If exercise calculators aren't accurate and HRMs aren't accurate, then what the heck is?!?
Options
emmylootwo
Posts: 172 Member
Getting really annoyed...
I'm looking into purchasing a new Polar heart rate monitor with a chest strap. I understand that calculators such as the one on MFP and other websites (as well as on machines like a treadmill) are not accurate and tend to overestimate. I did some searching in previous discussions on MFP, however, and found plenty of comments saying that an HRM with a chest strap was also inaccurate, especially for anything other than steady state cardio. So, 1.) What counts as steady state cardio? I know this doesn't include strength training but my HRM can't even handle a workout video? Or anything with any sort of intervals? And 2.) If online calculators do not give reasonable estimates of calories that I can safely use to eat back on MFP and neither does an HRM, then what the heck does? Is MFPs entire premise of eating back exercise calories just a total sham? Even if I were to eat back 25-50% of exercise calories, who's to say that still not an overestimation?
I'm looking into purchasing a new Polar heart rate monitor with a chest strap. I understand that calculators such as the one on MFP and other websites (as well as on machines like a treadmill) are not accurate and tend to overestimate. I did some searching in previous discussions on MFP, however, and found plenty of comments saying that an HRM with a chest strap was also inaccurate, especially for anything other than steady state cardio. So, 1.) What counts as steady state cardio? I know this doesn't include strength training but my HRM can't even handle a workout video? Or anything with any sort of intervals? And 2.) If online calculators do not give reasonable estimates of calories that I can safely use to eat back on MFP and neither does an HRM, then what the heck does? Is MFPs entire premise of eating back exercise calories just a total sham? Even if I were to eat back 25-50% of exercise calories, who's to say that still not an overestimation?
2
Replies
-
Log your intake accurately, weigh daily, and track everything for 4-6 weeks. Then adjust.16
-
The most accurate method to know, is what the scale'll state; after every 4 weeks. Otherwise I'd say a tape measure because no technology is 100% accurate, 100% of the time; including our scales. Unfortunately the tape measure is only accurate for manual determination, however our genetics, etc. control where/how much we lose in any specific area 1st; therefore I doubt that we'll ever have even individual accuracy via that either. So it's just a guessing game. Accuracy is losing what you desired to lose, not the measurement of how but you'll have to tweak how, to accomplish your desire.2
-
A heart rate monitor isn't really for counting calories. It is for determining workout zones and building a workout program that includes a variety of activities ... some of which will be a higher intensity and some of which will be a lower intensity
I use MFP's assumptions for the most part, but I enter the lightest, easiest, slowest options for most things.
So while I might cycle at a good pace, get my heart rate up and feel like I've had a good workout, I'll choose the "light ride" option.
Oh, and in answer to your question ... apparently power meters are the most accurate pieces of calorie counting equipment.0 -
Nothing is absolutely accurate.
I log as accurately as I can (weigh food, database entries checked).
I use a tracker.
I believe the tracker's results based on my personal past experience to within 6%
I track my weight on a scale daily and input the results in a couple of trending weight programs.
During certain weight change milestones I "invested" in a series of DXA scans which allowed me to pinpoint how much of the weight change in the previous period was fat and how much was lean mass
I tracked calories in, calories out, scale weight, trending weight, purported deficit and actual deficit as evidenced by body composition change... and came up with my own reality of "accurate within 6%" figure.... which I will continue to believe till my next DXA scan gives me more information about how this may have changed.
Over the past 18 months it did change from 0.5% under-estimated and moved to my TDEE being over-estimated at last count by 5.5%. When you stop to consider this, these are pretty small errors and fairly accurate tracking. They still represent an error of about 170 Cal a day.
Note that since I primarily walk, I am about as good a candidate for tracking by a gizmo as you can find.
To the meat of your question: you can't get it perfect. BUT, if your goals are reasonable (i.e. a 500Cal, not 1000 Cal deficit, on a 2500 TDEE; 250 on a sub-2000 TDEE) then under-or overeating by a little bit won't kill you.
And, if your food tracking is as good as it gets, assume that your tracker is 100% correct and that MFP is a good 60% to 70% as a starting point.... and if your trending weight reality suggests differently after a few weeks which include a full monthly cycle... adjust as per your results!8 -
Calories in and calories out are both estimates. That's as good as it gets. After tracking all this for awhile, assuming your LOGGING is accurate, you can compare it to your actual weight change and adjust accordingly.5
-
Nothing in life is truly accurate.
Nothing.
One of the things which most gets in the way of weight loss is a belief that if something is right, it must also be absolutely accurate all of the time. I'm not sure where this comes from but it is what underlies all these arguments where people say "a calorie is not a calorie" or "calorie counting doesn't work" (or "eating back exercise calories is a total sham").
