nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

MyFitnessPal Community

Accuracy of Cardio Machine Calorie Burn?

ellie117

Hello!
A little background - I've been successful on MFP for about 2 years now, tracking my food and exercise. I'm 29, 5'5'', and currently ~155lbs (I started at 215lbs.) As I get closer to a "Normal" BMI range (just a few lbs shy), I'm finding it harder and harder to lose. I try to stay consistent within my calorie goals, but do go over on occasion. My workouts almost entirely consist of cardio, 4-6 days per week at 60mins per session. My calorie goal is 1,200, and I eat back 20%-60% of my exercise calories depending on the day (more on the weekends...) My diary is open.

The machines I use utilize my age and weight to calculate the Calories Burned. My question is - how accurate is this number? I feel like it overestimates, as recently I've been pushing myself and the number reaches well into the 800s some days. Is it possible I'm burning 800 calories in 65 minutes? And if not, is there a more accurate calculation I could do myself to get a better idea of how much I'm burning during a session? I'm afraid part of the reason behind my plateau is eating back too much of my exercise calories, thinking I burned more than I did.

I do not have a fitbit or other tracking device, and hadn't planned on getting one. Will one help me better gauge my calorie burn?

Replies

DEVikingsMom

General rule of thumb ... machines overstate burn by at least 10-20%. Obviously YMMV based on machine inputs, calibration, etc.

My rule of thumb ... per a study I read several years back, it is very difficult for an average female of my size (5'3", 138lb - not much off from your size) to burn more than 10 calories per min average in sustained exercise.

I go all out on my ArcTrainer machine sessions & (per readout) burn an average of 13 cal/min. I record 10 cal/min (or just under 80% of readout) IF I feel my stats bear it out (high heart rate, etc).

I wear a fitbit & love it! Keeps me motivated outside of intentional exercise - it's crazy how much a little bit of extra activity throughout the day can change my calorie allowance.

ellie117

@DEVikingsMom I've heard that as well, that it's difficult to burn more than 10 cal/min so I have a hard time believing I was actually burning over 800 on a consistent basis. I was thinking of adjusting my entries to ~600 for a 65 minute session to account for machine inaccuracy.

sijomial

The chances of a female with non elite level of fitness actually burning 800 net cals in 65 mins would be very low IMHO. I think you are wise to disbelieve your machine's estimates.

Different machines have different ranges of accuracy / inaccuracy.
Some can be very accurate (power meter equipped bikes for example), some are horrendously inaccurate, some (many) estimate gross calories not net calories.

Some exercises have well known and fairly consistent across people efficency ratios, some do not (such as ellipticals). Some manufacturers put a lot of effort into coming up with reasonable calorie tables, some appear to put their Marketing Dept in charge of producing vanity estimates to try and show their machine burns calories more effectively.

There's no guarantee a Fitbit or HRM would be any better - the personal range of accuracy/inaccuracy is massive.

If you want any idea of your actual capabilities....
How far can you run in an hour?
How many watts can you average on a bike for an hour?
How many calories would a Concept2 rower give you for an hour? (You need to adjust that one for your weight.)

aokoye

sijomial wrote: »

The chances of a female with non elite level of fitness actually burning 800 net cals in 65 mins would be very low IMHO. I think you are wise to disbelieve your machine's estimates.

Different machines have different ranges of accuracy / inaccuracy.
Some can be very accurate (power meter equipped bikes for example), some are horrendously inaccurate, some (many) estimate gross calories not net calories.

Some exercises have well known and fairly consistent across people efficency ratios, some do not (such as ellipticals). Some manufacturers put a lot of effort into coming up with reasonable calorie tables, some appear to put their Marketing Dept in charge of producing vanity estimates to try and show their machine burns calories more effectively.

There's no guarantee a Fitbit or HRM would be any better - the personal range of accuracy/inaccuracy is massive.

If you want any idea of your actual capabilities....
How far can you run in an hour?
How many watts can you average on a bike for an hour?
How many calories would a Concept2 rower give you for an hour? (You need to adjust that one for your weight.)

