You burnt how many calories?!

dls06

I acknowledge that people differ in the amount of energy they will exert during exercise, I generally like to be conservative in my estimates. Is it really possible to burn 2000 calories in 90 minutes? Here is a generic calculator I came across, and it seems to be more in the ball park of what I think is correct.

http://mydr.com.au/tools/calories-burned-calculator

I keep seeing numbers like 1400 in 45minutes and the like. I think some people may be setting themselves up for disappointment when the numbers they get on MFP don't translate to weight loss.

My basic understanding is you burn around 900 calories running for 1 hour, note that is running, not jogging. Using this as a base you can estimate roughly other activities. But of course we are all different and we all have different bodies that will burn calories at different rates. The calculations are based on the study you can read here http://juststand.org/Portals/3/literature/compendium-of-physical-activities.pdf

What are peoples thoughts on this?

And then they say "I can't lose weight"?

Azdak

I always go with my HRM. I never, ever put in any estimates, I get my calories burned from there, and put it in as a custom excercise so I get as accurate a reflection as I can.

I know some people frown on it, but I also include a 10 min or so period afterwards, basically, until my heart rate drops back under 100, because it would never be there were I not recovering from excercise. When I work out from home, I tend to try and do a few household jobs afterwards as well. It's amazing when you're exhausted from the 30DS or a home routine how many extra calories you can burn from something as simple as loading and unloading the dishwasher because you're so exhausted your body needs fuel and it keeps your heartrate up.

Your heart rate in increased because of the increased body temp and other factors relating to the exercise. You are not burning any more calories doing those chose after exercise than you would before. At that point, the HRM number is no longer valid--the "increased" numbers are just an mechanical anamoly.

Azdak

Given the number of responses to this topic, it's obvious this is a subject of interest. Probably 50% of my comments address this issue in one way or another, since it's probably the least understood topic on the forums.

A summary:

HRMs do not measure calories. They estimate calories according to programmed equations built into the watch that use your setup data and your heart rate.

The equations that estimate calories were developed under a specific set of exercise conditions--i.e. steady-state cardiovascular (aerobic) exercise above an intensity of 40% of VO2max. If your setup information is correct (see below), and you are working out under these conditions, the HRM calorie estimates will be as accurate as they can be (80%, 85%).

If you are using the HRM during activities that are NOT steady-state aerobic activities, then the conditions are NOT the same as when the HRM equations were developed and so the calorie estimates will be LESS accurate (how much depends on the activity).

Heart rate, by itself, has NO effect on calorie burn. Heart rate can only be used to estimate calorie burn when heart rate, or the changes in heart rate, can be linked to oxygen uptake. One must exercise caution and not automatically assume that increases in heart rate ALWAYS mean that more calories are being burn. Two people cannot use heart rates to compare calorie burns.

There are conditions under which heart rate can increase without any significant increase in oxygen uptake. Under these conditions, the HRM calorie estimates are not accurate at all. This includes: weight training, thermal stress (e.g. bikram yoga), anxiety, medication, and others.

The converse is also true: if heart rate is blunted by medication (esp beta blockers) then your calorie numbers will be meaningless.

HRM calorie accuracy is significantly affected by the accuracy of your setup data. A significant number of people have maximum heart rates that are significantly higher than the age-predicted defaults programmed into all HRMs. If you do not manually change the HRmax, your HRM will significantly overestimate calories because it assumes you are maxing out the entire time.

The decreased calorie numbers that come with increased fitness do NOT mean you are burning fewer calories. It means you haven't updated your fitness level in your HRM.

See below for more detail:


http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/new-hrm-how-to-make-the-calorie-estimate-more-accurate-183102

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/activities-to-log-or-not-to-log-57883

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/calories-burned-during-exercise-it-s-the-intensity-not-the-heart-rate-that-counts-26524

melrose09

^^^^Thanks! Awesome info!

samntha14

There are conditions under which heart rate can increase without any significant increase in oxygen uptake. Under these conditions, the HRM calorie estimates are not accurate at all. This includes: weight training, thermal stress (e.g. bikram yoga), anxiety, medication, and others.

So how can we estimate calorie burn during strength training if the HRM won't do the job. My HR gets pretty high at times when lifting weights.

porffor

This is why to date I've chosen not to eat my 'logged' calories. I don't have a HRM and log them on here for personal interest / acknowledgement only.

Will check out the link from OP thanks.

ilike2moveit

I bought a HRM because I was concerned that the calculator on this site was overestimating my burn. I've learned my body will burn around 200 cals (give or take 50) for about 25 min of exercise, no matter what I do. There's some variance, of course, but that's what I can expect. I see where some folks report 700 cals burned for 60 min of cleaning. I don't want to knock anyone, but if that were possible, I'd go so far as to say they never would have been overweight in the first place...that is, unless they just started cleaning after joining MFP. If cleaning for an hour burned half my daily calories, I'd be invisible by now.

Having said that, I have also learned that simply moving one's butt more is enough to make a person WANT to eat better. So even if I don't log my cals burned accurately, I've noticed a difference just by moving more.

Now that's funny! :laugh:

samntha14

something else to take into consideration, when the systems posts somebody's workout on their wall, it's only showing total calories and not showing the viewers the entire workout and people may be putting something in randomly just to log their calories for the day. For example, mine said 55 minutes of elliptical trainer to burn 256 calories when it was a combination workout including strength training. My friend put in "walking the dog at 3.5 mph" for the 1 night a week he waits tables and busts his butt at work. Don't judge unless you are reading someones diary and you know all the information.

shinyshell55

Your post is great. It made me laugh out loud!

duharvalgt

Good post sometimes i see things like " 2000 calories burnt in 1 hour of cleaning " and i think hang on i only burnt 1200 calories doing 2 hours of intense cardio , something doesnt add up here.

kated930

I rely on my HRM to tell me calories burned. When I look at the machines, its always higher, and MFP always gave me a higher number as well.

I know everyone is different but I notice people burning way more calories than me when doing the same exercises. For example, I run for an hour, getting my heart rate up to 80% of the max, and my HRM says that burns roughly 450-500 calories. I see some people logging an hour of running and burning 800-1000 calories which is probably what it says on the tredmill! I know body composition and weight have a lot to do with it but a lot of people just don't know any better.

Example:
The other day in my body pump class I heard women talking about roughly how many calories the class burned and they were thinking 500 calories. On my HRM it said I only burned 190!!!!

HRM is way better then guessing

kated930

There are conditions under which heart rate can increase without any significant increase in oxygen uptake. Under these conditions, the HRM calorie estimates are not accurate at all. This includes: weight training, thermal stress (e.g. bikram yoga), anxiety, medication, and others.

So how can we estimate calorie burn during strength training if the HRM won't do the job. My HR gets pretty high at times when lifting weights.

well I keep a close eye on my HRM while I'm doing weights and I notice that it really only goes up when I am at the end of a set and using a lot of power to finish- I think that is accurate and my heart rate is def going up then. Also, while I'm doing weights, I try to break it up with mountain climbers or jumping jacks to get that HR up! That way, I feel like my HRM is accurate- does that make sense?

shaeni1221

My HRM always comes in lower that MFP and my treadmill. Always. The range is larger the longer I exercise.

mine always comes in higher then MFP and my treadmill. Granted I don't have a real expensive or fancy one, it's a watch one, and I check my heart rate every 2-5 minutes while on the treadmill to make sure the calorie burned count is accurate.

engineman312

My HRM always comes in lower that MFP and my treadmill. Always. The range is larger the longer I exercise.

mine always comes in higher then MFP and my treadmill. Granted I don't have a real expensive or fancy one, it's a watch one, and I check my heart rate every 2-5 minutes while on the treadmill to make sure the calorie burned count is accurate.

you mean a wrist one? those are horribly inaccurate.

ronald4133

As a running coach, I can say with confidence that most runners burn 100 calories per mile. If you zip along at 7:00/mile (which is ca. 8.5 mph and will make a 43:30 10K) you'll burn 850 calories. At a more realistic 6 mph you'll burn 600. So if a speedster runs 10 miles in 55:00 and a jogger takes 1:50:00, they both burn around 1100 calories. It just takes the jogger twice as long. Of course, this is a gross simplification, but you can see why most marathon (26.2 miles) finishers are lean.

Azdak

There are conditions under which heart rate can increase without any significant increase in oxygen uptake. Under these conditions, the HRM calorie estimates are not accurate at all. This includes: weight training, thermal stress (e.g. bikram yoga), anxiety, medication, and others.

So how can we estimate calorie burn during strength training if the HRM won't do the job. My HR gets pretty high at times when lifting weights.

You can't. Normally, it's not that significant anyway. Or, you can just use a set amount --like 200-300 per hour. That's about as good as it gets.

As I mentioned before, the fact that your heart rate goes up during strength training is irrelevant -- that HR increase is not accompanied by an increase in oxygen uptake, therefore it cannot be used as an indicator of increased calorie burn.

Azdak

As a running coach, I can say with confidence that most runners burn 100 calories per mile. If you zip along at 7:00/mile (which is ca. 8.5 mph and will make a 43:30 10K) you'll burn 850 calories. At a more realistic 6 mph you'll burn 600. So if a speedster runs 10 miles in 55:00 and a jogger takes 1:50:00, they both burn around 1100 calories. It just takes the jogger twice as long. Of course, this is a gross simplification, but you can see why most marathon (26.2 miles) finishers are lean.

Calories burned are a function of intensity x weight. If the same person is running at different speeds, they will burn roughly the same number of calories per mile. If two people are running, their calories per mile will depend on their body weight.

So, I 132lb runner will burn fewer calories than a 176lb runner--at any given matched speed. The 132lb runner will burn 100 calories per mile, and the 176 lb runner will burn 133.

shaeni1221

My HRM always comes in lower that MFP and my treadmill. Always. The range is larger the longer I exercise.

mine always comes in higher then MFP and my treadmill. Granted I don't have a real expensive or fancy one, it's a watch one, and I check my heart rate every 2-5 minutes while on the treadmill to make sure the calorie burned count is accurate.

you mean a wrist one? those are horribly inaccurate.

why is that?

chanson104

I think that people should just experiment a little bit and do what works for them. I use the calories that the elliptical machine and treadmill calculate and enter 200 for 30 day shred as a guesstimate. If I do something else I use MFP's calculator. Sometimes I eat my exercise calories and sometimes I don't; it depends on if I am hungry or not. Yes, I am guilty of occassionally exercising after the fact so that at the end of the day my post reads that I was under my goal. That being said, I weigh 104 pounds less than what I did at my heaviest, and I've consistently lost weight for the last several months.

engineman312

My HRM always comes in lower that MFP and my treadmill. Always. The range is larger the longer I exercise.

mine always comes in higher then MFP and my treadmill. Granted I don't have a real expensive or fancy one, it's a watch one, and I check my heart rate every 2-5 minutes while on the treadmill to make sure the calorie burned count is accurate.

you mean a wrist one? those are horribly inaccurate.

why is that?

the strap version picks up a better signal from your heart.