Subtract BMR from calories burned during light exercise?

tekiegirl

My boyfriend suggested that I should subtract my BMR from the number of calories burnt during very light exercise (walking), recorded by my heart rate monitor.
Do you think this is a good idea? Do you do it? Do you even count calories from this type of exercise?
I normally don't do such light exercise and count all calories burned during an exercise DVD or on my bike.

To do it I took 1500 as my BMR, divided it by 24 to get an hourly BMR (62.5), multiplied it by the two hours we were walking (125) and took it away from the calories recorded by my HRM,(437), leaving 312 calories burned.
437-((1500/24)x2)=312

MoonIite

The tracker I use already subtracts my bmr calories from my exercise calories when I add my workout . So yesterday I did a dvd workout, Cardio Party 1, and burned 500 calories. The workout was 43 minutes long so it subracted 45 calories from my exercise calories. I would have burn 45 calories in that time had I not exercised.

SeasideOasis

Personally...I DONT DO IT!

Reason being, even after you take off your HRM and begin doing normal activity, your heart/body doesnt just stop out of nowhere and go back to the normal speed. Your body is still burning at a higher rate in normal activity after your get your heart pumping (which is why running up and down a flight of stairs every now and then through out the day is a GOOD thing) from a workout. No one seems to take that into account when they start adding and subtracting their HRM numbers. Also, the more muscle your have, the more your body will burn for longer period of time.

To each their own really, but thats just my opinion.

JNick77

Things I've read from various nutritionist suggest that you should not eat back the calories you burn. First the calories indicated on a treadmill display or whatever are a bit subjective and not necessarily accurate. The important thing is not an initial burst of calorie depeletion but the continued thermic affect of the exercise over the remainder of the day. Second, you're in a calorie deficit for losing healthy weight, it makes NO sense to eat back calories unless you're trying to MAINTAIN bodyweight. Third, you should setup your calorie goals in a means that provide for healthy weight (fat) loss and still allow you to maintain lean muscle mass therefore even less reason to "eat-back" calories burned. It's better to start a little high (like bodyweight x 10) and cut your calories by 10% - 15% as your plateau or stop seeing progress then it is to start real low, it can be counter productive.

Good read, http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-g-flux

LovelySnugs

it's a personal preference thing. some people do it, lots of people don't. but if you're gonna subtract BMR, do it for ALL your exercise, not just light exercise.

but your math is correct, if you do decide to do it.

lovejoydavid

Personally...I DONT DO IT!

Reason being, even after you take off your HRM and begin doing normal activity, your heart/body doesnt just stop out of nowhere and go back to the normal speed. Your body is still burning at a higher rate in normal activity after your get your heart pumping (which is why running up and down a flight of stairs every now and then through out the day is a GOOD thing) from a workout. No one seems to take that into account when they start adding and subtracting their HRM numbers. Also, the more muscle your have, the more your body will burn for longer period of time.

To each their own really, but thats just my opinion.

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but the most recent studies are pretty clear that EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption), which is the energy generated in the post acute exercise state, comprises maybe 6-15% of the net total oxygen consumption of the actual exercise, and it only generated to any measurable extent by very long sub maximal workouts, or short supramaximal bouts of exercise. Basically, only in athletes. (Journal of Sports Sciences, Volume 24, Issue 12, 2006). There have even been a few quite recent studies that saw none at all. The euphoria over that afterburn concept kind of peaked in the first part of the last decade, and faded after that.