Please help me calculate exercise calories (cardio and weights)

Hollis300

Can someone help me calculate exercise calories for the following, or recommend a fitness device that doesn't cost a fortune that could do it?

I am working a warehouse-type of job, 8 hours a night, 5 nights a week. I am a 5'3" female and weigh 138 pounds. Right now, I log that I burn about 500 calories a night because I don't know how to be more accurate.

I do two basic kinds of exercise over the 8 hours:

(1) Walk at low speed (about 2 mph), stand, occasionally climb ladders with 3-4 steps, and occasionally stoop down or crawl on the floor. I sit down for a one-hour lunch, otherwise stand and walk.

(2) Lift weights. These are random objects and boxes that weigh between 1-2 pounds up to 32-40 pound boxes. I repeatedly do this over the 8 hours. Again, these are random objects with varying weights that I can't predict.

What would be the best way to figure out my calorie burn per 8 hours? I know that I'm doing something because the next day my body aches all over.

quiksylver296

I would just set your daily activity level at moderately active, and let this site set your calorie goal from that. Then if you do actual intentional exercise, log that.

pridesabtch

This seems more like activity level than exercise. Moderately Active would be a good place to start.

Hollis300

Thanks, pridesabtch and quiksylver296.

I still wish there was a formula or device that could measure or calculate the calorie burn to a closer degree.

I've already set my profile to active and it doesn't have a setting for moderately active (see the choices below).

How would you describe your normal daily activities?
Sedentary: Spend most of the day sitting (e.g. bank teller, desk job)
Lightly Active: Spend a good part of the day on your feet (e.g. teacher, salesperson)
Active: Spend a good part of the day doing some physical activity (e.g. food server, postal carrier)
Very Active: Spend most of the day doing heavy physical activity (e.g. bike messenger, carpenter)

Hollis300

pridesabtch wrote: »

This seems more like activity level than exercise. Moderately Active would be a good place to start.

I don't know -- I come home, take aspirin, and lie down. My arms and shoulders hurt for hours.

quiksylver296

Active should be fine. What calorie goal did that give you?

sijomial

"I still wish there was a formula or device that could measure or calculate the calorie burn to a closer degree."

There really isn't a good way to measure energy from the activity you describe.
Steps doesn't work well with your lifting and heartrate would be a very poor metric for general working activity.
Fitness trackers could give you a number but it's unlikely to be a better stab in the dark.

Suggest you just trial the Active setting for 4 - 6 weeks, see what your weight trend starts to look like, assess your general energy and hunger levels and adjust if required.

Hollis300

quiksylver296 wrote: »

Active should be fine. What calorie goal did that give you?

Active gives me 1800 calories a day.
Lightly active gives me 1580 calories a day.
Both settings are to maintain my current weight.

I'm repeating myself, but I guess there is no math formula for the handling-weight aspect of the job. The walking and other movement I could track with a device. I truly wish I could know the average of what I actually burn per night.

Hollis300

sijomial wrote: »

"I still wish there was a formula or device that could measure or calculate the calorie burn to a closer degree."

There really isn't a good way to measure energy from the activity you describe.
Steps doesn't work well with your lifting and heartrate would be a very poor metric for general working activity.
Fitness trackers could give you a number but it's unlikely to be a better stab in the dark.

Suggest you just trial the Active setting for 4 - 6 weeks, see what your weight trend starts to look like, assess your general energy and hunger levels and adjust if required.

Thanks, just saw this. Will try the active setting (and maybe do something nuts, like track the amount I lift for a week and see what the average per day looks like).

AnnPT77

Hollis300 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

"I still wish there was a formula or device that could measure or calculate the calorie burn to a closer degree."

There really isn't a good way to measure energy from the activity you describe.
Steps doesn't work well with your lifting and heartrate would be a very poor metric for general working activity.
Fitness trackers could give you a number but it's unlikely to be a better stab in the dark.

Suggest you just trial the Active setting for 4 - 6 weeks, see what your weight trend starts to look like, assess your general energy and hunger levels and adjust if required.

Thanks, just saw this. Will try the active setting (and maybe do something nuts, like track the amount I lift for a week and see what the average per day looks like).

The calorie burn from lifting stuff isn't very high, even though it feels effortful. It's also hard to estimate, maybe harder than cardio-type stuff. If you were doing weight workouts in the normal rep/set format, I'd suggest you use the MFP database to estimate the calories from that kind of workout. It's better than most of the other bad methods. However: 1. It doesn't burn very many calories, and 2. It doesn't apply to your occupational lifting scenario which isn't a reps/sets thing.

I think others have given you good advice, to set your activity level and adjust your goal based on average weekly results after 4-6 weeks.

If you want something other than MFP activity level as an estimate, capturing the walking and general movement aspects of your job - as a standard sort of fitness tracker might do - is probably as good as anything. The lifting per se probably isn't adding a lot of calorie burn. Even with a fitness tracker, you'd still want to treat it as a 4-6 week experiment, then adjust. A tracker's just a different type of statistical estimate, more personalized, but still an estimate.