Calories in, calories out is based on one of the most sound and unassailable scientific principles there is. Conservation of energy is on a better footing scientifically than gravity. If your body moves, it uses energy, and the only way it can get that energy is through food or from its own tissues.
So eating back exercise calories is absolutely not a sham. It is a simple fact, and so is calorie counting and caloric deficits - your fat stores contain a certain amount of energy and the only way to reduce them is to intake less energy or burn more.
It is literally as simple as that, and it is not a matter of opinion. If there were any doubt about this principle, we could not have put a man on the moon. It is the most basic of basic physics.
Now, what throws people is the fact that, although we understand the basic principle and it is absolutely proven, and simple, we cannot accurately calculate how much energy the body uses or how much energy is contained in food. Neither of these are easy to do, both are highly complex, and we have no accurate way to do them. All we have are estimates.
So people, acting out of the belief that if something is true it must also be simple and absolutely accurate, declare that calorie counting doesn't work and there's no point doing it, or give up eating back exercise calories because they can't calculate them with absolute accuracy.
Life is messy, and many things which are true are neither simple, nor capable of being calculated with absolute accuracy. The weight of a new ship before launch. The drag on an aeroplane. The fuel consumption of a car. The energy in a sandwich. The energy burned by running a mile. The weather tomorrow. We can calculate all these things, but none of the calculations are completely accurate. If we wait for perfect accuracy, we'll be waiting a long time, and if we threw up our hands every time something couldn't be accurate, we'd still be living in trees.
Take your best estimates and then watch your weight for a few weeks. If you're losing too fast or slow, adjust the estimates. That's the best any of us can do.16 -
Consistency.
It's on you to find out what gets you the results you want. If you aren't losing at the rate you expect, the variables of the CICO equation need to be tweaked. X mins of your chosen exercise X times a week isn't giving you the loss you expected? Decrease what you gave as its calorie expenditure number. Work with your new variables for a while to see if you've got it right. Still not right? Tweak the numbers again and repeat until what you expect is what you get. HRMs and burn estimates are just a guideline. It's up to you to narrow it down to find what numbers work for you.4 -
emmylootwo wrote: »Getting really annoyed...
I'm looking into purchasing a new Polar heart rate monitor with a chest strap. I understand that calculators such as the one on MFP and other websites (as well as on machines like a treadmill) are not accurate and tend to overestimate. I did some searching in previous discussions on MFP, however, and found plenty of comments saying that an HRM with a chest strap was also inaccurate, especially for anything other than steady state cardio. So, 1.) What counts as steady state cardio? I know this doesn't include strength training but my HRM can't even handle a workout video? Or anything with any sort of intervals? And 2.) If online calculators do not give reasonable estimates of calories that I can safely use to eat back on MFP and neither does an HRM, then what the heck does? Is MFPs entire premise of eating back exercise calories just a total sham? Even if I were to eat back 25-50% of exercise calories, who's to say that still not an overestimation?
My heart rate monitor seems accurate based on my results.2 -
Nothing is accurate, but trackers on machines and HRMs tend to be way off. You could try a different approach, but this requires your food tracking to be spot on.
Eat at a deficit for four weeks and track everything. Then look at your total deficit over these four weeks. Compare to how much weight you lost. Everything you lost more than your deficit is your sport calorie burn. Of course things get more complicated when you do several very different kinds of sports per week.
But anyway, what I did was to use this number, calculated the calories per minute from it and created a custom sport for me that auto adjusts when I lose weight. Of course I rechecked every now and then if the numbers still add up.
Note: this might not be the actual sport calorie burn as it factors in deviations from your actual TDEE, which might be a bit higher or lower, but it worked for me.2 -
Like @yirara I extrapolated my exercise calories from my MFP data. I used the initial number to lose 30 lbs, dropping it by a few calories towards the end.
I then recalculated for my goal weight. It has worked for me. I have maintained with a general cardio calorie burn of 175-200 and throw in an extra 100 when I lift. (The cal burn is low as I am small and old
)
I have never felt the need for a calorie burn/hmr/step device, but I gave a Fitbit a try when training for a 10k in April- it wanted to under feed me. I will stick with the numbers I know work for me.
Having my self derived exercise calorie burn also means the vagarities of my food logging are taken into account.
Sorry it doesn't really answere your question but that is the most accurate way I found to manage my CICO.
Cheers, h.2 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Nothing in life is truly accurate.
Nothing.
One of the things which most gets in the way of weight loss is a belief that if something is right, it must also be absolutely accurate all of the time. I'm not sure where this comes from but it is what underlies all these arguments where people say "a calorie is not a calorie" or "calorie counting doesn't work" (or "eating back exercise calories is a total sham").
Calories in, calories out is based on one of the most sound and unassailable scientific principles there is. Conservation of energy is on a better footing scientifically than gravity. If your body moves, it uses energy, and the only way it can get that energy is through food or from its own tissues.
