How to get accurate calorie count

sassyjae21
sassyjae21 Posts: 1,217 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Posting again because I got no help last time. Someone help me!!

I'm trying to get a more accurate count of calories burned, but I can't figure out what numbers to go with. I got a HRM thinking that would help me, but it's just confusing me more.

Treadmill: 150 calories burned
MFP: 140 calories burned
HRM: 200 calories burned.

My HRM seems to be overestimating?? It's a polar ft4. All of my info has been put in (height, weight, age). There is no fitness test. Am I using it incorrectly? Does anyone else have one?

I did the Jillian Michales 30DS and it told me I burned 224 calories for 24 minutes. What gives? From what i've seen, people my height and weight (5'4, 137) are only burning about 170. Can someone help me?

Replies

  • lauren3101
    lauren3101 Posts: 1,853 Member
    MFP or the treadmill doesn't know how much effort you put into your workouts, your HRM does.

    A HRM with a chest strap should be the most accurate out of the 3.
  • susiepet
    susiepet Posts: 68
    I agree. When I compare fitbit,, MFP, gym machines and a HRM I always use the HRM. For me though it's always lower, sadly. I think that this is because estimates for my height and weight are just multipliers of "standard" calorie burns and over-estimate - sometimes hugely. My trainer says that's because I'm the definition of fat but fit (my words - she's much politer than that).


    If your question is about eating back calories then I'd try eating half of any estimate and see how you go. It is a fact of life that most of us underestimate calories in and overestimate calories out!

    Good luck
    S
  • lucan07
    lucan07 Posts: 509
    Your HRM is likely to be most accurate but I believe the FT4 gives you a gross calorie burn, including calories you would have burnt doing nothing convert here http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn-conversion-calculator.aspx and you will be about right. Why I still use my old FT1 and calculate myself.
  • FrnkLft
    FrnkLft Posts: 1,821 Member
    Go with the HRM, it's going to be the most accurate, because it takes into consideration the intensity of your workout, and not just the general activity and the time.

    That said, remember that your HRM is meant to judge cardio (it assumes that you are walking/jogging/running, etc...). The more your workout diverges from these exercises, the less accurate it's going to be.

    Good article:
    http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=75
  • sassyjae21
    sassyjae21 Posts: 1,217 Member
    Go with the HRM, it's going to be the most accurate, because it takes into consideration the intensity of your workout, and not just the general activity and the time.

    That said, remember that your HRM is meant to judge cardio (it assumes that you are walking/jogging/running, etc...). The more your workout diverges from these exercises, the less accurate it's going to be.

    Good article:
    http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=75

    OMG thank you so much! That makes so much sense. That video does have a lot of strength training in it. It's 3 minutes of strength, 2 minutes of cardio, and 1 minute of abs. So it's safe to say, the only part that it's calculating correctly would be the cardio part? So what about the strength training? Am i just not able to get an estimate on that?

    As far as the treadmill goes, even though the treadmill is estimating lower calories burned, still go with the heart rate? Since that is purely cardio?

    Thanks everyone, you all have been a big help.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    When you do that JM video, does it feel like you're going 'all out', as in you can't work much harder? 10 calories a minute for someone your size should feel like it's about your max.

    The HRMs also just run on human averages. I wonder if your HR just runs higher than the averages? Mine does.

    If you want to compare another 'averages' estimator for the treadmill, you can use .72 x weight in lbs. x miles.
  • sassyjae21
    sassyjae21 Posts: 1,217 Member
    Yea, honestly it does, that video kicks my butt lol :\

    Thank you for the equation! That will definitely help me figure out calories burned. I know it will be pretty much impossible for me to get the exact number, I'm fine with that; I just don't want to overestimate too much. Is there an equation for strength training?
  • focuseddiva
    focuseddiva Posts: 174 Member
    I'd go with the lower cal burn estimate. That way, no matter what, you'll think you burned less cals than you actually did which is a bonus on the scale. Right?

    I once used a Body Bugg -- basically a HRM. It showed a similar ball park to what the treadmill showed as cals burned. Maybe slightly less than what the treadmill showed. It's all a ballpark, I suppose.

    I always used to use this rule of thumb, too: When running a mile, I discovered that I burned about 100 cals per mile. That's when running at around 6.0 mph. When walkign a mile at a brisk pace (say 4.3 mph), it was around 70 cals per mile.

    So in my head, if I ran 6 miles that equaled 600 cals burned. if I walked 6 miles, it was 420 cals burned.

    I NEVER got an accurate measure ont he elliptical, though. The elliptical machine would show I burned 350 cals in 30 minutes. My HRM showed much less than that.

    It's frustrating -- I hear you. You want to see how many cals burned after all your hard effort. One other way to look at it is this:
    Cardio in an hour would be appx 400-600 cals, depending on how hard you work. But let's assume you work moderately hard.


    400-600 calories equals a slice of plain pizza, basically. All that work for such little food!

    GArh.

Categories