Yikes! I have been logging wrong all this time!

erickirb

So I do a fair amount of walking (at least 40 minutes a day), aerobics and zumba every week. I have been using the MFP settings to calculate my calorie burn, but because I know it wasn't very accurate, I would log 60 minutes of Aerobics as 45 minutes for example, giving me around 350-400cals burn.

My finace bought me a polar ft4 heart rate monitor and I used it for my aerobics class yesterday for the first time. I burned 679kcals in the 60 minutes and my maximum heard rate was 200!!!! So I have been logging nearly half of what I actually burned? I am so confused (and happy)! I was certain I would burn less than what MFP said and I can't wrap my head around the fact that I can eat LOADS more now.

Any chance my Polar hrm is wrong? lol!

Actually yes there is a possibility the Polar is wrong for that type of activity. HRM's are designed for caloric burns during steady state cardio only, so probably a slight over estimation. On top of that HRM give you total burn, with includes what you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories/minute x the number of minutes worked out) So in that 60 mins you probably would have burned 75-90 calories doing nothing, plus the error for it not being steady state. I would suggest eating only 75% of them back, whihc would put you near what you were logging to prior to using the HRM

realme56

Just be sure you set it up to your specifications and you should be good. MFP can be over or under depending on the individual which is why the HRM is best. It takes into account your age and current fitness level, MFP exercise data base does not.

jennalink807

Also don't forget to subtract what you would normally burn in an hour just by being alive MFP already has that calculated in to your total daily calorie expenditure. To do this, find out your TDEE and divide it by 24.

Here is a good TDEE calculator: http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

For example, my TDEE is 2199, so if I were to get a reading of 600 on my HRM for 1 hour of exercise, I would divide 2199 by 24, which is about 92. Then I would subtract 92 from 600 to get 508. That's the number I would add in for exercise calories burned.

That being said, I currently use a fitbit and don't log my exercise cals at all, just let fitbit sync and adjust my calorie goal on its own. I'm a runner, so this works pretty well for me.

jennifer_417

I say take the cals and run!

erickirb

I have a Polar FT4 ad it is fairly accurate, however, even the most accurate HRM's are only 75% accurate when calculating calories burned from exercise.

Good luck ;-) A

That statement isn't really true. About 70% of the calorie burn can be attributed to the info put in the HRM (assuming steady state cardio) the remainder is an algorithm, so it should be in the 85% accuracy due to that estimation. Now if your HRM allows you to input V02 Max, then the cals burned attributed to the info contained can be upwards of 85% of the burn, again the remaining 15% is estimated using an algorithm, ending up with 90+% accuracy.

Again these % due to oxygen uptake either entered or build in to the calc in the HRM are only true for steady state cardio, circuits or intervals will be off for this reason

PRMinx

I use a Garmin Forerunner to track my burn during CrossFit (our box does a lot of cardio). Another girl in the class uses a Polar. Last time we compared, my burn for the 60 minute class came in at 375 and hers came in at 599. We lift a comparable weight - she may lift a little less. She runs a little faster, though.

Mine is programmed for my height, weight, age and activity level. I don't know about her programming.

I'm glad my numbers are more conservative, but I was surprised at the discrepancy.

rgagnon1

Excellent post

abbeysmithnorman

Can anyone tell me the best way to log T25 workouts? I really want to get my food and exercise as accurately logged as possible. Thanks!

lporter229

How old are you? 200 BPM is an extremely high heart rate. I would question the accuracy of this measurement.

omma_to_3

So I do a fair amount of walking (at least 40 minutes a day), aerobics and zumba every week. I have been using the MFP settings to calculate my calorie burn, but because I know it wasn't very accurate, I would log 60 minutes of Aerobics as 45 minutes for example, giving me around 350-400cals burn.

My finace bought me a polar ft4 heart rate monitor and I used it for my aerobics class yesterday for the first time. I burned 679kcals in the 60 minutes and my maximum heard rate was 200!!!! So I have been logging nearly half of what I actually burned? I am so confused (and happy)! I was certain I would burn less than what MFP said and I can't wrap my head around the fact that I can eat LOADS more now.

Any chance my Polar hrm is wrong? lol!

Actually yes there is a possibility the Polar is wrong for that type of activity. HRM's are designed for caloric burns during steady state cardio only, so probably a slight over estimation. On top of that HRM give you total burn, with includes what you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories/minute x the number of minutes worked out) So in that 60 mins you probably would have burned 75-90 calories doing nothing, plus the error for it not being steady state. I would suggest eating only 75% of them back, whihc would put you near what you were logging to prior to using the HRM

I agree on the thought of reducing the burn by your estimated BMR. I do this. However, for a relatively small woman, it's probably closer to the 60 to 65 calories an hour range (that's what mine is, tested in a lab). So, I take about 90% of my HRM's number and use that.

