How do you guys count calories burned at the gym?

xonicki08

I used to use a polar hrm but it stopped working and I was looking into purchasing an apple watch. Does anyone here use an apple watch for counting their calories burned? If so, whats your take? If not, what do you use?

MsHarryWinston

Fitbit Charge 2

sijomial

Depends on what you do at the gym.
A basic HRM for strength training would be completely pointless for example.

I use a variety of methods from a power meter on indoor bikes, sometimes machine readouts (some are perfectly fine). Strength training or circuit training I just use the estimates from here for the duration of the workout.

Used to use a HRM for some steady state cardio but it broke so I just go by "feel" these days.

Azdak

I just put down "1000" and have another slice of pizza.

Mr_Knight

The most accurate burn numbers we have are for steady state cardio like running. I figure out how far I can run in the amount of time I'll be gyming, calculate the calories for that, then divide by 2 if I'm doing "cardio", divide by 3 if I'm crossfitting, divide by 4 if I'm lifting.

heybales

A lot to be done in a gym - what are you doing?

naughtyfairy38

I have an Apple Watch and most of the time I set it to start then just exercise. You can tell it the setting to use e.g....cals burned or a set time for exercise or open end. This is mainly what I use, I just press start and just exercise, simple.

texteach66

I use Endomondo on my phone. You input your age, gender, weight, etc. You can also pair it with a HRM.

caloriemuse

I just use the various machines computers or I use basic formulas available on the web. Admittedly I don't really care much about how accurate or inaccurate the measurements are.

There is however a more important caveat to how you calculate them, it's how you consider them in your diet. On exercise calories and a diet for my money Yoni Freedhoff is a guy that seems to have a pretty good story to tell in this video.
His blog is insightful as well.
http://www.weightymatters.ca/

video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7FK8noIc5I

The one thing that I'd like to see is what the supposed science is, the biochemistry. From the video, it seems like the most sensible explanation is that exercise induces your body to subsequently slow down energy expenditure; example you may without exercise burn your natural 2500 calories in energy in a day. Add exercise and although you burn 500 calories at that activity the body, following exercise, slows down its energy expenditure such that at the end of the day you are still right around the 2500. If there is any, and there is a question in the data if there is, the effective calorie deficit from exercise is probably in the single digits %'s.

Debate of Forks vs Feet, which is more critical to weight loss.
http://blogs.plos.org/obesitypanacea/2011/06/14/forks-vs-feet-video-and-podcast/

Okiludy

I pretty much only count calories for steady state cardio. HIIT might be close to accurate with a HRM but forget about resistance training. No way I have found to accurately guess the amounts burned.

What I did was eat closer to maintenance when I was lifting 3x per week. I basically set my weight loss goal at .5 lbs. I lost at 1-1.5lbs doing this. I started lifting 5x per week and still haven't balanced out the calories for additional burn. I likely will need to eat at maintenance so I can keep my loss rate at around 1lbs per week.

Mr_Knight

Okiludy wrote: »

HIIT might be close to accurate with a HRM

HRMs are not suitable for HIIT burn estimates. HIIT is in fact pretty much the worst use-case for them.

Okiludy

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Okiludy wrote: »

HIIT might be close to accurate with a HRM

HRMs are not suitable for HIIT burn estimates. HIIT is in fact pretty much the worst use-case for them.

Kind of was think that but have not seen any proof. Only thing I'd really trust an HRM for calculating calories is steady state. Even that is likely best guess.

heybales

HRM calculations for steady-state (same HR for 2-4 min) aerobic can be pretty accurate - once you filter out reasons why the HR isn't an accurate representation of what you are doing.
And the underlying numbers the calculations are based on are good, like VO2max and HRmax.

Meaning it can be best guess for some stuff, some stuff like walking and running level a formula would actually be better. (like intervals)

But intervals of any sort (unless walking/jogging aerobic both) are non-steady state, and the intense part is likely anaerobic if done right. So ditto's to worst-case usage, just like lifting.

heybales

caloriemuse wrote: »

There is however a more important caveat to how you calculate them, it's how you consider them in your diet. On exercise calories and a diet for my money Yoni Freedhoff is a guy that seems to have a pretty good story to tell in this video.

The one thing that I'd like to see is what the supposed science is, the biochemistry. From the video, it seems like the most sensible explanation is that exercise induces your body to subsequently slow down energy expenditure; example you may without exercise burn your natural 2500 calories in energy in a day. Add exercise and although you burn 500 calories at that activity the body, following exercise, slows down its energy expenditure such that at the end of the day you are still right around the 2500. If there is any, and there is a question in the data if there is, the effective calorie deficit from exercise is probably in the single digits %'s.

From what I've read, it's not the biochemistry - it's just the fact that for many that aren't used to it, and especially if viewing it as a means to an end (weight loss or eating more) that isn't as important as overall health - they just flat out do less.

So indeed, a 2500 cal active lifestyle TDEE person throws a 500 cal workout in their day somewhere.
They would have burned say 200 anyway because normally busy with stuff - so only a net gain of 300.
Then they are more tired later so sit longer, so say miss out on 200 over the course of 3 hrs - so only net gain of 100.

Or the other person, 2000 not-so-active lifestyle TDEE person throws a 500 cal workout in replacing TV/computer sitting time.
So net gain their may 420, but then they do even less for many more hours and lose 300 - net gain only 120.
And they more than eat up that extra amount.