All calorie burn estimating (exercise and basic life) is an experimental, individual thing. Most people are close to average, so MFP or a standard fitness tracker can make a pretty good guess. It can still be inaccurate, but probably more because an individual person is statistically unusual, rather than that the calculator, MFP, or fitness tracker is objectively inaccurate.

It may not be obvious why a particular person is non-average, either. My logging experience suggests I burn 25-30% more calories on an average day than either MFP or my fitness tracker expect me to do. I could only speculate as to why, even though I know from experience that it's true. 🤷‍♀️

Retroguy2000

As others have said, your best bet is set MFP to Active and assume that gives you a correct TDEE. You can get more information by diligently tracking your calories and additional exercise for a month. Check your weight at the end, using an average of several days scale checking. If e.g. you took in a total of 1500 calories below MFP's maintenance estimate over the whole month, and you lost 1 pound say, call that 3500 calories of weight loss, 1500 of which came from your diet, leaves a difference of 2000, which would put your TDEE at an average 66 calories above MFP's Active estimate. You can then estimate your work calories burned as MFP's Active estimate + 66, minus MFP's Sedentary estimate. You aren't working 7 days, but anyway I'm sure you can work the numbers to find what you're looking for.

Hollis300

Retroguy2000 thanks for your thoughts -- I'll give it a try. Everybody else, thanks for the advice, appreciate it.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

I agree that just setting your activity level to "Moderately active" would probably do the trick.

But, if you feel your activity level varies day-to-day, a fitness tracker isn't a bad idea. It should be one that monitors your heartrate. Something akin to these:

https://www.fitbit.com/global/us/products/trackers/inspire3

or

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/782585

(I have had products from both companies, but not these models. Fitbit has a simpler app and web page. Garmin is more full-featured and complex.)

People will not that I've also argued that these devices AREN'T that accurate. This is true, and you should eat back additional calories conservatively. Leave a few on the table!

Hollis300

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

I agree that just setting your activity level to "Moderately active" would probably do the trick.

But, if you feel your activity level varies day-to-day, a fitness tracker isn't a bad idea. It should be one that monitors your heartrate. Something akin to these:

https://www.fitbit.com/global/us/products/trackers/inspire3

or

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/782585

(I have had products from both companies, but not these models. Fitbit has a simpler app and web page. Garmin is more full-featured and complex.)

People will not that I've also argued that these devices AREN'T that accurate. This is true, and you should eat back additional calories conservatively. Leave a few on the table!

Thanks for posting those links -- will check them out.

There is no moderately active that I can find -- lightly active, active or very active. Right now I chose active. I guesstimate my exercise calories and leave a lot on the table because they could be off by a whopping amount. If I'm hungry, I'll eat, otherwise not.

sijomial

FYI - the activity levels have different descriptions depending if you are looking via the app or via the browser version.

FYI 2 - heartrate is a dreadful metric for both walking and lifting. Yes you may get a number from a tracker but it's not really based on something that has a good correlation to calories.
Walking is too low a heartrate zone and lifting isn't cardio so heartrate has little to do with calorie burns.
For an example as I have an unusually low HR my walking HR is lower than some peoples sitting on the sofa HR. Which underlines that heartbeats are not units of energy/calories.

The overall idea of the MFP activity setting is to capture your average movement patterns, it doesn't really matter that everyone's activity will vary day to day.
I think you really are seeking accuracy where none is possible or necessary.

Hollis300

sijomial wrote: »

FYI - the activity levels have different descriptions depending if you are looking via the app or via the browser version.

FYI 2 - heartrate is a dreadful metric for both walking and lifting. Yes you may get a number from a tracker but it's not really based on something that has a good correlation to calories.
Walking is too low a heartrate zone and lifting isn't cardio so heartrate has little to do with calorie burns.
For an example as I have an unusually low HR my walking HR is lower than some peoples sitting on the sofa HR. Which underlines that heartbeats are not units of energy/calories.

The overall idea of the MFP activity setting is to capture your average movement patterns, it doesn't really matter that everyone's activity will vary day to day.
I think you really are seeking accuracy where none is possible or necessary.

Thanks for your comments.

I'd like a rough idea of what I'm burning at work for my own info -- it doesn't have to be completely accurate, and isn't necessary, but I'm curious. The numbers I chose now could be close or wildly off.

I'm looking at MFP on my laptop, not an app on my phone, so that explains the different descriptions.

AnnPT77

Hollis300 wrote: »

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

I agree that just setting your activity level to "Moderately active" would probably do the trick.

But, if you feel your activity level varies day-to-day, a fitness tracker isn't a bad idea. It should be one that monitors your heartrate. Something akin to these:

https://www.fitbit.com/global/us/products/trackers/inspire3

or

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/782585

(I have had products from both companies, but not these models. Fitbit has a simpler app and web page. Garmin is more full-featured and complex.)

People will not that I've also argued that these devices AREN'T that accurate. This is true, and you should eat back additional calories conservatively. Leave a few on the table!

Thanks for posting those links -- will check them out.

There is no moderately active that I can find -- lightly active, active or very active. Right now I chose active. I guesstimate my exercise calories and leave a lot on the table because they could be off by a whopping amount. If I'm hungry, I'll eat, otherwise not.

I'm not sure why everyone assumes that the exercise estimates are high? The base calorie estimate can be high or low. The exercise estimates can be high or low.

Some ways of estimating some exercises are more likely to be accurate than others. The MFP exercise database estimate for strength training (i.e., a METS estimate) is probably one of the better ways to estimate strength training. (It's just that it doesn't apply to the intermittent/random-timing lifting in your job.) Some of the fitness trackers - a subset of those that know the exercise type you're doing - seem to use METS for strength training these days, rather than purely heart rate. (Just because a device measures heart rate doesn't mean it uses heart rate as the sole basis for estimating.) The ExRx web site's** estimate for walking (with the energy box set on "net") isn't likely to hugely over-estimate walking calories. (Again, it's intended for deliberate walking, not on-the-job intermittent/variable walking.)

** https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

The trackers will probably estimate some things low, other things high, maybe end up with an OK-ish all day estimate. They seem to for many people. As I said, mine (good brand/model that works well for others) dramatically underestimates my all-day calorie burn (by about the same fraction MFP does), as compared with 7+ years of logging experience. It can happen.

Trying to use exercise calorie estimators to estimate one's job is an iffy proposition. It's not like standard exercise, in various important ways. The MFP activity level, or a tracker's all day estimate, probably are more sensible approaches, because they're at least a tool intended to do that job.

Any of these things are just hypotheses to be tested, y'know?

Hollis300

AnnPT77 wrote: »

I'm not sure why everyone assumes that the exercise estimates are high? The base calorie estimate can be high or low. The exercise estimates can be high or low.

I understand what you're saying is true in principle. However, the calorie estimates I found in the MFP database for my activities are astronomical, so I don't use them.

Instead, I give myself a 200 calorie burn for 8 hours of low-speed walking, standing, climbing short ladders, stooping, reaching overhead, and crawling around on the floor.

I give myself an additional 300 calorie burn for 8 hours of lifting/dragging/hauling objects or boxes that weigh anywhere from a couple of pounds to 40 pounds, or once in a while more. When I go home, I hurt all over, take aspirin, and lie down. I usually recover by the next day, but sometimes feel the way I felt years ago after a car crash on the Beltway around D.C. -- like a snowplow ran over me. I'm not gaining weight and am slowly losing. My weight right now is solidly normal.

So I have no idea what my burn is -- I was just curious. I'll look over the comments here and see if there's some math I can play around with to get a better idea.

Take care, all. Thanks for your helpful thoughts.

AnnPT77

Try the Compendium of Physical Activities:

https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home?authuser=0

Especially the Occupational section:

https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/occupation?authuser=0

You kind of need to understand (learn) the concept, do some math, but there's a generic METS calorie estimator here:

https://ergo.human.cornell.edu/MetsCaloriesCalculator/MetsCaloriesCalculator.htm

I'd still go with the fitness tracker option, personally. It's not really exercise, isn't paced like exercise.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

Hollis300 wrote: »

Instead, I give myself a 200 calorie burn for 8 hours of low-speed walking, standing, climbing short ladders, stooping, reaching overhead, and crawling around on the floor. [...] I give myself an additional 300 calorie burn for 8 hours of lifting/dragging/hauling objects or boxes that weigh anywhere from a couple of pounds to 40 pounds, or once in a while more.

These simple approaches can be very effective. Your general weight trend over time allows you to compensate up or down a bit.

Hollis300 wrote: »

When I go home, I hurt all over, take aspirin, and lie down. I usually recover by the next day, but sometimes feel the way I felt years ago after a car crash on the Beltway around D.C. -- like a snowplow ran over me. I'm not gaining weight and am slowly losing. My weight right now is solidly normal.

Are you new to this job? I'm a desk-jockey, but I would expect adaptation over time. It sounds like how I feel after a day of hiking, or something like that.

Hollis300

@Jthanmyfitnesspal I've worked at this job for about 18 months -- it pays more for my area. This is not a career move, something I'm temporarily doing. Previously, I was an office worker who hiked occasionally and was in good health, but not an athlete. My level of exhaustion depends on the workload, which varies every night. Some nights are easier, some not.

***

I will add the comments here that this is not exercise offended me (my doctor certainly thinks it's exercise), but I looked up the definition of exercise and understand the people who said that must mean the academic definition, that exercise is an activity intended to improve or maintain physical fitness or for enjoyment -- in other words, not for pay.

However, many people also use the word exercise to mean physical activity in general. For example, when I shop for groceries I typically carry them to my car instead of using a cart, if I can, because the weight is good for my bones -- so that would be exercise according to MFPers, but if I do the same thing at my job, that's not exercise, but activity.

I'm signing off here and won't check back. Thanks again for the comments and suggestions.