Guamybear

When I was doing Zumba, I weighed over 200lbs and gave it my all..I loved it.. I averaged about a 400-500 cal burn..HR never really went over 170...

erickirb

How old are you? 200 BPM is an extremely high heart rate. I would question the accuracy of this measurement.

200 bpm is very possible. Many people have higher Max HR than 220-age, especially women, most likely her's is, which also makes the HRM think she is working harder than she is giving inflated calorie burns.

erickirb

So I do a fair amount of walking (at least 40 minutes a day), aerobics and zumba every week. I have been using the MFP settings to calculate my calorie burn, but because I know it wasn't very accurate, I would log 60 minutes of Aerobics as 45 minutes for example, giving me around 350-400cals burn.

My finace bought me a polar ft4 heart rate monitor and I used it for my aerobics class yesterday for the first time. I burned 679kcals in the 60 minutes and my maximum heard rate was 200!!!! So I have been logging nearly half of what I actually burned? I am so confused (and happy)! I was certain I would burn less than what MFP said and I can't wrap my head around the fact that I can eat LOADS more now.

Any chance my Polar hrm is wrong? lol!

Actually yes there is a possibility the Polar is wrong for that type of activity. HRM's are designed for caloric burns during steady state cardio only, so probably a slight over estimation. On top of that HRM give you total burn, with includes what you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories/minute x the number of minutes worked out) So in that 60 mins you probably would have burned 75-90 calories doing nothing, plus the error for it not being steady state. I would suggest eating only 75% of them back, whihc would put you near what you were logging to prior to using the HRM

I agree on the thought of reducing the burn by your estimated BMR. I do this. However, for a relatively small woman, it's probably closer to the 60 to 65 calories an hour range (that's what mine is, tested in a lab). So, I take about 90% of my HRM's number and use that.

Not estimated BMR, estimated maintenance cals which should be 20+% higher than BMR, depending on activity level. unless your option was sleep or exercise, then if you would have slept BMR would be acceptable.

jmp463

Those burns sound way too high IMO. I know my HRM overestimates burns by nearly 40% despite me putting in all my numbers correctly.

OP, try putting your numbers into the heart rate calorie calculator on this site: Shapesense.com. Calculate your gross burn, and then use that number to calculate your net burn. See how the numbers match up. I would use the lower number myself,

Thanks for the above website - lots of good things on it.

PoeRaven8991

My experience with logging calories burned from my HRM proved to be disastrous. After 2 weeks of consuming the calories I thought I was burning according to my HRM (Polar) I began gaining weight. I returned to logging what MFP says I burned and went back to losing.
Just saying.

omma_to_3

So I do a fair amount of walking (at least 40 minutes a day), aerobics and zumba every week. I have been using the MFP settings to calculate my calorie burn, but because I know it wasn't very accurate, I would log 60 minutes of Aerobics as 45 minutes for example, giving me around 350-400cals burn.

My finace bought me a polar ft4 heart rate monitor and I used it for my aerobics class yesterday for the first time. I burned 679kcals in the 60 minutes and my maximum heard rate was 200!!!! So I have been logging nearly half of what I actually burned? I am so confused (and happy)! I was certain I would burn less than what MFP said and I can't wrap my head around the fact that I can eat LOADS more now.

Any chance my Polar hrm is wrong? lol!

Actually yes there is a possibility the Polar is wrong for that type of activity. HRM's are designed for caloric burns during steady state cardio only, so probably a slight over estimation. On top of that HRM give you total burn, with includes what you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories/minute x the number of minutes worked out) So in that 60 mins you probably would have burned 75-90 calories doing nothing, plus the error for it not being steady state. I would suggest eating only 75% of them back, whihc would put you near what you were logging to prior to using the HRM

I agree on the thought of reducing the burn by your estimated BMR. I do this. However, for a relatively small woman, it's probably closer to the 60 to 65 calories an hour range (that's what mine is, tested in a lab). So, I take about 90% of my HRM's number and use that.

Not estimated BMR, estimated maintenance cals which should be 20+% higher than BMR, depending on activity level. unless your option was sleep or exercise, then if you would have slept BMR would be acceptable.

Yes, point taken, though I've found, at sedentary, the 20% is too high. For me, typically it is working out or sitting on the couch LOL.

omma_to_3

So I do a fair amount of walking (at least 40 minutes a day), aerobics and zumba every week. I have been using the MFP settings to calculate my calorie burn, but because I know it wasn't very accurate, I would log 60 minutes of Aerobics as 45 minutes for example, giving me around 350-400cals burn.