All I have to add is that everything sijomial said is more or less exactly what I was going to write, including the bits about watts per hour and Concept2 (unless you are in fact 175lbs which is what they default to). I would add that you also need to adjust for time as it's a calories per hour measurement.

cmriverside

You should have a pretty good idea of numbers if you've been at this for two years and lost almost 60 pounds.

Here's what I do: I use a flat 300 calories per hour of moderate to hardish exercise. I tend to work out at close to the same levels of intensity regardless of what I'm doing so I just decided to do that. It's easy to calculate, it seems to work pretty well (twelve years now.) I started doing it because I didn't like the uncertainty and because it was close enough.

Why not try something similar? I didn't use a body device either and I started using the flat 300 when I was just a little heavier than you (around 170, 5'8")

AnnPT77

Oops, hit enter too soon, back in a minute!

AnnPT77

cmriverside wrote: »

You should have a pretty good idea of numbers if you've been at this for two years and lost almost 60 pounds.

Here's what I do: I use a flat 300 calories per hour of moderate to hardish exercise. I tend to work out at close to the same levels of intensity regardless of what I'm doing so I just decided to do that. It's easy to calculate, it seems to work pretty well (twelve years now.) I started doing it because I didn't like the uncertainty and because it was close enough.

Why not try something similar? I didn't use a body device either and I started using the flat 300 when I was just a little heavier than you (around 170, 5'8")

I don't think that's irrational as a rough estimate.

I'm 5'5" like you, OP, but weight mid-130s, age 64, reasonably vigorous for a li'l ol' lady.

On a Concept 2, my routine workouts are about a pace that would be 550 calories per hour according to C2's weight adjustment (I don't normally do it for a solid hour; I think I could). I'm reasonably well-conditioned to it (been rowing for 15+ years). I suspect that's gross calories, not net. Tracker (Garmin Vivoactive 3) says 325ish calories for 45-50 minutes, which is what I usually log.

Just for fun, I looked up the 1-hour times logged at Concept 2 (international participation) for your sex/age/weight group (women 20-29, heavyweight (which starts at 135, BTW)). This season's current high is a 20 year old whose pace equates to 159 watts, which at your body weight (155) would be 813 calories per hour, weight adjusted. I doubt she repeats it daily.

When my spin bike (45-50 minute class) picks up my HR from my chest belt, it estimates 550-600 calories for the session, which is laughable; but usually much less (maybe half?) if it doesn't pick up HR. (WTH??) Tracker says something in the 250-300 range, usually, which is what I log (probably not accurate, but close enough).

There is no possible way I can imagine that I'd burn 800 calories in an hour, for a full hour. I can't say you don't, but it would be quite a high number, and I say that in context of working our regularly with people much younger than I am.

ellie117

cmriverside wrote: »

You should have a pretty good idea of numbers if you've been at this for two years and lost almost 60 pounds.

Here's what I do: I use a flat 300 calories per hour of moderate to hardish exercise. I tend to work out at close to the same levels of intensity regardless of what I'm doing so I just decided to do that. It's easy to calculate, it seems to work pretty well (twelve years now.) I started doing it because I didn't like the uncertainty and because it was close enough.

Why not try something similar? I didn't use a body device either and I started using the flat 300 when I was just a little heavier than you (around 170, 5'8")

Your first point is kind of why I'm asking, because what worked for me for a while seems to no longer be working. However, I did start eating back some exercise calories based on posts I've seen throughout these forums suggesting that's how MFP is designed, so that might be the culprit. To lose the first 50 I would just input the machine's caloric burn and still eat 1,200. But now I'm eating closer to 1400-1600 most days that I exercise. I feel like even if the machine overestimates, I should still be at a deficit though?

My body scale says my BMR is low, at 1324, so to eat at a deficit I have to stay at 1,200 but thought I could increase it on days I exercise. I guess I'm increasing too much

I like the 300/hour estimate. I'll try it out and see where I am after a month.

ellie117

sijomial wrote: »

The chances of a female with non elite level of fitness actually burning 800 net cals in 65 mins would be very low IMHO. I think you are wise to disbelieve your machine's estimates.

Different machines have different ranges of accuracy / inaccuracy.
Some can be very accurate (power meter equipped bikes for example), some are horrendously inaccurate, some (many) estimate gross calories not net calories.

Some exercises have well known and fairly consistent across people efficency ratios, some do not (such as ellipticals). Some manufacturers put a lot of effort into coming up with reasonable calorie tables, some appear to put their Marketing Dept in charge of producing vanity estimates to try and show their machine burns calories more effectively.

There's no guarantee a Fitbit or HRM would be any better - the personal range of accuracy/inaccuracy is massive.

If you want any idea of your actual capabilities....
How far can you run in an hour?
How many watts can you average on a bike for an hour?
How many calories would a Concept2 rower give you for an hour? (You need to adjust that one for your weight.)

Thank you for your advice!

As for your questions, I don't run. Even at my highest level of fitness in high school and college, running was terrible for me because I never got faster or increased my longevity. So I don't run. I use the elliptical (there's a version at my gym that has stationary arms and just uses leg muscles, which I prefer.)

I'm not sure about wattage on a bike, but I can try it next time I'm at the gym on Saturday. How would this relate to overall burn?

I'd also have to try a rower again. I used to use an erg in college when my workout partner was on the crew team, but I can't remember the stats.

sijomial

ellie117 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

The chances of a female with non elite level of fitness actually burning 800 net cals in 65 mins would be very low IMHO. I think you are wise to disbelieve your machine's estimates.

Different machines have different ranges of accuracy / inaccuracy.
Some can be very accurate (power meter equipped bikes for example), some are horrendously inaccurate, some (many) estimate gross calories not net calories.

Some exercises have well known and fairly consistent across people efficency ratios, some do not (such as ellipticals). Some manufacturers put a lot of effort into coming up with reasonable calorie tables, some appear to put their Marketing Dept in charge of producing vanity estimates to try and show their machine burns calories more effectively.

There's no guarantee a Fitbit or HRM would be any better - the personal range of accuracy/inaccuracy is massive.

If you want any idea of your actual capabilities....
How far can you run in an hour?
How many watts can you average on a bike for an hour?
How many calories would a Concept2 rower give you for an hour? (You need to adjust that one for your weight.)

Thank you for your advice!

As for your questions, I don't run. Even at my highest level of fitness in high school and college, running was terrible for me because I never got faster or increased my longevity. So I don't run. I use the elliptical (there's a version at my gym that has stationary arms and just uses leg muscles, which I prefer.)

I'm not sure about wattage on a bike, but I can try it next time I'm at the gym on Saturday. How would this relate to overall burn?

I'd also have to try a rower again. I used to use an erg in college when my workout partner was on the crew team, but I can't remember the stats.

A power meter equipped bike is about the most accurate net calorie estimate that ordinary people can get without resorting to a sports science lab.

Multiply average watts per hour by 3.6.
As an example multiply 222 watts by 3.6 gives 799 net cals. (Which would be a remarkable achievement for a female your size.)
By the minute multiply average watts by 0.06.

Concept2 website has a page which allows you to adjust the cals displayed according to your weight.
https://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/calorie-calculator

I don't run either but if you did you would be burning approx 96 net cals per mile at your weight.
(8 miles in an hour would be pretty impressive.)

Obviously it's imperfect to compare one exercise to another but it does help identify where estimates are too extreme to be credible. In the end "reasonable" is good enough for purpose but I have a feeling your machine's estimates are a bit beyond reasonable.

cmriverside

ellie117 wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

You should have a pretty good idea of numbers if you've been at this for two years and lost almost 60 pounds.

Here's what I do: I use a flat 300 calories per hour of moderate to hardish exercise. I tend to work out at close to the same levels of intensity regardless of what I'm doing so I just decided to do that. It's easy to calculate, it seems to work pretty well (twelve years now.) I started doing it because I didn't like the uncertainty and because it was close enough.

Why not try something similar? I didn't use a body device either and I started using the flat 300 when I was just a little heavier than you (around 170, 5'8")

Your first point is kind of why I'm asking, because what worked for me for a while seems to no longer be working. However, I did start eating back some exercise calories based on posts I've seen throughout these forums suggesting that's how MFP is designed, so that might be the culprit. To lose the first 50 I would just input the machine's caloric burn and still eat 1,200. But now I'm eating closer to 1400-1600 most days that I exercise. I feel like even if the machine overestimates, I should still be at a deficit though?

