Burning less calories?
Replies
-
nytrifisoul wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
The fact that it's the lowest number doesn't mean it's correct, it means it's lowest.
Heart rate monitors don't have any special insight into how much energy you're using. They provide a clue in the right circumstances, but it's just a guess.
See if you can get access to a bike with a power meter because this will be accurate for calories to +/- 2.5%. Unfortunately it tends to be an eye opening experience.
Well it may not be exact, but its close enough that i am eating back at least 75% of extra burned calories and i am still losing close to my weekly goal. I am not big on the science behind it, i just know that it works for me as i have lost a lot of weight the few times that ive gained it back, but that is my fault for not sticking to a healthy lifestyle for more then 3 years at a time.
Whether the number is precisely accurate or not, yes, it is possible to come up with a trial and error “framework” that allows one to use even a moderately accurate metric as a guide.
That being said, your bowflex numbers are likely elevated and this is something to keep in mind in case the numbers stop working for you.
The average intensity for the TC 100 at a usual walking speed (like you describe) is probably about 4-5 METs (according to a study at Adelphi Univ).
Calories per hour is calculated by multiplying body wt in kg x METs. To hit 700 cals in an hour on the TC100, you would have to weigh between 308-385 lbs. (and not hold on to the handrails)
Again , this is not meant to disparage your workouts in any way. It’s more important that you have a routine that works for you, than it is to have the “right” numbers.
5 -
jhanleybrown wrote: »
It's definitely possible. If you are 200 lbs and run for an hour and do 6 miles, just under 800 cals. (.66 x 200 x 6). That's doing 10 min miles - far from an elite athlete!
But if you are 120 lbs...to produce the same burn in an hour you'd have to run 6 min miles and go 10 miles. Which isn't elite, but it's pretty damn hard. So body weight plays a factor.
Close. I was 190 a few weeks ago, down to 187. But still, I know my 70 min TC100 climb is burning at least 800 cals.
0 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
The fact that it's the lowest number doesn't mean it's correct, it means it's lowest.
Heart rate monitors don't have any special insight into how much energy you're using. They provide a clue in the right circumstances, but it's just a guess.
See if you can get access to a bike with a power meter because this will be accurate for calories to +/- 2.5%. Unfortunately it tends to be an eye opening experience.
Well it may not be exact, but its close enough that i am eating back at least 75% of extra burned calories and i am still losing close to my weekly goal. I am not big on the science behind it, i just know that it works for me as i have lost a lot of weight the few times that ive gained it back, but that is my fault for not sticking to a healthy lifestyle for more then 3 years at a time.
Congratulations on your weight loss, that's awesome! I hope it's making life better for you.
From what you just described, there's a huge range of uncertainty in your numbers. You don't know that you're bugging 800 kCal in 70 minutes. I'm not saying this to pee in your Cheerios, I'm saying it because it's the truth and we don't want to mislead people here.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Congratulations on your weight loss, that's awesome! I hope it's making life better for you.
From what you just described, there's a huge range of uncertainty in your numbers. You don't know that you're bugging 800 kCal in 70 minutes. I'm not saying this to pee in your Cheerios, I'm saying it because it's the truth and we don't want to mislead people here.
Ok, what is wrong with my numbers? How many calories burned based on my numbers are in your opinion more realistic.
0 -
Your gym probably has a bike with a power meter. If not, a lot of shops rent them out. You can even rent one from the internet.
Ride it for an hour. The kJ/kCal number it measures will be within +/- 2.5% of god's honest truth.
Use that experience - what the effort you put in felt like and the amount of work it accomplished - as a guide to better judge the calorie estimates other sources are giving you.1 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
Congratulations on your weight loss, that's awesome! I hope it's making life better for you.
From what you just described, there's a huge range of uncertainty in your numbers. You don't know that you're bugging 800 kCal in 70 minutes. I'm not saying this to pee in your Cheerios, I'm saying it because it's the truth and we don't want to mislead people here.
Ok, what is wrong with my numbers? How many calories burned based on my numbers are in your opinion more realistic.
Look at my previous post. Your average calorie burn is probably about 1/2 of what you are estimating.
The fact that you are using inflated exercise numbers and yet still losing weight just points out the inherent inaccuracies of trying to estimate calorie intake, exercise calories, and “movement” calories.
4 -
The labels on packaged foods can be off by up to 10% in either direction, I would expect that to average out over time but unless you're using a food scale you don't know.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Your gym probably has a bike with a power meter. If not, a lot of shops rent them out. You can even rent one from the internet.
Ride it for an hour. The kJ/kCal number it measures will be within +/- 2.5% of god's honest truth.
Use that experience - what the effort you put in felt like and the amount of work it accomplished - as a guide to better judge the calorie estimates other sources are giving you.
I have a stationary exercise bike that is pedal powered. It measures calories/watts. If thats what you are referring to, next time i use it i will take note of the watts in conjunction with my average HR on the polar H7. The Bike has a HR monitor on the handle bars but its wonky and cuts in an out quite often so not reliable.1 -
Look at my previous post. Your average calorie burn is probably about 1/2 of what you are estimating.
The fact that you are using inflated exercise numbers and yet still losing weight just points out the inherent inaccuracies of trying to estimate calorie intake, exercise calories, and “movement” calories.
If that was the case, i would be gaining weight, or if i was lucky, just maintaining. I am definitely eating back more then 1/2 of what i am exercising.
0 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »
Look at my previous post. Your average calorie burn is probably about 1/2 of what you are estimating.
The fact that you are using inflated exercise numbers and yet still losing weight just points out the inherent inaccuracies of trying to estimate calorie intake, exercise calories, and “movement” calories.
If that was the case, i would be gaining weight, or if i was lucky, just maintaining. I am definitely eating back more then 1/2 of what i am exercising.
There is more to the equation than exercise calories. When I initially lost 60 pounds, I looked back and calculated my average deficit. I had structured 1000 cals/day, but it worked out to 1875 per day for five months. Depending on how you count it, NEAT calories can make quite a difference.
But physiologically, you would have to be working at 9-10 METs to burn the calories you claim during your workouts. That is not impossible, but I could find no literature for the TC 100 at the speeds you say you are using that would support such a number. The reported numbers are 4-5 METs which would give the calorie numbers I referenced earlier.
You are making progress and happy with your choices, so I don’t want to belabor what is a more of an academic argument. But this is my area of expertise and so I like to make sure that others who read these comments have realistic expectations.
To end on a positive note, I do agree with your original comment that it is quite possible for an average someone weighing above 80kg and of above average fitness level to burn 700-800 calories per hour during exercise. You don’t have to be an elite athlete.4 -
@nytrifisoul
Warm yourself up first on the exercise first.
Reset the bike and your HRM.
Then do 60mins at 222 watts average output and you will have burned almost exactly 800 net cals in that hour. Good luck, it's an achievable goal for many male cyclists - a good club rider pushing hard could well be around that number.
I managed to calibrate a Polar FT60 HRM against a power meter over several training sessions and got them reasonably close for steady state rides (close enough to be a perfectly usable estimate).
But for interval training that same calibration fell apart and the HRM over-estimated by about 25%.
If I over-heated then again its estimates diverged sharply but to a smaller degree.4 -
Ok this is making more sense to me. I burn roughly 700 cals an hour (at least thats what the bike says) on the exercise bike between 5-6 MET (intensity level) the watts are around 115 - 130 Avg MPH is 20.0
-
nytrifisoul wrote: »Ok this is making more sense to me. I burn roughly 700 cals an hour (at least thats what the bike says) on the exercise bike between 5-6 MET (intensity level) the watts are around 115 - 130 Avg MPH is 20.
130 watt average cycling for an hour = 468cals. There's a very well known relationship between cycling power and net cals.
Ignore "speed" indoors as it bears no relationship to real speed achieved outdoors.
(A 130 watt outdoor ride for me would most likely be a gentle spin with a speed range of 12-14mph.)2 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »Ok this is making more sense to me. I burn roughly 700 cals an hour (at least thats what the bike says) on the exercise bike between 5-6 MET (intensity level) the watts are around 115 - 130 Avg MPH is 20.
Everybody has almost the same efficiency for turning calories into watts on a bike. Lance Armstrong and Rosanne Barr are only 5% apart. That's not my personal opinion that's hundreds of research studies, many done in metabolic wards. Bikes are a special case, you sit down, you turn your feet in circles that are always the same size. It's not like running where you can waste energy bouncing up and down too high or have some other form of efficiency ("running economy") difference.
138 watts is just a hair below 500 kCals per hour. With a maximum error of +/- 2.5%.
It doesn't matter what speed, it matters how many watts. I can burn more energy going 5 mph up a hill than 20 mph down one. Watts are basically a measure of the energy you're putting into the bike. (Technically they're a measure of the rate you're doing physical work.)2 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »
Look at my previous post. Your average calorie burn is probably about 1/2 of what you are estimating.
The fact that you are using inflated exercise numbers and yet still losing weight just points out the inherent inaccuracies of trying to estimate calorie intake, exercise calories, and “movement” calories.
If that was the case, i would be gaining weight, or if i was lucky, just maintaining. I am definitely eating back more then 1/2 of what i am exercising.
There is more to the equation than exercise calories. When I initially lost 60 pounds, I looked back and calculated my average deficit. I had structured 1000 cals/day, but it worked out to 1875 per day for five months. Depending on how you count it, NEAT calories can make quite a difference.
But physiologically, you would have to be working at 9-10 METs to burn the calories you claim during your workouts. That is not impossible, but I could find no literature for the TC 100 at the speeds you say you are using that would support such a number. The reported numbers are 4-5 METs which would give the calorie numbers I referenced earlier.
You are making progress and happy with your choices, so I don’t want to belabor what is a more of an academic argument. But this is my area of expertise and so I like to make sure that others who read these comments have realistic expectations.
To end on a positive note, I do agree with your original comment that it is quite possible for an average someone weighing above 80kg and of above average fitness level to burn 700-800 calories per hour during exercise. You don’t have to be an elite athlete.
For what it's worth. I'm a motivated recreational athlete, for sure not elite level. About 100 kg. Before my accident my FTP was about 275w, which is 990 kCal in an hour. That's the most I'm capable of, with extreme motivation, and takes a few days to recover from. I basically have to limp home whimpering the whole way after that. This is on a road bike and the kCal number will probably be different with other modalities.
TL;DR you're right.2 -
This is really encouraging for me!! I’ve been so frustrated that other people say they burned 600 calories in a class that I have also done... and I only burn 400?? I wondered how that could be possible when I’m going all out and keeping my hr 160-180... and as far as I can tell working just as hard if not harder. The difference in body weight and fitness trackers makes a lot of sense.2
-
NorthCascades wrote: »nytrifisoul wrote: »Ok this is making more sense to me. I burn roughly 700 cals an hour (at least thats what the bike says) on the exercise bike between 5-6 MET (intensity level) the watts are around 115 - 130 Avg MPH is 20.
Everybody has almost the same efficiency for turning calories into watts on a bike. Lance Armstrong and Rosanne Barr are only 5% apart. That's not my personal opinion that's hundreds of research studies, many done in metabolic wards. Bikes are a special case, you sit down, you turn your feet in circles that are always the same size. It's not like running where you can waste energy bouncing up and down too high or have some other form of efficiency ("running economy") difference.
138 watts is just a hair below 500 kCals per hour. With a maximum error of +/- 2.5%.
It doesn't matter what speed, it matters how many watts. I can burn more energy going 5 mph up a hill than 20 mph down one. Watts are basically a measure of the energy you're putting into the bike. (Technically they're a measure of the rate you're doing physical work.)
I love this info. I used to track burns by HR and was way off until @sijomial got me onto measuring watts. It's totally changed my workouts by motivating me to keep over a certain number and turns out I was actually burning more calories than my Apple Watch suggested.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions