Calories and exercise

heybales

example on MFP overestimating,today I ran 5K my HRM said I burned 330 cal,MFP said something like 530 something..I went with my HRM..

It's different, therefore it's more accurate?

How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is


Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.

heybales

Yesterday was 8.8 miles and took just over 2 hours

So say 4.4 mph then, right at 2 hrs. 1 % incline.
Nice fast pace. If outside with incline, even better burn.

1478 calorie burn would be 240 lbs.

No need to confirm, but it does show that yes, that amount of burn for 2 hrs is entirely possible. But that includes what you would have burned at rest.

For how much you burned above and beyond, that would be NET burn.
1249

And yes, that is more accurate than HRM, because treadmill and walking is the most tested equipment with calorie burns used in research, and the formulas are highly accurate unless you have a peg leg or something to effect efficiency.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

Now, if you don't weigh that much, then it over-estimated.
And if you really didn't do that distance, it's mis-calced too.
Is it using GPS? Than trustworthy.

loriemn

example on MFP overestimating,today I ran 5K my HRM said I burned 330 cal,MFP said something like 530 something..I went with my HRM..

It's different, therefore it's more accurate?

How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is


Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.

it was an example of the differences,,take it any way you want! I have already upped the HR zone on it because it was to low for me..I went with the lower one instead of doing the 50% of what MFP says. Again just an example! nothing more in that post.

dianemmn

example on MFP overestimating,today I ran 5K my HRM said I burned 330 cal,MFP said something like 530 something..I went with my HRM..

It's different, therefore it's more accurate?

How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is


Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.

it was an example of the differences,,take it any way you want! I have already upped the HR zone on it because it was to low for me..I went with the lower one instead of doing the 50% of what MFP says. Again just an example! nothing more in that post.

Agreed!I would rather take the lower one than kid myself that I am burning more than I actually am.

heybales

It's different, therefore it's more accurate?

How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is


Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.

it was an example of the differences,,take it any way you want! I have already upped the HR zone on it because it was to low for me..I went with the lower one instead of doing the 50% of what MFP says. Again just an example! nothing more in that post.

Agreed!I would rather take the lower one than kid myself that I am burning more than I actually am.

But how in the world would you ever know how much you are actually burning, to even logically say you want to take the lower because you think the higher is burning more than you actually are.

Logically - that means you know exactly how much you are burning, to make that kind of statement.

Then why not just use that exact calorie burn then even the lower one.

I'm just trying to point out the illogical comments that always come along with comparison of HRM calorie estimates to MFP calories estimates - from people that have no clue where either one comes from, but are just sure the HRM is correct because it's different, and as you state, it's lower.

It's different and it's lower, therefore it's more accurate. Wow.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

GhostGIrl66

Forgive me if this is silly, but I've only just joined here today.
I entered my exercise for today, cardio and weights training but I only received calorie credit for the cardio exercise - around 140 calories, My HRM had given me a total burn for the weights and cardio of 500 odd calories.
How come my weight training doesn't give me a calorie credit?

GG

dianemmn

I never said it was 100% accurate,did I now?I was agreeing with the poster that wrote it was just that way for her,likewise it is just that way for me!

I would start the ap on my phone and it would give me 500 calories burnt in an hour,then it would upload on MFP and be maybe another 200 added on to it.Nice figures but I didn't believe it so just changed it to what the phone said.

Now the HRM will give me maybe 320 and no I am not saying this is accurate either but I prefer to use this number as so many people recommend them on here.If I burn more then good but I prefer to have a figure rather than guessing.

janesmith1

Forgive me if this is silly, but I've only just joined here today.
I entered my exercise for today, cardio and weights training but I only received calorie credit for the cardio exercise - around 140 calories, My HRM had given me a total burn for the weights and cardio of 500 odd calories.
How come my weight training doesn't give me a calorie credit?

GG

Enter the amounts and what you're doing yourself based on your HRM. There's an ADD EXERCISE feature there. GL!

janesmith1

It's different, therefore it's more accurate?

How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is


Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.

it was an example of the differences,,take it any way you want! I have already upped the HR zone on it because it was to low for me..I went with the lower one instead of doing the 50% of what MFP says. Again just an example! nothing more in that post.

Agreed!I would rather take the lower one than kid myself that I am burning more than I actually am.

But how in the world would you ever know how much you are actually burning, to even logically say you want to take the lower because you think the higher is burning more than you actually are.

Logically - that means you know exactly how much you are burning, to make that kind of statement.

Then why not just use that exact calorie burn then even the lower one.

I'm just trying to point out the illogical comments that always come along with comparison of HRM calorie estimates to MFP calories estimates - from people that have no clue where either one comes from, but are just sure the HRM is correct because it's different, and as you state, it's lower.

It's different and it's lower, therefore it's more accurate. Wow.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

Amazing link and info you posted on that link. But, wouldn't that make MFP, which estimates higher than a regular (aka Polar) HRM even more inaccurate? Because if Polar is .33% too high for females, or as you say in the thread, subtract 12% from your HRM amts, and err on the lower rather than higher end? BTW fascinating!!!

jennifer_417

I'm really struggling understanding the calories I use whilst exercising, my daily cal is 1410 and today with walking and swimming I've burned 1480 calories do I need to eat those additional calories as well as my 1410 to lose weight I've lost 10 lbs in 4 weeks it's just not coming off like I thought it would pls help

Alright, a few things that I'm going to address here.

1. You say you've lost 10 pounds in 4 weeks. This is more than the 2 pounds per week that's generally considered a healthy threshold for weight loss. It's not unusual to lose more than that at the beginning of a program, but the weight is coming off at the pace it should be. It sounds like you really don't need to accelerate it.

2. Yes, the program is designed for you to eat back your exercise calories. When MFP figures your calorie goal it doesn't take exercise into account, just the activity level you entered (most people choose sedentary). It creates a calorie goal with a safe deficit built in. When you exercise, you increase that deficit, possibly larger than your body can handle. The larger the deficit, the more risk there is for muscle loss, nutrient deficiencies, etc. That's why MFP adds the calories you burn back in to keep your deficit at a safe and steady level.

3. MFP and some other calculators have a tendency to overestimate your calories burned. If you're using MFP's estimates then it's often recommended to eat back about 50-75% of your burned calories, just to be safe.

This.

And this again. And again, and again, and again.

And again.

helentvy

I'd walked 8.8 miles

heybales

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

Amazing link and info you posted on that link. But, wouldn't that make MFP, which estimates higher than a regular (aka Polar) HRM even more inaccurate? Because if Polar is .33% too high for females, or as you say in the thread, subtract 12% from your HRM amts, and err on the lower rather than higher end? BTW fascinating!!!

Well, the Polar was reporting up to 33% inflated compared to measured, you'd have to get their stats to see what the MFP and other database would find.

Depending on what the exercise is, talking of walking here, the formula's have been found much more accurate than HRM, especially the cheaper ones that don't even have some of those stats, or are using defaults rather than tested values.

And I've seen many report that after exercising for a mere month or two, the reverse starts to happen, in which case I've seen people say they then use the now lower MFP calorie estimate and still knock a % off.

This is even more interesting then.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

heybales

Forgive me if this is silly, but I've only just joined here today.
I entered my exercise for today, cardio and weights training but I only received calorie credit for the cardio exercise - around 140 calories, My HRM had given me a total burn for the weights and cardio of 500 odd calories.
How come my weight training doesn't give me a calorie credit?

GG

Because the Strength training section is merely a log of the lifts in the diary, nothing about calories there.
You must still go to add in the Cardio section, the entry for strength training (weight lifting) for however many minutes.

Oh, it will seem low compared to the cardio - and that is absolutely true.

Oh, and your HRM will report more, because it inflates anaerobic activity that the formula for calorie burn is not actually intended to estimate.

craftywitch_63

Claudialane doesn't understand how MFP works either.

While true you eat less than what you burn - that is in TOTAL. After all, if a bigger deficit was better, why not just stop eating?


MFP, by your selection of non-exercise activity level (sedentary, right?) calculates a maintenance figure. Say 2000.

So you select weight loss goal, that takes calories off that figure daily. Say 1 lb loss, or 500 calories off.

Eating goal is 2000 - 500 = 1500 daily sedentary lifestyle no exercise.

But now you do some walking for 1 hr. And you burn 100 calories.

Your maintenance for the day is now actually 2000 + 100 = 2100

Remove same deficit 500 calories 2100-500 = 1600 eating goal.

Same deficit. Same eating less than what you burned daily.

That's how MFP works. Many folks get confused because first MFP isn't clear about it, though the increase in your daily goal should be rather obviously. Most are blindly following a number anyway, why not blindly follow the new number too.
Second, most other sites ask you what your PLANNED exercise is going to be, estimate what your maintenance would be on average with exercise included, and then take a deficit.

MyFitnessPal I guess is pal because to eat more, you have to exercise. But you also get the deficit whether you do or not.

And if you are walking the speeds in the exercise database flat, you are burning those calories. It's not much, true, unless you go faster.

I understand the concept of MFP, but this is the best explanation I've seen so far.

GhostGIrl66

Thanks Heybales - that was the info that I needed. With the HRM I always consider the calories burned as an estimate and the weight training days are always lower than my cardio days. And it is good to remember that even if I just laze around for an hour I will get a burn of around 200 calories on a HRM so the additional burn from exercise is around 200 less per hour of exercise.

It is an imprecise science. HRM should be sold with the warning "estimation only - do not rely on this device where precise calorie use is required" in big bold type on the outside of the box.

GG

heybales

Thanks Heybales - that was the info that I needed. With the HRM I always consider the calories burned as an estimate and the weight training days are always lower than my cardio days. And it is good to remember that even if I just laze around for an hour I will get a burn of around 200 calories on a HRM so the additional burn from exercise is around 200 less per hour of exercise.

It is an imprecise science. HRM should be sold with the warning "estimation only - do not rely on this device where precise calorie use is required" in big bold type on the outside of the box.

GG

Well, there's another kicker, the formula for relating HR to calorie burn isn't valid for below exercise either, about 90 bpm.

So your 200/hr lazing around is inflated badly. Your RMR, about 150-250 higher than BMR, divided by 24 would be that hourly value.

Likely 75-100 less per hr, not as bad as 200.

Now, if for you to exercise 1 hr and burn 600 calories, you paid the neighborhood boy to mow your lawn, and missed out on a 400 calories burn otherwise done..... well, net result is only 200 cal gain. For $20.

GhostGIrl66

rofl heybales your lawn mowing analogy is a good one.

I have to admit that I'm not too concerned about the calorie burn from my HRM the main benefit of it is it reflects the intensity of my workout. The more cals burned the harder I've been pushing it. Over Christmas I looked back at my exercise data and realised that although I had thought I'd been working hard in spin classes my effort level had been slipping. Gave myself a kick up the behind and arced up the effort level.

My resting heart rate has been dropping and I find it harder to push it up into the "red zone" which shows that the hard work is paying off. In fact I haven't had an over exerting workout for quite a while now - which is a very good thing. :-) I do still finish the spin classes looking like a drowned kitten.

heybales

rofl heybales your lawn mowing analogy is a good one.

I have to admit that I'm not too concerned about the calorie burn from my HRM the main benefit of it is it reflects the intensity of my workout. The more cals burned the harder I've been pushing it. Over Christmas I looked back at my exercise data and realised that although I had thought I'd been working hard in spin classes my effort level had been slipping. Gave myself a kick up the behind and arced up the effort level.

My resting heart rate has been dropping and I find it harder to push it up into the "red zone" which shows that the hard work is paying off. In fact I haven't had an over exerting workout for quite a while now - which is a very good thing. :-) I do still finish the spin classes looking like a drowned kitten.

If you are finding it hard to push the HR as high, you could also just have tired muscles.

All out every day is not beneficial, especially not in a diet when recovery is already impaired.

Exercise if done right tears the body down.
It's the rest for recovery and repair that builds it back up, stronger if diet allows.

Confirm you have rest.

I've known many, some at the gym, that go all out with 4 spin classes a week, and the other days 2 intense classes.
And they comment they sure feel like they are pushing as hard, but they can't stand as long on hills, can't push the weights as heavy, can't get the HR up.
No recovery from anything though, so every day as turned in to a flat level, rather than the peaks and valleys that give improvement.
Now heart still benefits for awhile, but even there you'll usually start seeing resting HR go up, because exercise like that with little to no recovery is one big stress on the body.

GhostGIrl66

I only do two spin classes a week, three weights sessions which are of course much lower intensity for the old ticker than spin and the weekends are waaaaay too laid back, generally just a nice walk. If I wear my HRM for the walks it will only give me a minor training or if I really work hard, a maintaining training level as the training effect.

The heart rate only gets really pushed in the spin classes and I am finding that it drops back more quickly now, and my resting heart rate is getting to be the lowest that I've had it. The HRM has been a really interesting and educational toy in many ways. My days of exercising like a maniac are in the past now, I've gotten a little bit older and a little bit wiser ( I think).

heybales

In that case, no problem.

And indeed, restingHR going lower, and that recoveryHR being faster are great signs of reaching new fitness levels.

That's in fact where the HRM without knowing a good estimate of your VO2 starts to lose it on calorie calcs.