My body scale says my BMR is low, at 1324, so to eat at a deficit I have to stay at 1,200 but thought I could increase it on days I exercise. I guess I'm increasing too much

I like the 300/hour estimate. I'll try it out and see where I am after a month.

Well, weight loss is very easy and it's hard to screw it up when you have a lot of weight to lose. First, your body will use your body fat as fuel even when you are undereating. Second, any deficit at all will lead to loss, and you don't even have to be close, number-wise.

Now that you are close to goal, you really need to nail this down. Don't continue to under-eat, with little body fat it is going to blow up in your face. Weight loss is easy with a lot of weight to lose. It becomes a much tighter range as you get close, like you are now.

Pick a number for the exercise and use it consistently for a month. See what happens. 300 is a good number.

This isn't an exact science. I figure even with my food scale and making most of my own food from home I still make a couple hundred calories of errors a day, probably. I decided to nail down that Exercise variable in the way I did it so that I could know where to adjust if needed.

ellie117

cmriverside wrote: »

Well, weight loss is very easy and it's hard to screw it up when you have a lot of weight to lose. First, your body will use your body fat as fuel even when you are undereating. Second, any deficit at all will lead to loss, and you don't even have to be close, number-wise.

Now that you are close to goal, you really need to nail this down. Don't continue to under-eat, with little body fat it is going to blow up in your face. Weight loss is easy with a lot of weight to lose. It becomes a much tighter range as you get close, like you are now.

Pick a number for the exercise and use it consistently for a month. See what happens. 300 is a good number.

This isn't an exact science. I figure even with my food scale and making most of my own food from home I still make a couple hundred calories of errors a day, probably. I decided to nail down that Exercise variable in the way I did it so that I could know where to adjust if needed.

I still have 36% body fat, per the measurement from my scale, which I would like to see decrease to the mid 20s eventually. I'm not sure I could qualify as having 'little body fat' right now?

I do not have a food scale, but the longer I'm on these forums the more I'm getting convinced I should start using one. I'm going to assume the closer I am to a healthy range, and to stay in maintenance, a scale is going to be crucial.

cmriverside

ellie117 wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

Well, weight loss is very easy and it's hard to screw it up when you have a lot of weight to lose. First, your body will use your body fat as fuel even when you are undereating. Second, any deficit at all will lead to loss, and you don't even have to be close, number-wise.

Now that you are close to goal, you really need to nail this down. Don't continue to under-eat, with little body fat it is going to blow up in your face. Weight loss is easy with a lot of weight to lose. It becomes a much tighter range as you get close, like you are now.

Pick a number for the exercise and use it consistently for a month. See what happens. 300 is a good number.

This isn't an exact science. I figure even with my food scale and making most of my own food from home I still make a couple hundred calories of errors a day, probably. I decided to nail down that Exercise variable in the way I did it so that I could know where to adjust if needed.

I still have 36% body fat, per the measurement from my scale, which I would like to see decrease to the mid 20s eventually. I'm not sure I could qualify as having 'little body fat' right now?

I do not have a food scale, but the longer I'm on these forums the more I'm getting convinced I should start using one. I'm going to assume the closer I am to a healthy range, and to stay in maintenance, a scale is going to be crucial.

At 5'5" 155, your BMI is 25.8. You are 5 pounds outside the healthy weight range for your height. Your scale is nuts. Those bioimpedence scales are notoriously inaccurate.

Congratulations on almost Normal Weight.

And yeah, I bought my food scale at about the point you are at, too. It's necessary - for me. I want to make sure I eat enough, not just make sure I don't eat too much. It's a delicate balance with not much weight to lose.

sijomial

ellie117 wrote: »

My body scale says my BMR is low, at 1324, so to eat at a deficit I have to stay at 1,200 but thought I could increase it on days I exercise. I guess I'm increasing too much
.

Remember you don't take a deficit from your BMR, that then gets multiplied by your activity setting and then exercise is added on top (TDEE).

ellie117

cmriverside wrote: »

At 5'5" 155, your BMI is 25.8. You are 5 pounds outside the healthy weight range for your height. Your scale is nuts. Those bioimpedence scales are notoriously inaccurate.

