of not trusting the method used to measure, or it may be as a compensation for inaccurate food logging. It may also be a conscious decision to deliver a higher than planned deficit. That's fine if one is talking about reasonably small calorie expenditures, or if ones daily goal is high enough that artificially inflating the deficit doesn't lead to a daily intake that's below recommended guidelines for healthy nutrition; 1200 cals for women, 1600 for men.

    For me, I'm eating 2100 cals per day, most of my sessions burn at least 600cals. So I'm straight into an unhealthy situation if I don't eat back a reasonable proportion. That said, I have some difficulty with accurate logging of intake due to my work circumstances, so I do tend to leave a bit of a gap.


  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    gia07 wrote: »
    Even a heart rate monitor is not perfect..

    Given the calorie expenditures that the originator is reporting from the machines, HR is the wrong tool to be using. Given that HR is only a meaningful proxy for calorie expenditure in a fairly limited set of circumstances the originator is unlikely to be operating in a range where it's meaningful.

    I'd go as far as to say, in the circumstances, an HRM is the least useful of the three measures talked about as it's not even going to be consistently wrong.

    Except for these purposes, consistently wrong isn't even the best virtue. The best thing she can have while losing weight and relying on eat back calories is one that will under measure the calories the most often.
  • SherryTeach
    SherryTeach Posts: 2,836 Member
    edited June 2015
    sijomial wrote: »
    In all probability neither is likely to be accurate - but you haven't mentioned speed, distance, power output, effort....

    Would go with the machines - at least they are trying to estimate some of the above factors. 320 sounds low for an hour but you could be walking slowly on the treadmill and not putting much effort into the cycling.

    I use a Polar F4 HRM and I burn around 200 calories for 35-40 minutes, so 320 and hour does not sound low to me. Though all calculations are estimates, it seems like a heart rate monitor is the best bet. I like being able to compare various types of exercise using the same device. Now I know that hand scrubbing a floor burns about the same number of calories as walking on my treadmill.

  • ScubaSteve1962
    ScubaSteve1962 Posts: 612 Member
    ...Since I have no intention of eating my deficit,

    This is a very relevant point, and one that surfaces frequently in these threads where people promote an HRM as the answer, then concede that they don't actually use the data that the HRM provides to guide their calorie intake.

    MFP is designed so that one identifies a deficit and it provides a calorie target to deliver that deficit. If one trains off some calories, then one should really replace them, to retain the deficit at the planned level for the rate of weight loss. Some people eat back everything they burn off, others don't.

    Not compensating for the calories expended may be as a result of not trusting the method used to measure, or it may be as a compensation for inaccurate food logging. It may also be a conscious decision to deliver a higher than planned deficit. That's fine if one is talking about reasonably small calorie expenditures, or if ones daily goal is high enough that artificially inflating the deficit doesn't lead to a daily intake that's below recommended guidelines for healthy nutrition; 1200 cals for women, 1600 for men.

    For me, I'm eating 2100 cals per day, most of my sessions burn at least 600cals. So I'm straight into an unhealthy situation if I don't eat back a reasonable proportion. That said, I have some difficulty with accurate logging of intake due to my work circumstances, so I do tend to leave a bit of a gap.


    I've often thought the same thing. I got my first polar HRM so that I could do cardio without having to hold the handles, the calories burned was a pleasant surprise. I only use the heart rate function when I'm doing some activity that would burn calories. so why wouldn't I believe it.