You burnt how many calories?!

jcearth

All of these tools we used to "estimate" caloric burn for exercise at just guesses. Some may be more educated than others, but in the end, we can never be exact. The more information we use to make the guess, the better it is. About a month or so ago, I went back a took a look at what my actual weight loss was versus what MFP said it should have been over a six month period. In that time frame, I lost 91 pounds, but my MFP numbers indicated that I should have lost 105 pounds, resulting in a difference of 14 pounds. This equated to about 280 calories per day that were unaccounted for. Did I under report caloric intake? Probably. Did I over report calories burned from exercise? Most likely. Are my exercise numbers way out of whack? Not at all. Yes, I really did burn over 2200 calories yesterday in my 90 minute workout. I ran over 8 miles, but I am also over 300 pounds. If I only weighed 120, I'm sure it would not have been anywhere near that. When we look at the calories burned, we have to remember that the bigger the person, the more calories they are going to burn. As I continue to lose more and more weight, I burn less calories doing the same exercise because 1) I am now smaller, and 2) my heart rate doesn't get as high doing the same exercise because I am now in better shape.


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Nutrition Facts For Foods

soniathekitty

I really need to just suck it up and get a HRM. I do put bits of cleaning down, if it's not just.. dusting here and there.. if I'm busting serious hump, to the point that it gets me going as much as a workout (and it does if I'm doing some heavy-duty..), then I'll log it. But, just doing the dishes? No. And to further that, I don't use that as buffer or excuse to eat "extra". I am a 1000 calorie a day girl, and usually only go over that if I need more protein or I've had a crappy day. I do like to look at patterns.

All that being said, it annoys me when I see 1100-1400 burns for 60-90 minutes of general aerobics for some folks that I just..have a hard time believing it. But, I remind myself that I'm not here for them, or to knock them, but I won't give them a pat on the back either, I just.. remember that I have my own goal to focus on. :-) Does make me think: CHEATER! ;-) But, they're only cheating themselves if they're over-inflating. I can't be concerned with that.

I would love to see my daily burn, not just my 400-600 usual. Only time I've gotten above 1000, was when I rode 16 miles on my bike over the course of about 2 hours. :-) And I was using Endomondo app on my android for that. ;-)

Articeluvsmemphis

my muscle(ly) friends seem to have really high calories burns. for me, if I push hard enough in both weights and cardio I can burn an average of 8calories a minute upward to 10-15 calories. and i am bigger and use my HRM. my HR can get up to 190-200 when running, so i try not to run too long b/c that's a bit dangerous. i try to breath through it which gets me back in the 180s but that's where i torch some calories

TheNewDoug

My wife and I use HRMs with chest straps . Mine is normally 30 to 40% more calories on the HTM than the machine says. My wife is 20% less than the machine says. I stay within my target heart rate the entire hour, she is normally struggling to. I am over 300 lbs and average 1900-2100 calories burned per hour.

anta1

How many calories can you burn taking 10,000 steps in a day?

TourThePast

I WISH I could burn that much in 90 minutes.
I workout 2 hours a day, and for 2 whole hours, I burn about 1000 calories.

I worked out for about two hours today, burned only 462 calories according to my FT4 - admittedly I'm pretty small but then again maybe so are some of those who think they're burning four figures!

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.

Agreed. For workouts in the gym etc. I don't bother subtracting what I'd be burning if I wasn't at the gym, (btw it's 62 calories an hour, calculated by taking a third of my BMR off my TDEE and dividing the result by 16 to give an hourly non-sleeping hourly energy expenditure) but if I'm doing a long hike, it really is important for me to take those 62 calories an hour off, they really can add up significantly!

My Zumba instructor wears a HRM w/ chest strap. At the end of class she usually gives us the amount of calories she burned. Mostly between 800-950 calories for a 60 minute class. I only log 500 since I know I do not move as quickly or energeticaly (sp?) as her. She is also about 40 lbs lighter than me. I'm not sure if that makes much of a difference.

It makes a huge difference, it could mean that despite you not moving as quickly as energetically as your instructor, you could be burning just as many calories as her. I know that if I was working out wearing a 40lb backpack, I'd be burning LOADS of calories!

TourThePast

What is a HRM ? Heart rate monitor? How does that calculate calories?

Yes it does stand for heart rate monitor. It calculates calories in some cases very poorly! :bigsmile:

There are models though, and I'm thinking of ones like the Polar range with chest straps, that the manufacturers have done quite a bit of testing on, so are able to make a pretty good estimate of calories burned from the information you enter into it, and from your heart rate.

It's not actually measuring calories burned though, it can only measure your heart rate.

Personally I find it extremely helpful as a motivational tool. Tonight for instance, I jumped back on the treadmill after I'd finished my workout, just so I could bump up the calories burned to match a previous workout.

Laura_Ivy

I don't have an hrm but I do log my exercise here because it holds me accountable. I could care less how much it says I havr burned calorie wise. I just eant a log that shows me how many minutes of exercise I have done for the week. I eat about 1500 calories and tend to zig zag. I wish I could afford an hrm though.

lmclane87

I, too, have found that people report some wacky numbers. I tried to look up a sandwich the other day that I knew was around 500 calories, and people had been putting it in the system for 175. o.O Not even possible!

I also agree that the MFP estimates of calories burnt while exercising don't match up. First of all, they don't take into account your weight. Additionally, when I input my elliptical workouts, it doesn't ask for MPH at all - only the number of minutes. There's a big difference between using an elliptical for 20 minutes at 3 mph and using one for 20 minutes at 6 mph.

Zaggytiddies

This is exactly why I don't eat all my exercise calories. I don't own a HRM and I'm very short so I'm sure my actual burns are less than what MFP tells me.

samantha196

I've been wondering this too. I do not have a HRM yet but most of my workouts have the calories burned listed so if MPF is wrong (normally I see that MPF is calculating it higher then what it is otherwise listed) I adjust it.

15in8

What is a HRM ? Heart rate monitor? How does that calculate calories?

I was looking around trying to find exactly what it is they do, I think it is something like below

1- Exercising muscles use oxygen (please lets not get into too much detail here people!)
2- The heart delivers oxygen to the muscles
3- Oxygen consumption can be correlated with heart rate

Hence knowing the heart rate lets us guess oxygen consumption and work performed and how many calories that would require.

That is a very rough overview, but I think that is the basis of the math, plus age, sex, weight etc..

melrose09

At 95 pounds I have to run for like 4 years to burn 2000 calories. I get frustrated when I see people burning 800+ calories in 45 minutes and I work my little tail off for the same amount of time and burn 300. I know it's because I don't need as much energy to do the same amount of work, it just can be a little discouraging at times

bigbeardiver

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?

I prefer to skip MFP calculations, ignore the number on a machine and just go off my HRM. When I enter my strength in MFP I just do it as cardio to record minutes and calories burned. Entering all the exercises would take too long.

bigbeardiver

At 95 pounds I have to run for like 4 years to burn 2000 calories. I get frustrated when I see people burning 800+ calories in 45 minutes and I work my little tail off for the same amount of time and burn 300. I know it's because I don't need as much energy to do the same amount of work, it just can be a little discouraging at times

But you would burn more if you had 5-10 lbs of more muscle, would you not. You could always try to bulk up to boost your metabolism so you could burn more.

Robide

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.

melrose09

At 95 pounds I have to run for like 4 years to burn 2000 calories. I get frustrated when I see people burning 800+ calories in 45 minutes and I work my little tail off for the same amount of time and burn 300. I know it's because I don't need as much energy to do the same amount of work, it just can be a little discouraging at times

But you would burn more if you had 5-10 lbs of more muscle, would you not. You could always try to bulk up to boost your metabolism so you could burn more.

Well, I'm only 4'11" so 95 is a pretty good weight for me. My body naturally wants to get bulky and when you are my height, I personally feel I look like some sort of puffy elf or something. My profile pic is from a few weeks ago and I'm definitely a little more cut now, but the same weight.

jenny95662

ts very hard to say depending on what people are doing and there weight and stuff but I do agree. Some calculators and even HRMs estimate BADDDD lol For me I had a timex HRM and it was horrible it estimated I would burn about 1800 in an hour of working out and even at a slow pace of walking the dog around the block it would say 290 cals in the like 5 to 10 mins. Made no sense i got a polar f7 and it should me burning about 400 on an intense workout in an hour. And now with the body bugg it seems to be around the same as the polar f7 (for those wondering ) But with that being said I am 280 pounds and walking up the stairs i burn lots more then say someone at 160 pounds and in shape so its hard to really know.

GMONEY22

Can someone recommend some not too expensive, and easy to use HRMs with the calorie burning function without chest straps that have worked well? Thanks

Azdak

At 95 pounds I have to run for like 4 years to burn 2000 calories. I get frustrated when I see people burning 800+ calories in 45 minutes and I work my little tail off for the same amount of time and burn 300. I know it's because I don't need as much energy to do the same amount of work, it just can be a little discouraging at times

On the other hand, a 5-10lb change in weight for you is much more significant than the same amount of weight lost for a bigger person. The raw numbers may be different, but the percentage vs time results are probably similar.

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.