Fitness Tracker/Heart Rate Monitor (Chest Strap) to know Calories Burned

AlexanderDaMota

I'm brand new to this so I'm just informing myself of it all now.
In case it matters, for reference of where I came from in regard to my goals and knowledge consumed:
(https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10807656/losing-weight-but-not-inches-should-i-forcefully-stay-on-track-measure-more-areas/)

I've looked into the forums with not many answers to my benefit and mostly understood the basics from a few youtube videos and this is what I comprehend so far.
... Ultimately as a mild perfectionist who (aware that it's an estimate) wants/needs control to properly manage his fitness.
I want to know how many calories I burn through NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) and Training, so that I can know an estimate of how much I should eat extra of what I lost, if needed.

I have an Android, 'don't care about GPS features, nor for a display (if I can see it all on my cell's app), or music storage since I use youtube. I believe what I want is definitely a heart rate chest strap monitor since it's the most accurate to calculate heart beats which will give an estimate of how many calories I'm losing, while ... I think maybe a app will be enough to calculate my NEAT, instead of a fitness tracker/band?

... But now I'm skeptical from Android Authority's "Fitness Trackers: Do They Really Work?" video that was extremely revealing to how exactly it is insufficient from not calculating the different factors of the human body. ... I was aware and realize that it'll be an estimate no matter what but... what's the most accurate?
It'll benefit to have an idea of how much I'm losing at least, to know how much I should add back, right? I guess I'm just worrying now on how bad the estimate is, with a hope of it being somewhat to fairly close to accurate, as much as possible.

AnnPT77

Fitness trackers (no matter what hardware they sit in - phone, wristwatch, etc. - just give you a personalized statistical estimate of calorie burn, based on whatever they measure (such as heart rate, but many trackers measure other things, like altitude, speed, arm movements, etc.) plus your personal characteristics that you input into the apps.

Like any other statistical estimate, they'll be pretty close for many people, a little farther off (high or low) for some, and quite far off for a rare few.

That's pretty much the inherent nature of statistical estimates. There's no super good way to know where you fall in that, without trying them. I won't speak to Android Authority's article , because I haven't read that one specifically (as far as I recall), but some of what I have read relies on studies I consider flawed (for example, some of the studies were short-range time spans, when some good trackers require a couple of weeks to "learn" an individual, and can increase in accuracy with that "learning".

Reading between the lines, so maybe I'm wrong, I think you may be over-relying on heart rate (HR) as a proxy for calorie burn. HR tracks fairly well with calorie burn for some things (moderate steady state cardio, chiefly), and potentially really badly for others (strength training, high intensity intervals (HIIT)).

This is old, but a good overview: 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

As an aside, some trackers these days, if they know what activity you're doing, will vary the algorithms/measurements used to estimate calories. This could be a good thing, perhaps. (Depends on how sophisticated the algorithms, and the underlying research, are.)

Another factor to consider is that unless you know your actual maximum heart rate, the devices/apps will rely on age-estimated values, typically. Those are inaccurate for a fairly large segment of the population. I've done a test, and my age-estimated max is around 20+ beats low, enough difference to be meaningful.

As I understand it, the most accurate calorie estimates are likely to come from activities that can be power metered (watts measured), and that have a relatively narrow band of relative efficiences between individuals. Bicycles with power meters are the classic example. That's great, if those activities happen to be the ones you want to do, but if you prefer to do something that can't accurately be metered that way, it's not very helpful.

IMO, exercise calories are always going to be an approximation. Personally, I try to figure out which estimating method (tracker, distance/bodyweight formula, METS-based estimate, power meter, etc.) is going to give me the best practical estimate for the activities I want to do, and I therefore use different methods for different things. (If I were one of the people for whom a tracker's all-day calorie estimates were close, I'd use that instead, but sadly I'm not that person.)

The fortunate thing is that if you're calorie counting, these approximations can work out fine, especially if you have a reasonably consistent exercise schedule, and you estimate your exercises each in a consisten way. The estimates don't have to be exactly accurate (!). The idea is that you set a base calorie goal in MFP, eat at that level, estimate your exercise consistently, eat those calories too, and do that for 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual cycles for women of that age).

Then, based on weight loss results averaged over those weeks, you adjust your intake to fine-tune weight loss to a sensible rate. That actually works pretty well, even though there are some estimates (that may not be strictly accurate) involved.

AlexanderDaMota

@AnnPT77
I see. Damn, it's still a little overwhelming.

For insight, my NEAT habits are very simple and basic. I rarely walk a lot unless I on rare occasions go out to something special or rather walk or jog for several minutes or a few hours when I'm quickly shopping.
As for training I plan to start Athlean-X's full body 3-Day home workout split again soon.
Eventually if possible, build my own program at home or if I feel safe enough, go back to the gym for hypertrophy strength conditioning of 6/week bro splits. I used to do a 7-10 min light jog to warm up whenever I trained.

Reading the article, I'm learning that if I buy the right heart rate monitor, it can be sufficient to my goals without needing a fitness tracker if I know my HRMax to have a good estimate of my calories burned if the monitor has the right functions. Awesome!
At least that seems more efficient and accurate than a fitness tracker, except mostly for intense exercise and maybe not so much NEAT activity ... unless more complex monitors exist now. I'll have to look into it further. I wonder what I'm willing to spend...

sijomial

Apart from relatively steady state cardio of at least moderate intensity heartrate can be an awful way to estimate calories. Both walking and especially strength training are bad examples of exercise to base on HR.

Walking is too low intensity and falls into the area where people have enormous personal differences in their heartrate.
HR spikes during strength training aren't it relation to energy expenditure (remember it's not an aerobic exercise). Some trackers do try to use sophisticated alogorithms to try and make sense of it and have a specific mode for strength exercise - TBH for a low calorie burn activity that will be fairly consistent week on week I'm not seeing a huge benefit even if that algorithm works well.

I would suggest saving your money! Heart rate monitors are really cardio training aids and you don't state any particular cardio goals - they can't actually count energy and I'm not seeing any reason you would want to bother introducing another estimating variable.

The strength training estimate in the CV part of the exercise diary works pretty well (and it's free).

For walking and running I used formulae based on moving mass over distance (the database entries here over-estimate walking in particular as they are gross and not net calorie estimates).
Walking: weight in lbs X miles X efficiency ratio of 0.3
Running: weight in lbs X miles X efficiency ratio of 0.63

I agree about your assessment regarding your NEAT/Activity. Especially if your NEAT is fairly consistent your weight trend will tell you all you need to know plus it accounts for your food logging inaccuracy too.

Do remember the scale of the numbers you are trying to estimate, when someone is aiming for a 500cal/day deficit (for example) fussing over a few dozen calories either way doesn't influence the outcome enough to be significant. When I lost my weight my food logging was fairly relaxed and my exercise estimates I later realised weren't very accurate (MFP database entries and machine estimates). Based on my weight trend over a period of weeks I was only out by about 1000cals a week and simply adjusted my calories goal to account for that and lost at the desired rate all the way to goal.

AlexanderDaMota

@sijomial
Oh ok, thanks.

So instead of wasting my money on a inefficient/inacurate fitness tracker or overly expensive heart rate monitor which is useless and irrelevant to my style of training/goals, figuring out (through trial and error) the amount of calories I should eat back ...the estimate aid of TDEE overall and MFP's exercise calories loss estimate will be enough to find out eventually what amount of calories I should eat back when it's consistent to the pound(s) I want to lose per week. Alright, cool.

I understood that from AnnPT77 as well, but I guess I just expected too much of the heart rate monitor for how great it seemed to sound. Although I realize it's terribly expensive. Fortunately I learned and realized that I shouldn't buy it.

I'm assuming the Katch-McArdle formula for TDEE is still the most accurate?
Along with the US Navy's Body Fat calculator to determine a good estimate of your body fat percentage. That's what I've been using the past years.

AnnPT77

AlexanderDaMota wrote: »

@sijomial
Oh ok, thanks.

So instead of wasting my money on a inefficient/inacurate fitness tracker or overly expensive heart rate monitor which is useless and irrelevant to my style of training/goals, figuring out (through trial and error) the amount of calories I should eat back ...the estimate aid of TDEE overall and MFP's exercise calories loss estimate will be enough to find out eventually what amount of calories I should eat back when it's consistent to the pound(s) I want to lose per week. Alright, cool.