Congratulations on almost Normal Weight.

And yeah, I bought my food scale at about the point you are at, too. It's necessary - for me. I want to make sure I eat enough, not just make sure I don't eat too much. It's a delicate balance with not much weight to lose.

I know I am close to a normal BMI range, but someone at 5'5" with a lot more muscle than me could also be 155 and have a much different body fat % than me, no?

ellie117

sijomial wrote: »

Remember you don't take a deficit from your BMR, that then gets multiplied by your activity setting and then exercise is added on top (TDEE).

Gotcha. I work a desk job and have no kids, and after work I cook dinner then veg on the couch until bedtime. So apart from the occasional step away from my desk and my intended gym exercise, I am the definition of sedentary. My TDEE on days I don't exercise is probably pretty close to my BMR, and a bit more on days I do.

jflongo

I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.

Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.

erickirb

jflongo wrote: »

I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.

Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.

the bolded is untrue... cals burned is based on work, moving your weight over a certain distance. the more you run you actually get in better shape and are able to increase the cals/burned per unit of time... if you are using an HRM it will show you burn less as it estimates work based on HR, which when you get better at something will be lower, but in reality you are burning the same, or able to go faster/longer meaning you burn even more.

Cardio only will not help you retain as much muscle while losing, which is why it is good to incorporate resistance training too. that helps ensure a larger % of your loss comes from fat.

BrianSharpe

jflongo wrote: »

I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.

Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.

The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.

Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.

OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)

jflongo

BrianSharpe wrote: »

jflongo wrote: »

I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.

Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.

The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.

Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.

OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)

You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.

Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.

cmriverside

jflongo wrote: »

BrianSharpe wrote: »

jflongo wrote: »

I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.

Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.

The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.

Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.

OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)

You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.

Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.

You don't burn less, the heart rate monitors and the treadmill calorie counter are only tracking heart rate. Your heart rate goes down as you become more physically fit, but it still takes a certain number of calories to (say) run three miles.

Fewer calories as you lose weight, sure. But that isn't the same thing as lower heart rate at the same weight.

It takes the same calories for a 170 pound man to run three miles whether his heart rate is 90 or 125. The heart rate monitor and the treadmill don't give an accurate representation of these two scenarios. All they have to go on is heart rate and weight. Heart rate is misleading.

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

ellie117

jflongo wrote: »

Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.

I do change up the resistance and the incline every time I do it, just for some variety.

ellie117

erickirb wrote: »

Cardio only will not help you retain as much muscle while losing, which is why it is good to incorporate resistance training too. that helps ensure a larger % of your loss comes from fat.

Makes sense. I was hoping cardio would get me down to a Normal range and then I could work on muscle building. I'm going to try the 300cal/hour for the next couple weeks and then start strength training. I think there's a sticky post somewhere for an intro to weight training that I'll finally look into.

erickirb

jflongo wrote: »

BrianSharpe wrote: »

jflongo wrote: »

I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.

Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.

The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.

Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.

OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)

You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.

Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.

No, no it won't... you get better at it and can get faster/stronger with the same perceived effort, that does not mean burn fewer calories, as you get more fit/efficient you can burn more not fewer calories.

heybales

ellie117 wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

At 5'5" 155, your BMI is 25.8. You are 5 pounds outside the healthy weight range for your height. Your scale is nuts. Those bioimpedence scales are notoriously inaccurate.

Congratulations on almost Normal Weight.

And yeah, I bought my food scale at about the point you are at, too. It's necessary - for me. I want to make sure I eat enough, not just make sure I don't eat too much. It's a delicate balance with not much weight to lose.

I know I am close to a normal BMI range, but someone at 5'5" with a lot more muscle than me could also be 155 and have a much different body fat % than me, no?

It is possible with doing nothing but cardio with what sounds like a huge deficit to lose that 50 lbs (not eating more when you did more, eating minimal amount for safety).

You are likely entering the realm of "skinny fat" because you lost decent amount of muscle mass along with fat in those 50 lbs.

Only way to correct is doing strength training.

And cutting out the unreasonable deficit and making it slower and reasonable.
Body already adjusted to the unreasonable, probably burning less than it could otherwise.
Just have to live with that and accept likely fact you'll be eating even less than potential.

