How do I input cardio exercise in MFP correctly?

kellyjwebster1
kellyjwebster1 Posts: 6 Member
in Getting Started
I am following a YouTube channel called HASfit which has lots of great beginner videos. I did the workout today on this webpage: https://hasfit.com/workouts/home/easy-beginner/low-impact-cardio-workout-for-beginners/ None of the names of the specific moves come up when I try to add them, and it seems like I can't simply state that I did 25 minutes of cardio. Can anyone give me some helpful hints or advice? Thanks!!!!

Replies

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,226 Member
    Log it in the cardiovascular section (not strength). Depending on exactly what the workout entails, you could use the entries for calisthenics, circuit training, or one of the aerobics intensity levels. Just log the length of the workout in minutes, with one of those descriptions.
  • allmannerofthings
    allmannerofthings Posts: 829 Member
    You can create your own exercise and put in the calories all at once rather than trying to do each thing separately. The HASfit videos have a calorie range as you are doing them. The 20 low impact cardio says 100-200 calories I always use the lower number in their range to avoid over estimating.
  • sanfly
    sanfly Posts: 207 Member
    I’m a big fan of getting a heart rate monitor (HRM) to get an estimate of calories burned. The exercises in MFP often vastly overestimate how many calories you will burn. As you get fitter, your heart rate will drop and you will have to work harder (or longer) to burn the same number of calories - an HRM can account for that, basic MFP entries can not.

    Some fitness watches have an HRM built in (Fitbit, Garmin etc), but the most accurate tend to be the chest strap ones.

    You can get chest straps that come with a basic watch and broadcast the info to that (eg: Polar or Sigma), or ones that are Bluetooth and can send the data to your phone, or other device. I have a Polar HR7 Bluetooth chest strap, I think it’s great!
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,226 Member
    sanfly wrote: »
    I’m a big fan of getting a heart rate monitor (HRM) to get an estimate of calories burned. The exercises in MFP often vastly overestimate how many calories you will burn. As you get fitter, your heart rate will drop and you will have to work harder (or longer) to burn the same number of calories - an HRM can account for that, basic MFP entries can not.

    Some fitness watches have an HRM built in (Fitbit, Garmin etc), but the most accurate tend to be the chest strap ones.

    You can get chest straps that come with a basic watch and broadcast the info to that (eg: Polar or Sigma), or ones that are Bluetooth and can send the data to your phone, or other device. I have a Polar HR7 Bluetooth chest strap, I think it’s great!

    I don't think that's correct. Calories burned vary with the amount of work performed, in pretty much the physics sense of "work".

    As I understand it, two people of the same size, with the same HRmax, one very unfit, one a marathon runner, both walk at 2.5mph for an hour on the same course. They burn about the same number of calories, because they've done about the same objective amount of work.

    The unfit person may find this very difficult, and their heart rate will be higher. The marathoner will certainly find it trivially easy, and their heart rate will be lower . . . but they've each burned about the same number of calories in reality.

    The HRM will probably provide a materially different estimate for the two people (unless it's smart enough to use GPS and an activity designation, and ignore heart rate).

    Heart rate is not a great proxy for work performed. As I get fitter, my heart rate for any given exercise (same duration, pace, etc.) will decline: That's increased fitness. The work performed didn't change. My body's ability to perform the work is what changed. That also makes my perception of the difficulty change.

    (Depending on the specific activity, the trained person may be a bit more efficient. In the walking example, the unfit person may use their upper body movements in ways that don't contribute to forward momentum: Unhelpful arm movements, head movement, whatever, resulting in a small amount of wasted calories, whereas the marathoner doesn't waste much motion. But that's a small fraction of the calories for the activity. Efficiency matters more in some activities than others, certainly.)

    I'm a rower, on water by preference, but somewhat on a rowing machine (my river freezes in Winter). Rowing machines (Concept 2) have a good reputation for direct power measurement, and for estimating calories from the power applied at the flywheel.

    At a constant bodyweight, X average watts for an hour is Y calories. Over the 15 or so years I've been rowing, it's gotten substantially easier (subjective perception) to achieve any particular pace/duration combination that's been within my capability, and my heart rate has gotten lower when I do it. My HRM will tend to give me a lower calorie estimate, as a consequence. But that pace/duration combination generates the same number of watts, and, at constant body weight, equates directly to the same number of calories.

    At least that's how I understand it.

    This is old, but the fundamentals still apply:

    https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

Categories