I understood that from AnnPT77 as well, but I guess I just expected too much of the heart rate monitor for how great it seemed to sound. Although I realize it's terribly expensive. Fortunately I learned and realized that I shouldn't buy it.

I'm assuming the Katch-McArdle formula for TDEE is still the most accurate?
Along with the US Navy's Body Fat calculator to determine a good estimate of your body fat percentage. That's what I've been using the past years.

If you use a TDEE estimate, use the calculator as designed, and include your exercise in the calculation, then don't eat back the exercise. Set your MFP calorie goal manually (including a sensible deficit from TDEE) and eat the same amount every day. If you'd like to compare various estimating formulas, maybe even dig into their details, use Sailrabbit (https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/) which will show 6 standard formulas, and has more activities levels, and clearer descriptions of them, than other calculators. Some of the formulas include your estimate of your body fat percent as an input. Or, use heybales' "Just TDEE" spreadsheet, which I think he linked on your other thread. It's good.

If your exercise is too variable and you actually want to log it separately, then let MFP guided setup give you the calorie estimate. Then, log your exercise and eat those calories, too. Sijomial gave you good ways of estimating your exercises. Use those.

I'd advise that you not mix the two methods (TDEE and MFP's NEAT method). The activity multipliers are different for the "same" activity levels, typically, for example. Use a system that's been designed by experts, and use it as designed.

Either way, monitor for 4-6 weeks, then adjust intake if needed. Simple is good. Simple works.

AlexanderDaMota

@AnnPT77
Wow, ok... I had the misconception from Scott Herman Fitness since a few years ago that the calories calculations were flawed from leaving you too much to get fat on rest days by lowering carbs on those days.

I'm not sure where I got the misconception of needing to eat back the calories you lose though, even though I've never done it yet, but some users on the other thread were influencing me into believing it.
Unless some workout days fluctuate the consistency. Got it.

Thanks!

zebasschick

it would be nice if a fitbit, HRM or online calculator could give exact amounts of calories burned and how many you should eat, but consider this:

i've weighed 170 pounds 3 times. the first time, i was seriously into bodybuilding, spent 3 to 4 hours working out at the gym 6 days a week, and walked as a hobby just for fun. i had a lot more muscle mass than most women and some men, and i could eat 2000 calories per day and lose weight.

the second time, i had had health problems and years had passed. i was average when it came to muscle mass, did a little walking,and could eat 1500 calories to maintain when not exercising.

the third time - most recently, more health problems meant i have low muscle mass, and lose weight at only half a pound per week eating 1200 calories without vigorous workouts. if i ate 2000 calories per day, i would gain weight.

my point is that no fitness tracker, heart rate monitor or TDEE calculator could take what i just told you into account. my percentage of body fat, percentage of muscle mass and cardio fitness were radically different, but most calculators would give the same calories burned results based on weight/age/height/gender. true, my age has changed but the bottom line is any calculation is only going to be approximate as it can't know certain things about you.

heybales

Katch is a BMR formula using BF% and can be tad more accurate. It's then paired with the same Harris TDEE formula from a 1919 study that has been many time improved on - but you'll find the same thing used on most sites.
If they give you 5 levels of exercise activity and not a thought about your other daily activity - it's that.
Yes it can give you a rough figure to adjust from.

Do you see much of a difference between Katch & say Mifflin BMR that MFP uses?

Here's one that deals with daily activity levels and exercise separately - if you want to hone in, log measurements, and most important deal with actual results and adjust from there.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7FgNzPq3v5WMjDtH0n93LXSMRY_hjmzNTMJb3aZSxM/edit?usp=sharing

MFP works by NOT including exercise like all those other sites do - and they create a deficit to lose weight into your eating goal.
Well, when you do more and burn more in exercise - to keep the same deficit you therefore DO need to eat more.
Life lesson about weight management right there.

So it will be confusing if you don't understand how this MFP tool works, and how the others work differently.

With exercise included on those other sites (and spreadsheet) - you better do your workouts or you will lose slower or potentially not at all if you keep eating the same level.

AnnPT77

AlexanderDaMota wrote: »

@AnnPT77
Wow, ok... I had the misconception from Scott Herman Fitness since a few years ago that the calories calculations were flawed from leaving you too much to get fat on rest days by lowering carbs on those days.

