Why estimating calories burned drives me crazy

SandySweats

One of the most annoying thing about calorie tracking is estimating calories burned from exercise. It's amazing how the same effort produces different results based on the tool used for measurement. I use the Fitbit activity tracker and the Polar FT7 HRM. Plus I incidentally notice the calories burned indicated on a cardio machine if the day's workout includes one.

For example, below is my workout from this morning. In both cases my HRM connects to the machine and gives a constant HR. I enter weight and age into the machine. The HRM has my sex, age, height, weight, min and max heart rates. I am a 50 yr old female standing 5'5" and 148 lbs (this morning). with a resting HR between 50 and 55 and max HR about 170.

65 min workout on an Adaptive Motion Machine (by Precor), resistance at 50% of machine's max settings (taking it easy today), that produced the following results:
HRM says 427 calories with Average HR 123, Max HR 138.
Machine says 792 calories
Fitbit says 480 calories

25 Min workout on Treadmill set at intervals - alternating between 0% and 30% grade - at 4 mph - produced the following results
HRM says 118 calories with Average HR 106, Max HR 118
Machine says 151 calories
Fitbit says 139 calories

And none of these numbers comes from MFP or Fitbit's exercise database . . . I'm sure they would be very different too.

Usually I just record the HRM number into Fitbit and that syncs over to MFP.

My weight loss has stalled as of late because try as I might, I can't out run my diet failures. I don't weigh my food, often measure by eye, some things don't get logged, etc. And, I have no idea what I am burning based on the numbers above (hahahaha).

Just pointing out to everyone that there's a lot of variance in calorie calculation and just take it in stride.

***

Here is a fun workout that can be done on any cardio machine. I love it on the Adaptive Motion Machine (by Precor) because it simulates running without causing damage to my arthritic knees. I think it is called Burst 8:

5 mins at 25% of maximum resistance
1 min at 100% of maximum resistance
2 mins at 25% of maximum resistance
(do the 1 min 2 min thing for a total of 8 bursts)
11 mins of 50% of maximum resistance
5 mins at 25% of maximum resistance
Total time 45 mins

I did this yesterday - using the machine's maximum settings as 100% - I achieved an average HR 140. max HR 167, and my HRM gave me 370 calories. . . .(rolling my eyes)

Have a great day

Sandy

thavoice

TL: DR.

But I can pretty much get what you are saying by the title.

That is why I dont pay one second of attention to estimating calories burned. I eat to my goals, and all my exercise, extra strenious work is just a bonus burn.

brianpperkins

The issue isn't your ability to estimate your exercise burns because you have enough info for a sensible starting point (the lowest number and adjust from there) ... it is your complete lack of tracking your intake in an accurate fashion.

__freckles__

TL;DR.

Use the TDEE method and don't worry about it. :flowerforyou:

Azdak

The issue isn't your ability to estimate your exercise burns because you have enough info for a sensible starting point (the lowest number and adjust from there) ... it is your complete lack of tracking your intake in an accurate fashion.

For someone that size ( <70Kg), you are likely not going to see huge swings in calorie burn. At an average fitness level for a female that age, with the workouts described, the exercise intensity is likely going to be in the 6-8 MET range, which works out to 400-550 per hour.

To make things even simpler, the OP could probably pick a basic number of 7 calories per minute of cardio exercise (including interval workouts) and that would be a reasonably accurate estimate over time.

jkwolly

TL: DR.

But I can pretty much get what you are saying by the title.

That is why I dont pay one second of attention to estimating calories burned. I eat to my goals, and all my exercise, extra strenious work is just a bonus burn.

Yep!

MattNotFatt

I just stick to my calorie goal because, for me at least 2200 is more then enough no matter how hard i work. It is still difficult to hit 2200 calories in a single day. I just consider all exercise a bonus because it is near impossible to accurately track it/

Angela26point2finisher

The heart rate monitor should be the most accurate, so don't even bother with all the other measurements. All the counting does make me crazy and I plan to stop after August 17th, running a 1/2 marathon that day.

leodru

I had the same deal last night - on the elliptical and it told me 390 calories - put it into my fitbit and it said 167?????? WTH. Anyways the good news is i don't tend to eat my exercise. I instead keep it in my back pocket for when i fall off the wagon.

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

Go with your HRM for steady state aerobics, its likely the most accurate. Your interval type workout you did will cause the burn to register higher and be way off, which it did as expected from what you wrote, use machine minus whatever percent average difference you get machine vs HRM for steady state aerobics.

JoRocka

TL;DR.

Use the TDEE method and don't worry about it. :flowerforyou:

boom
/thread

Butrovich

The heart rate monitor should be the most accurate, so don't even bother with all the other measurements. All the counting does make me crazy and I plan to stop after August 17th, running a 1/2 marathon that day.

^^^
This

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

cwolfman13

The issue isn't your ability to estimate your exercise burns because you have enough info for a sensible starting point (the lowest number and adjust from there) ... it is your complete lack of tracking your intake in an accurate fashion.

For someone that size ( <70Kg), you are likely not going to see huge swings in calorie burn. At an average fitness level for a female that age, with the workouts described, the exercise intensity is likely going to be in the 6-8 MET range, which works out to 400-550 per hour.

To make things even simpler, the OP could probably pick a basic number of 7 calories per minute of cardio exercise (including interval workouts) and that would be a reasonably accurate estimate over time.

This is pretty much what I did before switching to the TDEE method. I generally used a number between 5 and 10 with 10 being pretty much a killer intensity level for which I could not hold a conversation or otherwise do anything except focus on the task at hand...to boot, this level was generally not sustainable for all that long...usually only short duration or bursts. I generally found a number 7 or 8 to be most practical for most of my aerobic workouts...I used a 5 for moderately paced walking.

brianpperkins

The issue isn't your ability to estimate your exercise burns because you have enough info for a sensible starting point (the lowest number and adjust from there) ... it is your complete lack of tracking your intake in an accurate fashion.

Until they come up with the implant that measures calories as our bodies ingest them, NONE of this **** is 100% accurate. Not MFP, your HRM, your food scale, the nutritional content...all of it has room for error.

Yes, tracking helps us to have a fairly good idea of where we're at. But if you think your logging is completely accurate I got news for you, it ain't.

So long as you're seeing progress you're doing alright. If not, time to see what you need to do to fix it.

Nowhere did I say logging was 100% accurate. What the OP did say was that she didn't even measure what she ate nor did she bother to log everything she put in her mouth. It does no good to have a decent starting point to estimate one side of the equation (in her case the exercise burns) while screwing the pooch on the other side of the ledger.

strassenkoenigin

I completely agree with you. And I want to tell you something for your journey from 50 to 70. I was never really overweight in my life, but after entering menopause I started having more problems getting rid of extra pounds which had accumulated due to too many cakes and desserts. And I can only tell you that after 50 it is getting much more difficult. The experience of the last two decades has shown me that the only sure way to drop the weight was by severely cutting calories. Somehow the older body does not need so many calories. A few times I achieved my ideal weight which is somewhere around 115 pounds and I was full of energy and spent hours on my road bike or swimming or doing yoga. The bonus of being so active was also that I was not so hungry. The moment I was not able to pursue these activities, I ate more and put on weight and became more sedentary. it is a vicious cycle. I am a few months away from my 70 birthday and I find myself in the situation that I have to train like an athlete to stay in shape.
Now if I would believe the calorie counters I would virtually not exist anymore because on good days I spend so many hours on my bike that these counters tell me that my expenditure was something like 2000 calories. Plus my calorie intake is only about 1000 calories a day. So I get a deficit of over 15000 calories a week, but I never drop five pounds a week. If I drop 2 pounds I am lucky. So something is wrong in all these calculations.

SandySweats

OP here, some of you guys need to lighten up.

I know that I can loose the last 10-15 lbs once I get back control of my diet. I said that in the post. At my heaviest I was 238 in January 2012. I am now 148. Right now I am working at maintaining this weight range (145 - 150) at the highest calorie count I can. That way when I cut again it won't seem that drastic.

I have made great improvements. I walked into a gym for the first time August 2013 wearing size 18 jeans. I am now size 8 and can leg press 220 lbs.

Be Happy,

Sandy

__freckles__

TL;DR.

Use the TDEE method and don't worry about it. :flowerforyou:

Yeah because that isn't an estimate at all. If she does TDEE and that doesn't work all people will do is say "well lower your calories by 100." It's all just guesswork basically.

Of course TDEE is an estimate. But if you actually take the time to track it, you can get pretty darn close to knowing what you need to eat in order to maintain your weight. I know my TDEE is 2200 because I tracked my food religiously for 6 weeks and didn't gain a pound. Once you know your true TDEE without using an online calculator, it's easy to gain/lose weight. I subtract 10% from my TDEE in order to lose half a pound a week.

I was simply pointing out that if you use the TDEE method then you don't have to worry about exercise burns.

__freckles__

OP here, some of you guys need to lighten up.

I know that I can loose the last 10-15 lbs once I get back control of my diet. I said that in the post. At my heaviest I was 238 in January 2012. I am now 148. Right now I am working at maintaining this weight range (145 - 150) at the highest calorie count I can. That way when I cut again it won't seem that drastic.

I have made great improvements. I walked into a gym for the first time August 2013 wearing size 18 jeans. I am now size 8 and can leg press 220 lbs.

Be Happy,

Sandy

Great job OP - it sounds like you know exactly what to do to get back on track. I'm totally with you on eating the highest amount of calories I can. Because food is delicious. All the foodz.