Exercise Calories - SO FRUSTRATED, NEED HELP!!!!!

SHBoss1673

there are 2 things to keep in mind with regards to your pre-pregnancy weight. 1 is that running (and most forms of exercise that stress the orthopedic systems of the body) forces your body to increase bone density. This is a good thing, it means the bones are harder to fracture and you have more calcium to draw on during times of need (the body uses calcium during muscle use to close the actin/myocin bridge in a muscle causing the contraction phase, without calcium, you can't contract muscles.). But it also leads to small weight gains. So after a year of running, you're bones are probably a few lbs heavier. This is especially important in women who are at much higher risk of osteoporosis as they age. 2 is muscle density. Even though you aren't gaining muscle "bulk" by running (distance running), your slow twitch (endurance) muscles still become more dense to compensate for the increased work load. This is NOT a short term gain, but over a year or so, you can put on 5 to 10 lbs of muscle mass without ever seeing a physical change because of muscle mass gains.

So being 10 or 15 lbs heavier, without changing your measurements or fat % is very reasonable and realistic. And it's also good, because it's not fat, it's lean tissue and bone, which means a healthier you.

Take endurance athletes for instance, usually for their body measurements, they are heavier than you would think.
Another example is the weight of an elderly person. Usually they are 10 to 20 lbs lighter than they were (gaining fat not withstanding) 20 or 30 years earlier. This is largely due to loss of bone (and muscle) mass as we age.

Azdak

Just in the regards to the HRM, I didn't want one w/ a chest strap either b/c I thought it would just get in the way or be uncomfortable. I'm a runner & do a lot (or what I think is a lot) of cardio. I don't even notice the chest strap. Also found that the treadmill was 100 calories too high compared to what I was really burning... which, of course everyone knows that machines aren't accurate when it comes to that, since everyone is different. I've only had my HRM for a short time, but I love it & think it was a great investment!
Good luck!

Why do you automatically assume that the HRM is more accurate?

I always find it amusing that many people will dismiss the machine numbers out of hand, and yet accept numbers from an HRM without question. They are both estimates.

aprilgicker

Water can be the biggest cause. My husband can gain as much as 10lbs of water stress after a set of runs.
And if you are in a fluctuation stage of your weight loss maybe you need to work on your upper body too. add some more muscle to burn the last 10 off.
And something else to consider is to switch to measurement or percent BF for your last stage. You sound like you are in Great shape and you wouldn't want to ruin it by losing the muscle you need to stay fit because you want to lose the last 10. You have to use your HR monitor to keep up with you cals. which you already do.
Good Luck

rml_16

Just in the regards to the HRM, I didn't want one w/ a chest strap either b/c I thought it would just get in the way or be uncomfortable. I'm a runner & do a lot (or what I think is a lot) of cardio. I don't even notice the chest strap. Also found that the treadmill was 100 calories too high compared to what I was really burning... which, of course everyone knows that machines aren't accurate when it comes to that, since everyone is different. I've only had my HRM for a short time, but I love it & think it was a great investment!
Good luck!

Why do you automatically assume that the HRM is more accurate?

I always find it amusing that many people will dismiss the machine numbers out of hand, and yet accept numbers from an HRM without question. They are both estimates.

Yes, but the HRM constantly monitors my actual heart rate while the machine does not. My elliptical tells me I'm burning 1,000 calories every 45 minutes. I assure you: I'm not. My HRM says I'm burning about 400-450 in that same amount of time. Yes, I believe the HRM over the machine.

H_82

Just in the regards to the HRM, I didn't want one w/ a chest strap either b/c I thought it would just get in the way or be uncomfortable. I'm a runner & do a lot (or what I think is a lot) of cardio. I don't even notice the chest strap. Also found that the treadmill was 100 calories too high compared to what I was really burning... which, of course everyone knows that machines aren't accurate when it comes to that, since everyone is different. I've only had my HRM for a short time, but I love it & think it was a great investment!
Good luck!

Why do you automatically assume that the HRM is more accurate?

I always find it amusing that many people will dismiss the machine numbers out of hand, and yet accept numbers from an HRM without question. They are both estimates.

I think the HRM IS more accurate than the machine b/c I don't constantly have my hands on the heart rate part of the machine. The HRM has a constant reading. Also, it lets me know what I'm burning while doing things other than machines, where otherwise I would have no clue. Maybe they are both estimates, but I'm sure the HRM is a bit more accurate than the machine....In my personal opinion.

rml_16

Just in the regards to the HRM, I didn't want one w/ a chest strap either b/c I thought it would just get in the way or be uncomfortable. I'm a runner & do a lot (or what I think is a lot) of cardio. I don't even notice the chest strap. Also found that the treadmill was 100 calories too high compared to what I was really burning... which, of course everyone knows that machines aren't accurate when it comes to that, since everyone is different. I've only had my HRM for a short time, but I love it & think it was a great investment!
Good luck!

Why do you automatically assume that the HRM is more accurate?

I always find it amusing that many people will dismiss the machine numbers out of hand, and yet accept numbers from an HRM without question. They are both estimates.

I think the HRM IS more accurate than the machine b/c I don't constantly have my hands on the heart rate part of the machine. The HRM has a constant reading. Also, it lets me know what I'm burning while doing things other than machines, where otherwise I would have no clue. Maybe they are both estimates, but I'm sure the HRM is a bit more accurate than the machine....In my personal opinion.

(I meant to quote you and accidentally almost reported you! lol)

I agree with everything you said. And I wasn't even thinking about doing non-machine exercise when I answered. I only use my elliptical when I cannot exercise outside. Otherwise, I'm swimming, jogging/walking/hiking outside somewhere, rollerblading, doing yoga ...

None of those are on machines.

H_82

Also, the machines give you results of the average person. I guarantee that if you & I did the same exact workout, say on the treadmill, the calories would come out the same....and I highly doubt that that would be true.

JDMPWR

Sodium intake plus water retention but most importantly if you are running a mile in 10 minutes you are not burning 100 cals. Invest in a hrm. I run a mile in around 7 minutes and I barely burn 90 cals.

ChubbieTubbie

Sodium intake plus water retention but most importantly if you are running a mile in 10 minutes you are not burning 100 cals. Invest in a hrm. I run a mile in around 7 minutes and I barely burn 90 cals.

That's not necessarily true. I bike with a friend and we both wear HRMs to track calories burned---I consistently burn 225 cals in 15-17 minutes and she only burns around 150. We're different sizes and in different levels of fitness.

As for the OP--I hit a point where I was gaining a bit instead of losing, and after I upped my calories a bit (200 a day) the weight started coming off again, so I'd wager to say you should eat just a bit more and see if that works for you. What works for one person may not work for another, so it's best to just try different things until you see what works for you and your metabolism.

rml_16

Sodium intake plus water retention but most importantly if you are running a mile in 10 minutes you are not burning 100 cals. Invest in a hrm. I run a mile in around 7 minutes and I barely burn 90 cals.

I have an HRM. I burn 100 calories in 10 minutes with some exercises, including the elliptical. The amount of time she takes to run a mile is not directly connected to how many calories she's burning. Weight, fitness level, speed, hills, etc., all play into it. You can't know she's not burning 100 calories in 10 minutes just because you only burn 90 in 7.

LotusF1ower

Sodium intake plus water retention but most importantly if you are running a mile in 10 minutes you are not burning 100 cals. Invest in a hrm. I run a mile in around 7 minutes and I barely burn 90 cals.

If you were to run a mile in ten minutes, why would you not possibly burn 100 calories??

I have run a mile at various speeds, from 7 min miles up to 9 min miles and each time I burn between 112 and 118 calories per mile if it is on flat ground, ie no inclines.

Azdak

Sodium intake plus water retention but most importantly if you are running a mile in 10 minutes you are not burning 100 cals. Invest in a hrm. I run a mile in around 7 minutes and I barely burn 90 cals.

If you were to run a mile in ten minutes, why would you not possibly burn 100 calories??

I have run a mile at various speeds, from 7 min miles up to 9 min miles and each time I burn between 112 and 118 calories per mile if it is on flat ground, ie no inclines.

Calories burned is equal to wt x intensity, so a heavier person will burn more calories at any given intensity level than a lighter one.

Often people use the "100 cal/mile" estimate, but that is a misnomer. Different people will burn a different amount of calories in a mile, depending on weight and running speed; however, the SAME person will burn roughly the same number of calories, regardless of running speed. That "consistency" holds true for a runner comparing results with himself/herself. It does not hold true for comparing different runners (unless they are the same size).

When it comes to outdoor running and walking, calculated energy expenditures are often more accurate than HRMs. That's because the equations used are based on the ACTUAL energy cost involved, not an estimate based on heart rate.

wiseg2

[quote/]

I have Mirena, too, and it's horrible for hormonal changes! I go through periods where I'm STARVING TO DEATH no matter what I eat and periods where I have no appetite. A couple months ago, I could have sworn I was pregnant -- I had all the symptoms. (I wasn't.)

And no matter how much water you drink, exercise and hormones can still cause water retention that will show on the scale.
[/quote]

I'm glad I didn't get the Mirena then!

rml_16

[quote/]

I have Mirena, too, and it's horrible for hormonal changes! I go through periods where I'm STARVING TO DEATH no matter what I eat and periods where I have no appetite. A couple months ago, I could have sworn I was pregnant -- I had all the symptoms. (I wasn't.)

And no matter how much water you drink, exercise and hormones can still cause water retention that will show on the scale.

I'm glad I didn't get the Mirena then!
[/quote]

If you had, you might have had a very different experience. This is how it's affected me, but different people have had different experiences with it.

It's really my only option besides a hysterectomy at this point.

jkohan

Also, the machines give you results of the average person. I guarantee that if you & I did the same exact workout, say on the treadmill, the calories would come out the same....and I highly doubt that that would be true.

EXACTLY--just because the machine asks for your HR by putting your hands on the bars--it is NOT using those stats to give you the calories burned. Those machines have the option for you to monitor your HR to see what zone you are currently in. Whether you put your hands on the bars or not, the calories burned number is exactly the same and based upon a formula. Even if the program you choose on the machine asks you to input your age and weight--again, it's not using that info to configure calories burned, it's using it to tell you your target HR range for the workout, NOT in the calorie burned estimate.

The HRM also uses a formula but it's based upon your actual HR--which IS more accurate than a machine's average. Further to that point, the HRMs with the chest strap are much more accurate than the ones with just the watch which uses a formula based upon your speed/distance--which is similar to the formula used by the machines--slightly different but again, not as accurate as the formulas that use your actual HR.

jkohan

Sodium intake plus water retention but most importantly if you are running a mile in 10 minutes you are not burning 100 cals. Invest in a hrm. I run a mile in around 7 minutes and I barely burn 90 cals.

If you were to run a mile in ten minutes, why would you not possibly burn 100 calories??

I have run a mile at various speeds, from 7 min miles up to 9 min miles and each time I burn between 112 and 118 calories per mile if it is on flat ground, ie no inclines.

Calories burned is equal to wt x intensity, so a heavier person will burn more calories at any given intensity level than a lighter one.

Often people use the "100 cal/mile" estimate, but that is a misnomer. Different people will burn a different amount of calories in a mile, depending on weight and running speed; however, the SAME person will burn roughly the same number of calories, regardless of running speed. That "consistency" holds true for a runner comparing results with himself/herself. It does not hold true for comparing different runners (unless they are the same size).

When it comes to outdoor running and walking, calculated energy expenditures are often more accurate than HRMs. That's because the equations used are based on the ACTUAL energy cost involved, not an estimate based on heart rate.

However a well respected Kinesiologist has told me that the intensity is most accurately reflected by measuring your HR during an exercise X weight. Therefore, wearing the HRM with the chest strap still is the most preferable option in measuring calories burned.