I'm not sure where I got the misconception of needing to eat back the calories you lose though, even though I've never done it yet, but some users on the other thread were influencing me into believing it.
Unless some workout days fluctuate the consistency. Got it.

Thanks!

I'm going to be blunt: I think you're still not understanding.

People here tell you to log and eat back exercise because that's how MFP is designed to work, if you use it according to directions. If MFP sets your calorie goal, it asks you to set your activity level NOT including exercise. Therefore, your MFP calorie goal is its best estimate of what you should eat, to lose at the weight loss rate you requested in the setup, if/when NO exercise. You then log exercise and eat it back, keeping the same calorie deficit. This is the "NEAT method" (NEAT = non-exercise activity thermogenesis, which is the number of calories you burn daily before considering exercise.

TDEE methods are a DIFFERENT thing. They start with an estimate of TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) that INCLUDES exercise activity. They give you estimates that INCLUDE exercise calories already, so you don't log exercise and eat it back.

Two different methods. Pick one of them, and use it.

I have no idea what you mean by "Unless some exercise days fluctuate the consistency." I didn't say anything that would mean that, to me, so I think we're talking past each other.

Regarding "calories calculations were flawed from leaving you too much to get fat on rest days by lowering carbs on those days": No. Bodies don't reset at midnight. Eat the right amount of calories on average, and you'll lose weight. For other reasons (health, energy level, muscle preservation/growth) get well-rounded nutrition on average. Minor details of timing nutrients are irrelevant for average people just trying to get to a healthy weight and a decent fitness level. (They might matter for elite athletes trying to squeeze out 0.005% better peformance, maybe. For us regular people, it's a distraction and an overcomplication.)

From this and your other thread, I think you're seriously overcomplicating this. Pick a method (TDEE or NEAT). Follow it for several weeks, then adjust intake. Get overall decent nutrition (enough protein, enough healthy fats, plenty of varied, colorful veggies and fruits). Get some enjoyable exercise, ideally strength and cardiovascular both.

That's really all you need. All this stuff about carb timing, worrying about hyper-precise exercise estimates and short-run comparisons of body measurements, worrying about IF timing, which calorie-needs formula is "best" when they tend to fall pretty close and they're only a starting point anyway . . . it's a distraction from the really important things: Experience-based calorie intake, well-rounded nutrition, and some exercise. Simplify, and *focus*.

Best wishes!

sijomial

You got some great advice already.

Would just say focus on the big ticket items (consistency of logging, sustainability of dietary adherence, appropriate rate of loss, training performance...) and the rest either falls into line or needs simple adjustments to get your weight trend doing what you want.

Also try to cultivate a long term view. Nothing of any significance happens in a day, beware articles from trainers on the web who have to constantly generate "new" stuff most of which is trivial or of very debatable benefit. If the benefit to mere mortals isn't quanified or surrounded by weasel words such as "may" or "might" it's probably of absolutely marginal importance or completely optional.

With your consistent exercise routine it's very much personal choice whether to go for the simplicity of a same everyday (TDEE) goal or a varible goal in line with exercise (MFP) which may fit in your lifestyle easier or match hunger signals better. Try not to see exercise calories as special - they are just one of the perfectly valid energy needs of an active person.

AlexanderDaMota

zebasschick wrote: »

bottom line is any calculation is only going to be approximate as it can't know certain things about you.

I understand, thanks.

@heybales
I'll keep that in mind, thanks.

@AnnPT77
Thank you for your candor.
You're right, I confused myself with misknowledge again.

My first sentence was an irrelevant mention of the misconception I had from carb cycling when using the NEAT formula.
... I now fully comprehend that the TDEE formula can include your exercise in the calculation, unlike the NEAT formula that doesn't include exercise into the calculation, and that I could adjust my calories intake whenever it's not consistent to my weekly goal.

Honestly I don't remember where exactly were the things I misunderstood along with the things I partly understood as I now wasted hours (instead of focusing on applying to a job before its deadline, hahaha) to clarify myself but I definitely was confused with the TDEE vs NEAT. ...Stupid ADHD, lol.

@sijomial
You're both right, I tend to over-complicate things. Thank you both!