leg day = 1000+ calories burned??

stumblinthrulife

This is why I use a BodyMedia unit to track my burns instead of a heart rate monitor... It just seems way more accurate in the long run, and is more versatile.

This.

Mine is accurate.

How do you know? What benchmark are you measuring against? Have you had your calorie burns measured in a lab environment?

If I'm eating within the calories the device says I'm burning and losing at a rate consistent with the deficit the device says I have, then surely its not inaccurate?

The readings from mine showed me that I was still undereating and I was really skeptical at first... But I figured what the hell, and I upped my intake, and lo and behold, I started dropping pounds like crazy (~6lbs a week)

I think people just don't understand how the mechanism works, or how to use the data that it gives you. At least it's a device intended for all hours of the day, unlike HRMs and FitBit. Clinical studies show it to be the most accurate aside from lab testing, which is why I went with it in the first place.

I have never, ever regretted getting my BM Fit and I will use it till it dies then probably get another one lol

I love the idea of the BM fit, but didn't like the armband (I think it would irritate me), and didn't like the continuing fees (I'm a miser).

I went with the fitbit (which is no doubt the inferior product in terms of quantification). I find that coupled with burn estimates from Endomondo and a healthy dose of predicted/actual comparison, it is good enough for me.

It's always about the trade off really, and I wouldn't deride anyone that chose to trade off differently than I did.

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

It is definitely possible for 90 minutes, but not probable, it depends on the weights you are pushing, the time between each set and knowing these monitors do over estimate, especially if your heart rate takes a while to catch up (the faster/more in shape you are, the "less calories you burn" according to the monitor). When you are doing weights, most time spent is not actively pushing the weight, so I would use a general "weight training calculation" times time to add these calories.

When it comes to exercises like squats most of my time is actually spent trying to catch my breath after a set. I'm still working toward a baseline fitness level - having such a sedentary lifestyle previously. I'm also realistically @ 267 about 70+ lbs overweight (carrying about 90lbs of fat based on bf% tests).

I guess my understanding of why heart rate = a more accurate calculation of calories burned is confused. I thought I understood that the rate your heart was beating was a direct indication of exertion which in turn is a direct indication of calories being burned through the activity. Meaning the 90 seconds between sets while my heart was still racing was similar to walking or eliptical where my heart is beating at about the same pace?

And about your last question I'm not sure exactly what you mean...if you are doing excessive reps because the weight is easy for you and making it a "cardio session" then increase the weights?

I'm actually not doing anything excessively. I'm squatting about 110lbs x 10 reps x 3 sets. However, as said above I'm struggling to keep my heartrate in the 70%-80% range. When I actually finish a set it's pushing up to max (based on 220-age and the fact that it doesn't feel like it can beat much harder without me falling over). I'm sure it's something I'll start getting used to.

You are self-admittedly out of shape, and HRM will be more accurate as you progress. I'd ignore all the side comments and issues about x or y monitor being more accurate than another and what percent error rate it has and put all the focus on strength training into building muscle and strength for strength training, and not calorie burning. You will see the greatest effect from strength training exercises in calorie burning NOT from the time you are actually doing them, but the calories burnt throughout the day.

How much did you burn? Now that you gave more info on the kind of weights you are doing and your bodyweight, and looking at what you said you did more closely, I'd say 1,000 is a big over estimate. Squats and deadlift are the only weight bearing exercise you posted. You will certainly burn more doing 110lbs on a squat than the 5'7" girl who replied, and more than me on those. However, the exercises you list typically are completed in a 30-40 minute session (depending on sets and reps and goal), and I was estimating the weights would be a lot more when I said its possible. I loosely use "circuit training" in the calculator for my calorie estimate, but I would do a 900lb leg press and a 260lb leg extension for example, and I still think it over estimates for me. I average 5min/exercise+, whereas in "circuit training" 3mins/ per exercise is more accurate. To estimate for yourself, you should first take off the 25mins of warmup+ cool down and enter it as "walking" since that is not lifting, and then I'd multiply your exercises times 3-4 mins and put that into the calculator for "circuit training", this is not very accurate, but would be more accurate for your calories burnt.

Morgaath

I love the idea of the BM fit, but didn't like the armband (I think it would irritate me), and didn't like the continuing fees (I'm a miser).

I went with the fitbit (which is no doubt the inferior product in terms of quantification). I find that coupled with burn estimates from Endomondo and a healthy dose of predicted/actual comparison, it is good enough for me.

It's always about the trade off really, and I wouldn't deride anyone that chose to trade off differently than I did.

I thought the arm band would bother me as well, but the truth is I notice it about as much as I notice my socks. I luckily noticed it on my arm this morning as I was stepping into the shower.