You do some recomp and that last 5 lbs may not even be needed because you'll look better.
Likely no one sees you weigh naked in the morning to even know your weight, unless you wear a sign.

Are your workouts after that weight loss about the same pace/speed/intensity - then you are burning less moving less weight around.
Have you made them more intense to compensate - then you may be burning same amount.

Just a few random thoughts on your comments so far.

heybales

jflongo wrote: »

BrianSharpe wrote: »

jflongo wrote: »

I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.

Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.

The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.

Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.

OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)

You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.

Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.

When it's moving less weight it burns less calories at the same pace/speed/intensity.

Not because you failed to "mix it up". Efficiency improvements in most cardio is very minor.
Gym classes are another thing, you can only move so much faster, usually to the beat, so no increase of intensity.

But like most people that lose weight - you do go faster, harder, more intense because of becoming fitter, and being lighter.
Many will actually find themselves burning more for those reasons.

AnnPT77

ellie117 wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

Well, weight loss is very easy and it's hard to screw it up when you have a lot of weight to lose. First, your body will use your body fat as fuel even when you are undereating. Second, any deficit at all will lead to loss, and you don't even have to be close, number-wise.

Now that you are close to goal, you really need to nail this down. Don't continue to under-eat, with little body fat it is going to blow up in your face. Weight loss is easy with a lot of weight to lose. It becomes a much tighter range as you get close, like you are now.

Pick a number for the exercise and use it consistently for a month. See what happens. 300 is a good number.

This isn't an exact science. I figure even with my food scale and making most of my own food from home I still make a couple hundred calories of errors a day, probably. I decided to nail down that Exercise variable in the way I did it so that I could know where to adjust if needed.

I still have 36% body fat, per the measurement from my scale, which I would like to see decrease to the mid 20s eventually. I'm not sure I could qualify as having 'little body fat' right now?

I do not have a food scale, but the longer I'm on these forums the more I'm getting convinced I should start using one. I'm going to assume the closer I am to a healthy range, and to stay in maintenance, a scale is going to be crucial.

A few things, in response to not just this one of your post, but also some others:

* I joined MFP specifically because I had been estimating calories, without a food scale, and my weight loss was stalling in the mid-150s (at 5'5").

Not only are they more accurate, I think you'll find using one easier than cups/spoons measurements if you're using those at all **. They're also very inexpensive. It's not necessarily an essential tool, IMO, but it can be an extremely helpful one, if only for a period of time to accurately diagnose what's going on.

* I'm another who feels some doubt about that 36% number. Possible? Sure. You mention the idea that someone else your height could have more muscle than you at 5'5". Theoretically, that could be true, but I think this idea is sometimes oversold. Women add muscle slowly, and the best results require significant effort. It isn't common. Twenty pounds of extra muscle (on top of amounts needed to live a normal life, and do 4-6 hours a week of cardio

), say, would be quite a lot. Are you of very narrow frame, lightly built: Especially, do you have narrow shoulders, narrow pelvic width, fine bones generally?**** If not, the 36% is even less likely IMO.

* You mention being very sedentary. One thing you can consider is consciously trying to increase your daily life activity, in ways that don't typically create a big time demand. These are not calories you can typically log, but they do affect your weight loss rate. There's a thread about that here, if you're interested.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1

* It's not that cardio has zero impact on muscle retention (if one reads the research), but you might want to consider adding some strength to your routine earlier rather than later. Granted, it's a lower calorie burner (per minute). However, it's part of the standard recommendation for general fitness (150 minutes of moderate cardio, 2 days a week strength training). It is a bit more helpful in retaining lean mass as you lose. Muscle is slow/challenging for women to build, so keeping as much as possible while losing fat is a great idea. Being stronger will generally have appearance benefits to your goal-weight body. Women, especially as we age, tend to lose muscle mass to the detriment of our TDEE and our practical independence/health. (I see this last in friends my own age frequently, sadly.) Almost no one wishes they'd waited longer to start strength training.

It sounds like you have a good plan going forward, with the reduced exercise calorie estimates, and incorporating a food scale: Wishing you much success!