My finace bought me a polar ft4 heart rate monitor and I used it for my aerobics class yesterday for the first time. I burned 679kcals in the 60 minutes and my maximum heard rate was 200!!!! So I have been logging nearly half of what I actually burned? I am so confused (and happy)! I was certain I would burn less than what MFP said and I can't wrap my head around the fact that I can eat LOADS more now.

Any chance my Polar hrm is wrong? lol!

Actually yes there is a possibility the Polar is wrong for that type of activity. HRM's are designed for caloric burns during steady state cardio only, so probably a slight over estimation. On top of that HRM give you total burn, with includes what you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories/minute x the number of minutes worked out) So in that 60 mins you probably would have burned 75-90 calories doing nothing, plus the error for it not being steady state. I would suggest eating only 75% of them back, whihc would put you near what you were logging to prior to using the HRM

I agree on the thought of reducing the burn by your estimated BMR. I do this. However, for a relatively small woman, it's probably closer to the 60 to 65 calories an hour range (that's what mine is, tested in a lab). So, I take about 90% of my HRM's number and use that.

Not estimated BMR, estimated maintenance cals which should be 20+% higher than BMR, depending on activity level. unless your option was sleep or exercise, then if you would have slept BMR would be acceptable.

Yes, point taken, though I've found, at sedentary, the 20% is too high. For me, typically it is working out or sitting on the couch LOL.

Actually, now that I think about it, I don't believe there is a setting for your activity level on the HRM so it probably is not including the 20% over your BMR.

singingflutelady

I think some people's heart rate can get really high. I am pretty fit (I do 5-6 high impact high intensity cardio classes a week, 1 spin class , plus lift heavy 4 days a week and do a yoga/pilates class 2 days a week) and my rh is super crazy.

For example in my intense step class (I do everything in class as high impact/high intensity as possible and work really hard) my average heart rate is 175 and my max is 199 which is pretty high for a 37 (38 in less than a month) year old 131 lb 5'8 woman.. and I don't feel like I am going to faint. my recovery rate is between 28 and 50 (depending on how high my hr is at the end of class) so it is fairly decent.

erickirb

So I do a fair amount of walking (at least 40 minutes a day), aerobics and zumba every week. I have been using the MFP settings to calculate my calorie burn, but because I know it wasn't very accurate, I would log 60 minutes of Aerobics as 45 minutes for example, giving me around 350-400cals burn.

My finace bought me a polar ft4 heart rate monitor and I used it for my aerobics class yesterday for the first time. I burned 679kcals in the 60 minutes and my maximum heard rate was 200!!!! So I have been logging nearly half of what I actually burned? I am so confused (and happy)! I was certain I would burn less than what MFP said and I can't wrap my head around the fact that I can eat LOADS more now.

Any chance my Polar hrm is wrong? lol!

Actually yes there is a possibility the Polar is wrong for that type of activity. HRM's are designed for caloric burns during steady state cardio only, so probably a slight over estimation. On top of that HRM give you total burn, with includes what you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories/minute x the number of minutes worked out) So in that 60 mins you probably would have burned 75-90 calories doing nothing, plus the error for it not being steady state. I would suggest eating only 75% of them back, whihc would put you near what you were logging to prior to using the HRM

I agree on the thought of reducing the burn by your estimated BMR. I do this. However, for a relatively small woman, it's probably closer to the 60 to 65 calories an hour range (that's what mine is, tested in a lab). So, I take about 90% of my HRM's number and use that.

Not estimated BMR, estimated maintenance cals which should be 20+% higher than BMR, depending on activity level. unless your option was sleep or exercise, then if you would have slept BMR would be acceptable.

Yes, point taken, though I've found, at sedentary, the 20% is too high. For me, typically it is working out or sitting on the couch LOL.

Actually, now that I think about it, I don't believe there is a setting for your activity level on the HRM so it probably is not including the 20% over your BMR.

No there isn't on the HRM, but MFP already accounts for total cals burned if not exercising, the HRM counts total cals burned for that duration, so the BMR+sedentary cals are double counted if you enter the amount directly from the HRM. It would be MFP that double counts, not the HRM.

bperkins88

I use:

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn-conversion-calculator.aspx

I use the above to subtract the calories I'd burn not doing anything, and also do not eat back ALL of my exercise calories my HRM tells me i'm burning . I find it hard to believe I'm actually burning 1000 - 1300 calories in an hour and a half ... 5ft. 7, 205LBS.