Only time I've seen the research say the body actually burns less is in a diet doing the wrong things (no exercise or extreme deficit) and body becomes more metabolically adapted beyond what muscle loss would cause.

20 some years ago I wondered if my very aerobic-conditioned system was causing me to burn less. There were research studies even then that showed no, as people got aerobically conditioned, they did not burn less daily, except for the very minor amount related to the heart not beating as fast, and breathing rate being slower. That wasn't the excuse for what I thought was happening.
And those both slowed down because the body could provide the same amount of desired oxygen for oxidizing energy sources.
(my reason - undereating for level of activity and then not moving as much outside exercise - lowered TDEE, exactly what he was talking about - except I needed to eat more).

I think his advice is still appropriate for free-range non-tracking situations.

But for people with activity trackers watching and getting a certain number of steps in, watching what they eating, ect - it's not actually as much a factor.

Because if they do sit around more - it shows up in lack of steps, and TDEE correctly shows being lower - so you eat lower if logging decently.

caloriemuse

to Heybales
Hmm... that's an interesting frame of reference. I'm reasonably comfortable offering that's not what the data presented in the video is suggesting is the explanation, at least that's not what's offered. In fact in the debate (other link) is devoted to this entire idea of whether exercise will have ANY impact on weight loss or not; from Yoni's review of available studies the answer is not a bit.

That said, let me see if I understand the application of the premise you're offering. You would suggest that someone doing 30,000 steps a day due to work, travel to work, everyday stuff, etc... Admittedly a pretty extensive bit of calorie burn (1500 cals lets say) IF they went to the gym and tossed on another 500 cal's would get the full benefit of that burn meaning they could eat it all back without jeopardizing their calorie deficit IF they didn't find some way to slack off at work or walk less traveling to work presuming these were the things getting them to 30,000 and it wasn't some other activity 'exchanged' (key in your point of view) for the now additional gym time. Which is to say they'd get the 2000 (1500 + 500) cal's tacked onto their basal metabolic rate. In my mind it's clear that Yoni is warning against that very idea.

Mind you, I'd agree if someone instead of taking the 2 hour walk went to the gym to burn 300 calories that of course the math won't work out if you've already calculated the 2 hour walk as part of your daily energy needs you're not going to then be able to tack on the extra 300.

Mr_Knight

What works well for me is to work from a base sedentary level. "Steps" are accounted for separately, as is intentional vigorous exercise. I always calculate net calorie burns, so as to not double-up. And I'm extremely careful about burn estimates for non-steady state exercise.

Over the long term, this tracks extremely well for me, within 5%. Which, I guess, since the baseline is sedentary, does lend some anecdotal weight to the notion that the body will compensate by slowing down a bit.

heybales

caloriemuse wrote: »

to Heybales
Hmm... that's an interesting frame of reference. I'm reasonably comfortable offering that's not what the data presented in the video is suggesting is the explanation, at least that's not what's offered. In fact in the debate (other link) is devoted to this entire idea of whether exercise will have ANY impact on weight loss or not; from Yoni's review of available studies the answer is not a bit.

That said, let me see if I understand the application of the premise you're offering. You would suggest that someone doing 30,000 steps a day due to work, travel to work, everyday stuff, etc... Admittedly a pretty extensive bit of calorie burn (1500 cals lets say) IF they went to the gym and tossed on another 500 cal's would get the full benefit of that burn meaning they could eat it all back without jeopardizing their calorie deficit IF they didn't find some way to slack off at work or walk less traveling to work presuming these were the things getting them to 30,000 and it wasn't some other activity 'exchanged' (key in your point of view) for the now additional gym time. Which is to say they'd get the 2000 (1500 + 500) cal's tacked onto their basal metabolic rate. In my mind it's clear that Yoni is warning against that very idea.

Mind you, I'd agree if someone instead of taking the 2 hour walk went to the gym to burn 300 calories that of course the math won't work out if you've already calculated the 2 hour walk as part of your daily energy needs you're not going to then be able to tack on the extra 300.

Your suggestion is exactly what has worked for me for every spring/summer of triathlon training.
Big difference is I'm sedentary otherwise, and I'm not just doing 15-20 min of easy cardio that many of those discussions seem to presume.
And I got a Fitbit years back because it was the problem of not tracking the variability of the daily stuff that would cause me to undereat too much and performance suffer - but the lag time on just watching performance as an indicator was not desired. I had one year a bad 3 weeks in spring during startup of training where I lost 5 lbs of LBM, and considering the sessions were getting longer, it wasn't water weight I was losing as LBM.

So are they implying that there is something special with exercise that overall causes it to not burn more NET day change?
Because hundreds on MFP actually tracking what they eat and what they do (and that part using static daily activity guess and sometimes bad exercise calorie estimate) would have their results argue otherwise.

What would be the implications of someone like me with normally not even hitting 4K steps daily, increasing my daily to 20K?
It's not exercise, but it's increased calorie burn, no way around that. Would that also not count then?

Since the idea the body likes homeostasis does seem to be proved out - what exactly is he suggesting is not having energy spent on that makes up for all those calories, if eating and other activity is tracked closely?

I'd like to review his selection of studies he used in his meta-review (if that's what it is) to come to conclusion.
Because I already know from studies for years that in free-range people, exercise by itself rarely leads to weight loss. But that's because food isn't tracked, nor is rest of the daily activity level.

In studies with total control and watching - other effects are seen.
This is one of the few where there was an adaption - but weight still lost.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251