So eating back exercise calories is absolutely not a sham. It is a simple fact, and so is calorie counting and caloric deficits - your fat stores contain a certain amount of energy and the only way to reduce them is to intake less energy or burn more.
It is literally as simple as that, and it is not a matter of opinion. If there were any doubt about this principle, we could not have put a man on the moon. It is the most basic of basic physics.
Now, what throws people is the fact that, although we understand the basic principle and it is absolutely proven, and simple, we cannot accurately calculate how much energy the body uses or how much energy is contained in food. Neither of these are easy to do, both are highly complex, and we have no accurate way to do them. All we have are estimates.
So people, acting out of the belief that if something is true it must also be simple and absolutely accurate, declare that calorie counting doesn't work and there's no point doing it, or give up eating back exercise calories because they can't calculate them with absolute accuracy.
Life is messy, and many things which are true are neither simple, nor capable of being calculated with absolute accuracy. The weight of a new ship before launch. The drag on an aeroplane. The fuel consumption of a car. The energy in a sandwich. The energy burned by running a mile. The weather tomorrow. We can calculate all these things, but none of the calculations are completely accurate. If we wait for perfect accuracy, we'll be waiting a long time, and if we threw up our hands every time something couldn't be accurate, we'd still be living in trees.
Take your best estimates and then watch your weight for a few weeks. If you're losing too fast or slow, adjust the estimates. That's the best any of us can do.
Answer to so many threads right here.7 -
I used a basic Polar FT7 for my cardio and ate back all my thousands of exercise calories while I successfully lost weight.
When I subsequently upgraded it and did some assessments in a sports science lab and further research I discovered it was probably over-estimating calories by 10 - 20%.
Anyone who does 5 minutes of research should realise that HRMs are heart beat counters not calorie counters. Even steady state cardio in perfect conditions is likely to be well out for most fat and unfit people.
There's a good chance my food estimating was even more inaccurate as I decided early on that an anal level of food logging accuracy was a waste of my time.
And it really didn't matter at all.
You simply adjust your calorie balance based on actual results over time - it's not as complex as people seem to want to make it.
Loads of people successfully use the TDEE method which is even more vague than the MFP eat back exercise calories method as you are guessing the actual duration of your exercise too.
5 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Nothing in life is truly accurate.
Nothing.
One of the things which most gets in the way of weight loss is a belief that if something is right, it must also be absolutely accurate all of the time. I'm not sure where this comes from but it is what underlies all these arguments where people say "a calorie is not a calorie" or "calorie counting doesn't work" (or "eating back exercise calories is a total sham").
Calories in, calories out is based on one of the most sound and unassailable scientific principles there is. Conservation of energy is on a better footing scientifically than gravity. If your body moves, it uses energy, and the only way it can get that energy is through food or from its own tissues.
So eating back exercise calories is absolutely not a sham. It is a simple fact, and so is calorie counting and caloric deficits - your fat stores contain a certain amount of energy and the only way to reduce them is to intake less energy or burn more.
It is literally as simple as that, and it is not a matter of opinion. If there were any doubt about this principle, we could not have put a man on the moon. It is the most basic of basic physics.
Now, what throws people is the fact that, although we understand the basic principle and it is absolutely proven, and simple, we cannot accurately calculate how much energy the body uses or how much energy is contained in food. Neither of these are easy to do, both are highly complex, and we have no accurate way to do them. All we have are estimates.
So people, acting out of the belief that if something is true it must also be simple and absolutely accurate, declare that calorie counting doesn't work and there's no point doing it, or give up eating back exercise calories because they can't calculate them with absolute accuracy.
Life is messy, and many things which are true are neither simple, nor capable of being calculated with absolute accuracy. The weight of a new ship before launch. The drag on an aeroplane. The fuel consumption of a car. The energy in a sandwich. The energy burned by running a mile. The weather tomorrow. We can calculate all these things, but none of the calculations are completely accurate. If we wait for perfect accuracy, we'll be waiting a long time, and if we threw up our hands every time something couldn't be accurate, we'd still be living in trees.
Take your best estimates and then watch your weight for a few weeks. If you're losing too fast or slow, adjust the estimates. That's the best any of us can do.
Answer to so many threads right here.
Truth.
OP as others have said, it's all estimates. Each provides a data point. If you are concerned about accuracy for one particular method of tracking your calorie burn then monitor for several weeks compared against your true results and determine if the data is accurate for you, or if you need to adjust
For what it's worth I use a FitBit and have found it to be very accurate for tracking my calorie burn, I mostly walk and do circuit training videos. I used it to successfully lose the weight I was aiming to lose and am now maintaining that loss eating back all my calories.4 -
emmylootwo wrote: »Is MFPs entire premise of eating back exercise calories just a total sham? Even if I were to eat back 25-50% of exercise calories, who's to say that still not an overestimation?
I'll just add that I managed to lose 26 kg (15 kg in 16 weeks and then 11 kg in 16 weeks) while eating back probably about 75% of my exercise calories.
Just keep your exercise recording reasonable ... no wild and crazy numbers. And adjust as necessary.
1 -
CICO works in a general way. There are just so many variables. Some can be solved with food scales, heart monitors, body weight scales, fit bit and similar devices. But still, one person walking moderately at the same hieght, age and weight for 30 minutes will burn either more or less than another. One apple of the same grams in wieght will be of a different caloric value than an apple next to it.
Practice what you learn about CICO as closely as your life and motivation permits. Adjust, adapt, if its not working.
and most of all, be happy, at last you ar doing things to make yourself more fit physically.2 -
I have a Polar M400 watch. Sometimes when I wear the chest strap, the calorie burns sound a little high to me, but so far I'm still losing weight at the expected rate, even when I eat back every single calorie. I guess it varies from person to person. I also weigh all of my food religiously, so that probably makes a difference, too.1
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Nothing in life is truly accurate.
Nothing.
One of the things which most gets in the way of weight loss is a belief that if something is right, it must also be absolutely accurate all of the time. I'm not sure where this comes from but it is what underlies all these arguments where people say "a calorie is not a calorie" or "calorie counting doesn't work" (or "eating back exercise calories is a total sham").
Calories in, calories out is based on one of the most sound and unassailable scientific principles there is. Conservation of energy is on a better footing scientifically than gravity. If your body moves, it uses energy, and the only way it can get that energy is through food or from its own tissues.
So eating back exercise calories is absolutely not a sham. It is a simple fact, and so is calorie counting and caloric deficits - your fat stores contain a certain amount of energy and the only way to reduce them is to intake less energy or burn more.
It is literally as simple as that, and it is not a matter of opinion. If there were any doubt about this principle, we could not have put a man on the moon. It is the most basic of basic physics.
Now, what throws people is the fact that, although we understand the basic principle and it is absolutely proven, and simple, we cannot accurately calculate how much energy the body uses or how much energy is contained in food. Neither of these are easy to do, both are highly complex, and we have no accurate way to do them. All we have are estimates.
So people, acting out of the belief that if something is true it must also be simple and absolutely accurate, declare that calorie counting doesn't work and there's no point doing it, or give up eating back exercise calories because they can't calculate them with absolute accuracy.
Life is messy, and many things which are true are neither simple, nor capable of being calculated with absolute accuracy. The weight of a new ship before launch. The drag on an aeroplane. The fuel consumption of a car. The energy in a sandwich. The energy burned by running a mile. The weather tomorrow. We can calculate all these things, but none of the calculations are completely accurate. If we wait for perfect accuracy, we'll be waiting a long time, and if we threw up our hands every time something couldn't be accurate, we'd still be living in trees.
Take your best estimates and then watch your weight for a few weeks. If you're losing too fast or slow, adjust the estimates. That's the best any of us can do.
I like this answer. We rely on technology too much when a little common sense and knowledge of how your body works is all you really need. We don't need to make it more difficult that it really is.1 -
I mean, CICO at the end of the day is a fancy way of saying "eat less".
You could do the exact same thing by just taking note of what you eat and reducing the amount until the scale starts to go down.
Tracking food and exercise calories lets you be a bit more precise about it, and to refine the basic premise to "eat less, but not TOO MUCH less, and move more"
That's all it is. There is such a thing as overthinking it.5 -
If you want to "try before you buy", see if you can get yourself a complimentary pass at an Orange Theory studio. You are put through a pretty vigorous routine in an hour while wearing a HRM (supplied) and you can see the results throughout on a big screen. Your goal is to stay in the "orange zone" (Orange Theory; get it?). You can get a report when you are done.
If you are a data geek your personal HRM will likely give you lots of interesting information in your first week, for instance, how many hours you are sedendary. Over time you may even start to correlate the HRM readings to how you feel. Becoming "body aware" is one of the great big bonuses I got from getting fitter.
As others have noted, there's not a lot that is accurate in the weight loss world, as there are so many different factors. For instance, how does one distinguish "water weight" from "fat"?
You CAN accurately weigh and log your food.0 -
I think that most trackers and heart rate monitors are accurate enough to do their job. Things that I always find off are machines that count calories burned, they have an incentive to be high as a reward to you. Food calorie estimates on MFP's database, this is not MFP's fault but different people will enter the same food with different calorie "estimates". The other area that the data can swing wildly is some of the odd exercises like "House cleaning vigorously". I get it that it is burning something but to estimate an actual amount is a fool's errand. I would only count things like that as steps on a FitBit or maybe up my activity level from sedentary to a higher level.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions