Not Losing Weight As Fast? This Could Be Why!
Options
RockstarWilson
Posts: 836 Member
I use a site to calculate my calorie burn based on average heart rate. When I use a machine to work out, I both observe the machine's output vs my own calculation of my HR. I take that number, and time, and put it into a site's input boxes, and it outputs my gross calorie burn.
But what I just learned about Gross and Net calorie burn was interesting, and for some of you folks that do light workouts....you might not be getting the burn that you think.
Here is what I learned:
Gross calorie burn is how much calories you burned TOTAL in that given time span. I worked out for 25 minutes, my average heart rate was 155 bpm, so I burned a total of 385 calories.
Net calorie burn is how much calories you burned MINUS the calories that you WOULD have burned had you done nothing. In other words, your Resting Metabolic Heart Rate is a specific amount. For me, it is about 100-120 calories per hour. If I do nothing all day, and just lay in my bed and watch movies all day, I will burn 2400-2880 calories on any given day.
To measure Net Calorie Burn, you take that number that you see on the machine, or on your app, or on MFP (that number you see when you put in the minutes worked out), and you subtract it by the amount of calories you were already going to burn in that time frame. In my case:
I burn 100 calories per hour doing nothing.
I worked out for 25 minutes, so I would have burned 41 calories in that time had I done nothing
I burned a gross 385 calories on the machine
Therefore:
385 - 41 = 344 net calories burned
If you log workouts, this is the number you should be inputting. The significance is greater for those who do lighter workouts and don't raise their heart rates for an extended period of time. What you would have done is a constant, whereas what you did is variable. So If I burn 1000 calories in an hour, I know that I must subtract 100 from that total, so I really worked out for 900 calories. That is a 10% miscalculation if I put in 1000 calories burned. But if someone burns 300 calories in 1 hour and logs 300 calories, that is 30% of their workout they are miscalcuating. If that someone is only looking to lose 1/2 pound a week, you are hindering your progress by almost 50%!
It is a greater difference factor for heavier set people too because their heart rate is already beating higher and their ability to sustain a high heart rate is more difficult than the averagely healthy person, so the resting metabolic heart rate also plays a part.
You can get all the information here:
Knowledge: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/articles/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn.aspx
HR based Calculator: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
But what I just learned about Gross and Net calorie burn was interesting, and for some of you folks that do light workouts....you might not be getting the burn that you think.
Here is what I learned:
Gross calorie burn is how much calories you burned TOTAL in that given time span. I worked out for 25 minutes, my average heart rate was 155 bpm, so I burned a total of 385 calories.
Net calorie burn is how much calories you burned MINUS the calories that you WOULD have burned had you done nothing. In other words, your Resting Metabolic Heart Rate is a specific amount. For me, it is about 100-120 calories per hour. If I do nothing all day, and just lay in my bed and watch movies all day, I will burn 2400-2880 calories on any given day.
To measure Net Calorie Burn, you take that number that you see on the machine, or on your app, or on MFP (that number you see when you put in the minutes worked out), and you subtract it by the amount of calories you were already going to burn in that time frame. In my case:
I burn 100 calories per hour doing nothing.
I worked out for 25 minutes, so I would have burned 41 calories in that time had I done nothing
I burned a gross 385 calories on the machine
Therefore:
385 - 41 = 344 net calories burned
If you log workouts, this is the number you should be inputting. The significance is greater for those who do lighter workouts and don't raise their heart rates for an extended period of time. What you would have done is a constant, whereas what you did is variable. So If I burn 1000 calories in an hour, I know that I must subtract 100 from that total, so I really worked out for 900 calories. That is a 10% miscalculation if I put in 1000 calories burned. But if someone burns 300 calories in 1 hour and logs 300 calories, that is 30% of their workout they are miscalcuating. If that someone is only looking to lose 1/2 pound a week, you are hindering your progress by almost 50%!
It is a greater difference factor for heavier set people too because their heart rate is already beating higher and their ability to sustain a high heart rate is more difficult than the averagely healthy person, so the resting metabolic heart rate also plays a part.
You can get all the information here:
Knowledge: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/articles/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn.aspx
HR based Calculator: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
0
Replies
-
well there is an eye opener. I never even thought about subtracting the calories I would have burned just "being." I cant decide if I should hug you or strangle you. figuratively of course. thanks for the info and explaination0
-
well there is an eye opener. I never even thought about subtracting the calories I would have burned just "being." I cant decide if I should hug you or strangle you. figuratively of course. thanks for the info and explaination
I say we pimp slap him.
0 -
But I believe MFP already factors that in based on what you indicate in your profile eg sedentary etc!
So my understanding was that the caloric deficit target it gives you takes that into account!
Well your post also.emphasizes importance of not eating back all your calories!0 -
Holy math, Batman!
This is why I use TDEE method and not even worry about eating back calories. My exercise, activity is fairly consistent so it works pretty well. I just takes the average of my weight over the weeks, see where my weight is trending and adjust up or down about 100 calories and reassess from there.0 -
I don't know if I want to slap you or hug you either! lol Thank you for this great post!0
-
Thank you!!! :drinker:0
-
TDEE based on trial and error FTW0
-
-
Yup, sounds logical.
Then there is also the fact, that MFP, other apps and machines (even when entering weight/height/etc) calculate the average person for their burns. I'm short, close to my goal and have a rather low HR even when working out hard. The numbers from the above named sources are often 50-100% higher than what my HRM says!
I log my HRM cals and I used to only eat back 2/3 of them and that worked well...maybe I need to go back to that 'rule' to lose my last 3-4kg :sad: . But I still just love my food..... :blushing:0 -
Yup, sounds logical.
Then there is also the fact, that MFP, other apps and machines (even when entering weight/height/etc) calculate the average person for their burns. I'm short, close to my goal and have a rather low HR even when working out hard. The numbers from the above named sources are often 50-100% higher than what my HRM says!
I log my HRM cals and I used to only eat back 2/3 of them and that worked well...maybe I need to go back to that 'rule' to lose my last 3-4kg :sad: . But I still just love my food..... :blushing:
When I work out, I check my heart rate with my hand regularly. I measure the calorie count as a mean between the machine's output (I always use a lower weight to account for possible overestimation), what it says on MFP, and the site I referenced in the OP. Interestingly enough, the outputs for calories are all the same.
It should be said that these formulas are only estimations with the basic information they have. There will be some people that this calculator doesn't work with, but for the vast majority it will. i am going to ask a Moderator if they take this into account in their formula for workouts, because by the calculations I came up with, they don't.0 -
@BombshellPhoe.........nice wizard from FFT. I like it! retro gamer!0
-
Just wanted to weigh in on TDEE. I just used a calculator to calculate my TDEE and subtracted the recommended 25% off of that number to get my caloric intake for steady weight loss and it came in at 1984. MFP has me at 1980. Just letting people know that it seems this is how MFP calculates things as well0
-
Just wanted to weigh in on TDEE. I just used a calculator to calculate my TDEE and subtracted the recommended 25% off of that number to get my caloric intake for steady weight loss and it came in at 1984. MFP has me at 1980. Just letting people know that it seems this is how MFP calculates things as well
That is about 1.2 lbs a week. This thread is to just let you know that you should be wary of the calories you would have used had you not worked out. You cannot input the total number you see on the screen, You must subtract that other number for it to be true, otherwise, your weight loss will be cut down by <50% to about .75 lbs per week. If you underestimate your daily TDEE (I often do) it wont matter much. But for those who are more accurate with it, this matters.0 -
I'll weigh in on it too... An Internet calculator isn't going to be nearly as accurate as honest logging, weighing your food, consistent exercise, and good ol' patience for determining your TDEE.Just wanted to weigh in on TDEE. I just used a calculator to calculate my TDEE and subtracted the recommended 25% off of that number to get my caloric intake for steady weight loss and it came in at 1984. MFP has me at 1980. Just letting people know that it seems this is how MFP calculates things as well
Record your weight at regular intervals, then log your intake accurately while keeping your exercise consistent. At the end of 4-6 weeks, you should be able to take the average caloric intake and compare it with your resultant change in weight to determine what you're actually burning.
Say you eat 2000 calories a day on average during that period, and in 6 weeks you lose 3.6 pounds. That's a 12600 calorie deficit over 42 days, which is an average daily deficit of 300 calories. That means for the amount of exercise you did during that 6 week period, your TDEE was 2300 calories.
I personally would not go for more than 15% deficit off my TDEE (I guess if you have more than 50 pounds to lose, you might be able to set it higher). So I would set my new goal for 1955 calories per day, which is not really a big change from 2000, so it'd be an easy adjustment to make anyway.
Then, you repeat and refine the process. It's all about consistency, measuring, evaluating, adjusting, and repeating.0 -
great post - thank you0
-
@BombshellPhoe.........nice wizard from FFT. I like it! retro gamer!
Black mage ftw :P Vivi from FFIX is the best!0 -
@BombshellPhoe.........nice wizard from FFT. I like it! retro gamer!
Black mage ftw :P Vivi from FFIX is the best!
Ah...that one didn't get much love. But that black mage is derived from Tactics. Graphics enabled them to be more detailed hehe0 -
And this is why I just don't log exercise.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions