You burnt how many calories?!

samntha14

Excellent topic !

I have a related question:

Do you agree that since many here routinely "eat" their exercise calories, they should only "eat" the excess calories they burn, not the total calories burned?

For example: If I burn 100 calories per hour, just by sitting down, then if I exercise for an hour and the HRM registers 300 calories burned, that means I only burned 200 calories more than regular.
So I should only be allowed to "eat " 200 more calories, not the 300

Opinions?

I'd like to know this too. Should I stick to my original calorie goal when I exercise, or eat the extra calories. How much of a calorie deficit is ok before you hit starvation-mode.

lostemt76

Use a HRM with a strap..............it is pretty accurate.

Mine is right on target. I use it on the treadmill it reads the same as what my hrm says. I love my Polar HRM FT4

ivansmomma

I use the estimates found in the Calorieking book. I also research other websites and average out the exercises. I do not understand what the big problem is with counting calories burned for housecleaning, etc. Yes, it is something you have to do, but, as long as you are moving, you are burning calories. I don't log a massive amount of calories for housecleaning, etc., but again research it on different websites and other resources, then average it out.

garbanzalo

I had the opposite problem as the folks complaining that the machines were showing too many calories. For me, the machine was showing too few. My HRM (Polar FT7) is consistently about 100 calories or so higher than the machine.

Pebble321

I find MFP reasonably close (often under) to the other ways I check - using Runkeeper, my HRM (which doesn't factor in heart rate) and even some complicated maths that I found and put into a spread sheet.
My rough estimate is around 10 cals/minute for steady running and 5 cals/minute for brisk walking so I use this as a guide for how hard I'm working at other activites.

Really though, I don't get too stressed about - I lost over 20kg (and have kept it off) using MFP's calculations, so they certainly can work.
And although I undertand the logic of subtraciting your TDEE calories from the calories you burn during exercise, I've never bothered.

I just accept that everything we enter is an estimate (both food and exercise) so it will all balance out. It has for me.

Rayman79

Excellent topic !

I have a related question:

Do you agree that since many here routinely "eat" their exercise calories, they should only "eat" the excess calories they burn, not the total calories burned?

For example: If I burn 100 calories per hour, just by sitting down, then if I exercise for an hour and the HRM registers 300 calories burned, that means I only burned 200 calories more than regular.
So I should only be allowed to "eat " 200 more calories, not the 300

Opinions?

You are correct, the extra calories you earn should technically have your resting expenditure removed. I don't sweat it too much if I spend an hour at the gym, but I see some people recording amounts from really long activities such as hiking, playing cricket etc. You'd need to look at your 'net' calorie earnings in these cases.

d1469d

When it comes down to it. If you want to lose weight ,you have to work your *kitten* off both physically and mentally. All these gadgets and numbers are a pain in my *kitten*. The only thing you can count on is yourself and self motivation to not eat things that are bad for you. People ask me all the time how my diet is going?" It's not a diet, i just changed what I am eating". Some people have a hard time understanding that statement. If you go on a diet chances are you will go off it. So I am not on a diet. Yep, I have pizza from time to time. Yep, I will have a candy bar once in a great while and yep, I will have a soda from time to time. What I am trying to say is there is no magic powder,pill,strap you put around your chest ,or any other funny gadget you may feel you need to spend money on that will magically take the pounds off. If it works for you then stick with it. If it does not ,then change what your doing. I have gone down four pant sizes and have been through three pairs of running shoes. I know for a fact that feeling is priceless. No,MFP is not 100 percent, What is? Taxes and death and what you make happen in your life time.

ALW65

I wear a HRM and when the trainer works me out for 1/2 an hour it's about 400 calories. When I cut the grass in the summer with a push mower I can hit about 700-800 depending on the temp outside. I find I burn about 5-10% more than what MFP says vs. HRM. Like someone else mentioned, it's proportional based upon height, weight, fitness level, etc. One of my MFP friends is very tall and athletic and he routinely comes close to the 2000 mark with longer workouts. You are all right when you say not to overestimate - better to err on the side of weight loss!

nwhitley

I have always heard this too. Running burns about 100 calories per mile for men and about 87 for women, like you said, regardless of the pace or if their are hills. This is what I go by.

I use the 91-100 calories per mile model (runnersworld.com) no matter the speed or incline. I'd rather error on the side of entering too low calorie count than high for just the reason the original poster cited ... disappointed.

sarahbear1981

Whatever MFP says, I cut it half or thirds depending and then I only eat back half of that half...if that makes any sense

ChristineMarie89

Excellent topic! For example, I was using cross training, general for calculating my 30 day shred workouts @ 251 calories burned. I purchased a HRM and when I did my work out for today, it's only 168! Oops! I'm sure it's different for everyone but this was my experience!

Good luck to everyone!

i used to go with mfp circuit training like everyone says with 30DS and it said someting like 250 then got a hrm and no matter how hard i push myself i cant burn over 130 >.< but then again ther are people with HRMs that say they burn 200-300 (same weight) mayby they r jus lucky

mikethom

I use this calculator with my HRM: http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate - I usually knock off ~100 cals per hour from this number. I eat back most of exercise calories but rarely all. :happy:

Mike

EricMurano

My basic understanding is you burn around 900 calories running for 1 hour, note that is running, not jogging.

I agree with you mostly except for this point ^ and even then agree with you mostly on that ...

What is 'running' to you? Calories burned while jogging/running is determined by distance, not time. Sure if you are adamant that you are running a constant pace then time can be used but unless you're on a treadmill then you won't have a constant pace.

side note/interesting fact: walking burns LESS calories for the same distances unless you are power walking very quickly. Then walking burns more at the same speed/time as jogging or running does.

And yeah, I agree that a lot of the "calories burned" on here seem very high for what the person was doing. Recipe for disaster.

frugalmomsrock

interesting!
I will check out that calculator and article.
I had also read somewhere a while ago that the number of calories you burn on a elliptical, you should divide it by 2 and that will give you the exact amount of calories you burnt during the work out compared to a treadmill that burns just about the amount it tells you on the machine.

I just got home from the gym. Just used my new HRM. i did 50 minutes on the elliptical. Machine said i did 560, the HRM says 332.... maybe this divide by two is true for the elliptical.

I've never read this before, and I hope to the gods it's not true because in 20 minutes of be busting my *kitten* on the elliptical I only burn 100 calories according to the machine... Which is already just half of what MFP says I do. I'd hate to think that I'm only burning 50 calories in 20 minutes.

My HRM is always WAY less than my machines (elliptical and arc). However, I don't think 100 in 20 minutes is overestimating--your gym must have better machines.

j4nash

The more you weigh the more calories you burn.

I happen to be 7' and 300 right now and achieve those numbers on a daily basis.. Now if I was 150 (which I'll never be) it would probably be half..

Thad81

i often wonder if they are correct and try to put what the treadmill tells my i burned when I run on the treadmill. I plan to get a HRM so I can get a more accurate calorie count

99Tinkerbell

I don't worry about the numbers too much because I don't eat back my exercise calories! But I would have to agree that there are several that are off!:grumble:

grinch031

My understanding has been that running at a fast jog burns more calories than just about any other aerobic activity. Treadmills tend to tell me I'm burning about 1100 calories. For some reason elliptical machines really like to lie. They sometimes tell me I'm burning 1200+ calories, but there is no way. They are too easy and so if my body doesn't feel the work, there's no way its burning calories like that.

p0stdramatic

My best calorie burn ever was 1227 calories in 73 minutes. I was about 200 pounds at the time and had a fitness level of zero doing hardcore cardio kickboxing. I can't imagine burning 1400 in 45 minutes! Dammit, I wish I could! There is a girl who comes to my classes who will burn over 900 doing circuit training for 60 minutes.

HotKanye

I think the biggest issue is with people accurately gauging the intensity of their workout. Since I got my Polar HRM I usually burn about 450-500 calories in a 45 minute workout but I know if I wasn't wearing it I would probably only be burning 300-350 because the heart rate monitor gives me instant feedback and I work harder to make the numbers go up. A heart rate monitor is the best investment you can make into your fitness. It can turn anything into a workout. I wouldn't have counted house cleaning before but since my activity level is set to "sedentary" (since some days I am closer to that than active.) I enter it if it's an over and above. And when I wear my heart rate monitor to clean I end up doing little sets of jumping jacks or jump rope to keep my heart rate up in its target zone. It turns everything into a game for me. GET ONE!

tiffanepiphany

I wear a HRM, which has my age, weight, sex profile saved to it. But I don't have the chest strap, so I shave about 100 cals off what it tells me. Tonight I did a crazy Zumba class (CRAAAZY!! I thought the instructor was on something-- but I love her!) and it said I burned 1057 in 56 mins. That honestly seemed reasonable, but I logged 957 to be on the safe side.

shellyamyethan

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?

Funny part is, when I do this calculator it says i burned MORE than MFP, so i dont know. I usually don't eat my workout calories anyway, but my weightloss has seemed to have stalled. Hoping that i built some muscle. I took my measurements today and am going to check again in 2-3 weeks.

Countrymade

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?


Here is another article I found on this subject. http://www.livestrong.com/article/526920-2-000-calorie-workouts/

ashjonnatp

I have always heard this too. Running burns about 100 calories per mile for men and about 87 for women, like you said, regardless of the pace or if their are hills. This is what I go by.