** This thread is about using a food scale efficiently, despite the joke-y clickbait title:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10498882/weighing-food-takes-too-long-and-is-obsessive

**** The idea of "big bones", as in the bones themselves being heavy, isn't very important to weight/body fat. There's a small range of variation in total weight of bones, among same-height people. Bones don't account for a large fraction of body weight. Fat & lean tissue are the biggies. Women with wider shoulders, pelvises, bigger hands and arms and legs (bone-structure-wise) require more meat to wrap around those bones - geometrically more, in fact. That can account for material weight differences at the same body fat. Another factor for women is breast size. If you have large breasts, they're partly fat and partly breast tissue. If they don't shrink much when you're losing weight, there's probably relatively less fat, but any fat that's there increases your actual body fat percent in ways that aren't necessarily scary/harmful.

AnnPT77

jflongo wrote: »

BrianSharpe wrote: »

jflongo wrote: »

I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.

Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.

The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.

Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.

OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)

You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.

Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.

No, your point is just inaccurate, as others have said.

Some activities have a larger skill/efficiency factor, so there's the potential to burn slightly fewer calories as you get more efficient at doing them (waste less motion). For most common activities, that's a pretty small effect, as a percentage of the total.

Calorie burn is predominantly determined by work, in the physics sense of that term.

As you get lighter (in body weight), you burn fewer calrories doing the same activity, if that activity includes a fair amount of moving your body through space (as with running/walking, say). As you get fitter, at the same body weight and skill level (=efficiency), the calorie burn is about the same on a "per output" basis (per mile, for example). Fitter people can ususally create more output per time interval (e.g., run faster), so they can potentially burn more calories per minute than less people of same size/skill, while still not becoming more exhausted (fitness bonus!).

However, an equivalent output (such as miles) for an equivalent time period for equally-skilled fit and unfit people will feel easier for the fit person, and harder for the unfit person . . . perhaps dramatically so. That's a fitness effect, not about calorie burn. In general, heart-rate-based calorie estimates will give the fit person a lower calorie burn estimate, but that difference between the two people's HRM-based estimates is simple inaccuracy of that estimating method.

It's irrelevant that you see people doing hours of cardio over long time periods, without losing weight. If they do the cardio, then head out and eat commensurately, they'll never lose weight. I did that for about a decade (FTR, wasn't trying to lose weight at the time): I did lots of cardio, even some strength training, and - amazingly - even some switching things up (because I wanted to learn some new things). Then, I kept doing exactly those same things, and lost about 50 pounds in less than a year. It's not about "confusing the body" or "switching up the exercise": It's about calorie balance, calorie intake vs. output.

jflongo

LOL, i'll stop posting, so many here are clueless.

sijomial

jflongo wrote: »

BrianSharpe wrote: »

jflongo wrote: »

I would suggest you mix in some weight lifting as well and build a little bit of muscle. You have to remember, if you are doing the same thing over and over, your body will adjust and your metabolism will change. You could hit a treadmill hard for the first time for weeks and lose a lot of weight, then your body will adjust and burn less calories.

Sounds like it's time to mix it up, do some weight lifting, crossfit, or something else to change up your routine. Doing ONLY cardio, will not get you to your goals normally.

The only reason one might burn fewer calories would be the result of weight loss. It's physics....mass over distance. Having said that one's HRM may suggest you're burning fewer calories as you become fitter but that's only a result of them erroneously correlating calorie expenditure and heart rate.

Sounds like you've fallen for the crossfit "gotta confuse the body" mantra.

OP typically cardio machines significantly overstate caloric expenditure (my own treadmill will tell me I've burned close to 500 cal after an easy paced 35 minute run whereas my Garmin gives me a bit more than 300 (using a foot pod)

You are 100% missing my point. You body will adjust if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over gain. I have seem people do cardio for hours at gyms and it barely does anything for them, because that is ALL they do every singe week. It's possible over a few hours they may have been burning 900+ calories, but they are not switching anything up, and your body adjusts and burns less calories.

Unless you change the difficulty or mix in different programs, you are going to slow down your metabolism since your body is become more efficient at what you are doing.

Twaddle.

Usually as people get fitter they burn more calories as they can exercise at a higher intensity and/or longer duration.