I use the 91-100 calories per mile model (runnersworld.com) no matter the speed or incline. I'd rather error on the side of entering too low calorie count than high for just the reason the original poster cited ... disappointed.

i dont see how that can be accurate everyone bodies work different you cant tell me that a person who runs 2 mil at 5.5mph at a incline of 3 that ways 170lbs is going to burn the same amount as a person who weighs 130.......the more speed and higher the incline the more your heart rate is up and the more your body has to push its self....i dont see how that works typical i run 3 miles in 33 minutes and i change my incline from 1-7 and my speed varies at 5.0-7.0 i burn about 440 calories when i run at pace. i find that pretty accurate. I the faster and the more incline the harder you push your self the more calories you will burn i dont see how someone joggine at 5 and sprinting at 8mph is burning the same amount of calories. I could be wrong.

ashjonnatp

I have always heard this too. Running burns about 100 calories per mile for men and about 87 for women, like you said, regardless of the pace or if their are hills. This is what I go by.

I use the 91-100 calories per mile model (runnersworld.com) no matter the speed or incline. I'd rather error on the side of enterforing too low calorie count than high for just the reason the original poster cited ... disappointed.

i dont see how that can be accurate everyone bodies work different you cant tell me that a person who runs 2 mil at 5.5mph at a incline of 3 that ways 170lbs is going to burn the same amount as a person who weighs 130.......the more speed and higher the incline the more your heart rate is up and the more your body has to push its self....i dont see how that works typical i run 3 miles in 33 minutes and i change my incline from 1-7 and my speed varies at 5.0-7.0 i burn about 440 calories when i run at pace. i find that pretty accurate. I the faster and the more incline the harder you push your self the more calories you will burn i dont see how someone joggine at 5 and sprinting at 8mph is burning the same amount of calories. I could be wrong.

sorry for typos!!

blueandigo

It depends on your Heart Rate, like mine is always high when I am on either machine and the machine pretty much gives me an accurate read.

blueandigo

My understanding has been that running at a fast jog burns more calories than just about any other aerobic activity. Treadmills tend to tell me I'm burning about 1100 calories. For some reason elliptical machines really like to lie. They sometimes tell me I'm burning 1200+ calories, but there is no way. They are too easy and so if my body doesn't feel the work, there's no way its burning calories like that.

It depends on how hard you're pushing it. If you've done it for a while, then it becomes easy and like an everyday thing, but if you're a newcomer you won't be able to just jump on there and burn 1200 calories a day like I do. The difference between running and on the elliptical is the fact that you're using more muscles and you have to build those muscles up. Before using the elliptical I was exposed to terrible hurting from being a newbie on the machine, now I make the machine my *****. Running on the treadmill doesn't give me the kick that the elliptical does. Different strokes for different folks.

grinch031

My understanding has been that running at a fast jog burns more calories than just about any other aerobic activity. Treadmills tend to tell me I'm burning about 1100 calories. For some reason elliptical machines really like to lie. They sometimes tell me I'm burning 1200+ calories, but there is no way. They are too easy and so if my body doesn't feel the work, there's no way its burning calories like that.

It depends on how hard you're pushing it. If you've done it for a while, then it becomes easy and like an everyday thing, but if you're a newcomer you won't be able to just jump on there and burn 1200 calories a day like I do. The difference between running and on the elliptical is the fact that you're using more muscles and you have to build those muscles up. Before using the elliptical I was exposed to terrible hurting from being a newbie on the machine, now I make the machine my *****. Running on the treadmill doesn't give me the kick that the elliptical does. Different strokes for different folks.

I barely ever run on ellipticals because I'm so accustomed to running. I will sometimes run to failure during an interval, so it can get pretty intense. On the elliptical though it always feels pretty easy and alot lower-intensity than running, despite the insanely high calorie readings. On a treadmill you don't have a choice as to how much energy you exert because if you don't keep up with the tread, you will fly right off, whereas on the elliptical you are in control of the energy you expend by how fast you choose to go. I have major doubts that I could ever out-burn on an elliptical what i burn on a treadmill.

sweet110

I guess its results that count. Some people get really motivated by seeing how many calories they can burn. And while, yes, I see 900 calories burned and I think...uh huh. Something is amiss here...like not taking into account that you would have burned 500 by just breathing. BUT, if they're losing weight, and they get a rush from logging 900 calories, what's the harm?

I personally don't log exercise. I just put in a slightly higher target calorie range. But I also do more strength training than cardio...which, supposedly, increases your calorie burn for longer periods of time, even though the actual calories burned during the exercise is low.

In summary, I think its all about folks finding what motivates them. Even if its technically wrong. As long as it works...its right!

grinch031

I guess its results that count. Some people get really motivated by seeing how many calories they can burn. And while, yes, I see 900 calories burned and I think...uh huh. Something is amiss here...like not taking into account that you would have burned 500 by just breathing. BUT, if they're losing weight, and they get a rush from logging 900 calories, what's the harm?

I personally don't log exercise. I just put in a slightly higher target calorie range. But I also do more strength training than cardio...which, supposedly, increases your calorie burn for longer periods of time, even though the actual calories burned during the exercise is low.

In summary, I think its all about folks finding what motivates them. Even if its technically wrong. As long as it works...its right!

Technically you are supposed to subtract the calories you would've burned doing nothing during that time frame, but its usually pretty small. For 1 hour its probably 100 calories or maybe less depending on the person.