I hardly burn any calories!

chickentunashake

I'm using a HRM as well and it doesn't show a big burn either, but i googled it and found a web which will show your burn with the time you worked out and your average heart rate. And that sounds more like it.
The web is www.shapesense.com

zoom2

I've never seen so many people who are slaves to #s from computers and devices than I have on MFP. One woman here who is quite slim was convinced that she was burning the sorts of calories on a long run that someone 3-4x her size would burn...because her HRM told her so. Even though her #s were not even physically possible for someone of her size she argued that they must be right.

From everything I've seen HRMs are notoriously flaky in terms of measuring calorie burn accurately and/or people don't have their profiles set up properly (kind of like using a bicycle computer that doesn't have the proper wheel size entered--it's not going to yield accurate #s if the user information isn't appropriate). Yet people want to believe these devices, rather than reasonably standard charts.

Quasita

I honestly don't really think HRMs are always the most accurate... To each their own, but I love my device, it's a calorimeter but not a heart rate based one. HRMs are based solely on how many beats they sense. It's possible that during your DVD, you are jostling it and moving it away from the skin so that it's not registering accurately.

They depend on user accuracy and standard algorithms for the calculation. If you have heart disease, heart murmur, or other things that can effect your bpm, the reading can get wildly inaccurate. Such is the same for very healthy circulation. People who are healthier have lower heart rates. This doesn't mean they aren't burning the calories, it just means that their heart is more efficient.

I use a BodyMedia Fit Link and it has worked out very well so far. It has reflected the intensity of my workouts doing the same thing for the same amount of time pretty on par with what I am sensing. I like that it measures energy expenditure as well as calories burned. I just don't have any faith in HRM. The one at my doctor's office tells me my resting heart rate is 95bpm because I have an irregular heart beat. I didn't know I had that going on till this past year!

WickedGarden

^ What she said.

Don't over-complicate things. Figure out your maintenance intake. Set a 10-20% deficit. Eat 1g/protein, 30-50g fat, the rest is carbs. You'll lose weight without the hassle of counting exercise calories.

To figure out maintenance, go here. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-to-estimate-maintenance-caloric-intake.html

if I follow this plan, I would only be consuming 1119 calories a day...that's correct?

jengigs

I have the FT4 as well. If you push the upper right button while exercising you can scroll through the screens and one of them shows your zone and where you are in it. Mine is constantly beeping at me to tell me I'm under or over.

AnneGenevieveS

make sure your settings are correct...

check your heart rate next while you are exercising. If your heart rate is maxing out at 130 or 140, then, yeah... you aren't going to be burning many calories. Your HR monitor is probably right

You could try running faster or with an incline to get your heart rate higher. I don't know how to do insanity, but is there some way to make it harder? more weight? more effort or intensity?

Since my running endurance gets better and better, my heart stays lower while I run... therefore less calories burned. A year ago, I almost died when I ran 5 miles for the first time. My standard now is 6 miles per day.

Push yourself harder or try a new exercise maybe (I love spinning) if you want to get that HR up higher and burn more.

I'm afraid your low heart rate (and therefore low calorie burn) may just be an unfortunate side effect of being in great shape and cardiovascular fitness.

zoom2

Since my running endurance gets better and better, my heart stays lower while I run... therefore less calories burned. A year ago, I almost died when I ran 5 miles for the first time. My standard now is 6 miles per day.

I'm afraid your low heart rate (and therefore low calorie burn) may just be an unfortunate side effect of being in great shape and cardiovascular fitness.

I think this is something a lot of folks don't account for--fitter people burn fewer calories doing the same activity at the same pace as someone the same size who is less fit. I burned a LOT more calories when I first started running. When I took up cycling it was the same story...lost weight without trying. Now that I've been at both activities for a while I have to be hyper-focused on my diet, since the workouts don't kick my butt as greatly.

badgerbadger1

For your size, the numbers sound right to me. If I only did a 30 min DVD that's what I would expect to burn, pnly if it were intense. That's a fact of life, the smaller you are the smaller the burn. Two ways to fix this, eat less or move more. I move more because I like to eat.

shaycat

Ok, I will take a low burn if it means I am in shape.
I am just trying to get a good idea of how many calories to eat.
I set my goal at 1700 and am not eating them back. I did this so I wouldn't over workout just to be able to eat more. Maybe it isnt helping. Since now I feel like I have to "earn" my set 1700 calories.

russellma

^ What she said.

Don't over-complicate things. Figure out your maintenance intake. Set a 10-20% deficit. Eat 1g/protein, 30-50g fat, the rest is carbs. You'll lose weight without the hassle of counting exercise calories.

To figure out maintenance, go here. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-to-estimate-maintenance-caloric-intake.html

if I follow this plan, I would only be consuming 1119 calories a day...that's correct?

It looks to me like that site is recommending that maintenance is your weight x 14-16, depending on your thermal dynamics and activity level. So, for a 120 lb. person, maintenance would be anywhere from 1680-1920 cals. To lose weight, you would reduce that by 10-20%.

Just as a side note in defense of HRMs... HRMs are a better tool to determine if you're working hard enough rather than one to tell you exactly how many calories to eat. My weight loss took a sharp turn for the better when I was able to get a handle on keeping my heartrate high enough to actually burn substantial calories.

rfarinha

Those of you who are telling her not to worry about her calorie output are not helping her. You can not just worry about how much you take in. How much you take in is dependent on how much you burn! I got a BodyMedia arm band to help me determine this exact thing.

According to MFP, my daily intake was 1200, and the "guestimation" of calories burned while on the elliptical, Zumba class, or Spin Class, were just that... Guesses! So if it was over-estimated, then I would be eating too much, and if it was being under-estimated, then I would be eating too little. With the BodyMedia armband, it tells me how many calories I use in a particular day, which is a moving target depending on if I workout that day, or if I am having a Lazy Sunday. And because of this tool, I am able to adjust my intake on a daily basis in order to always maintain a calorie deficit, without it being too large or too small.

Good luck to you!

obsidianwings

I have the same issue as I am small to, we just burn less than bigger people. It is a little disheartening to be given such a low number when others can get bigger numbers for less, but you are obviously doing something right if you are small

shaycat

^ What she said.

Don't over-complicate things. Figure out your maintenance intake. Set a 10-20% deficit. Eat 1g/protein, 30-50g fat, the rest is carbs. You'll lose weight without the hassle of counting exercise calories.

To figure out maintenance, go here. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-to-estimate-maintenance-caloric-intake.html

if I follow this plan, I would only be consuming 1119 calories a day...that's correct?

It looks to me like that site is recommending that maintenance is your weight x 14-16, depending on your thermal dynamics and activity level. So, for a 120 lb. person, maintenance would be anywhere from 1680-1920 cals. To lose weight, you would reduce that by 10-20%.

Just as a side note in defense of HRMs... HRMs are a better tool to determine if you're working hard enough rather than one to tell you exactly how many calories to eat. My weight loss took a sharp turn for the better when I was able to get a handle on keeping my heartrate high enough to actually burn substantial calories.

Right! So my question is should I go towards the low end 1680? or the high end? I was maintaining pretty well at maybe a little less then 2000 cals a day. So I set it to 1700 to lose a bit more. However if my maintenance is closer to 1680, then I will slowly be gaining. I was eating close to 2000 and one day woke up and though my pants were getting tighter.
I would love a body bug, but there is no way I can afford one.

natini

You have been given a ton of advice. I love my Polar FT4. It is much more accurate than the machines. I burn about 100 calories for every mile. Now if you dont want to worry about the HRM like other people said, go to www.fat2fitradio.com. Go to the BMR calculator. They show you a great grid for sedentary all the way up to active. Pick the level you are and eat at their recommended calories and dont worry about what you are burning.

jenj1313

I've got the same issue. I log my HRM calories and eat more than half of them back, but my calorie burn seems low and I'm always bummed when I see others put up huge numbers for less time / intensity of exercise. But... since the weight isn't falling off or anything, I figure the numbers must be pretty accurate.

russellma

Right! So my question is should I go towards the low end 1680? or the high end? I was maintaining pretty well at maybe a little less then 2000 cals a day. So I set it to 1700 to lose a bit more. However if my maintenance is closer to 1680, then I will slowly be gaining. I was eating close to 2000 and one day woke up and though my pants were getting tighter.
I would love a body bug, but there is no way I can afford one.

Hmm.... well, how long did it take to gain any weight? If 3500 extra calories equals a pound, then 100 too many would take about a month to gain 1 lb.

Maybe you should shoot for the middle around 1800 calories and see if that keeps you where you want to stay?

I haven't mastered this myself. I'm eating near the bottom, but still losing some, so I'm working my way up.

Edit: Oh, duh. It helps if you read the question right! So, you're wanting to know how many calories to eat to KEEP losing. (I got confused by the word maintaining...LOL) If you were able to maintain at the upper end, then you should lose by reducing that by 10% (1728 cals) to 20% (1536 cals).

I would guess that anywhere in that range is safe for your metabolism but should still result in weight loss, but I'm no expert on that, either. It seems that I've heard that the lower your calories, the higher percentage of muscle that's burned, as opposed to just fat. And another thing to think about is how much you're willing to give up. That extra 200 calories might be your evening snack!

shaycat

You have been given a ton of advice. I love my Polar FT4. It is much more accurate than the machines. I burn about 100 calories for every mile. Now if you dont want to worry about the HRM like other people said, go to www.fat2fitradio.com. Go to the BMR calculator. They show you a great grid for sedentary all the way up to active. Pick the level you are and eat at their recommended calories and dont worry about what you are burning.

Yes this is what I am doing now. It is still a bummer not to be burning a lot of calories though

natini

I agree it is a bummer. I must admit that I like to see my burned calories after a workout. Maybe you need to change up your exercise??? Good luck!

shaycat

and of coarse I figure if I burn more i will hit my goal sooner, but I need to stop thinking like that. Slow and steady and I will one day get to where I want to be.

beckajw

This sounds right to me. I only burn about that much too. It's because you don't weigh very much.

Brandicaloriecountess

and of coarse I figure if I burn more i will hit my goal sooner, but I need to stop thinking like that. Slow and steady and I will one day get to where I want to be.

YES, plus you will lose fat, not muscle by taking your time.

GiniAldam74

i have this problem and have asked advice on this as in a zumba full on class sometimes i dont even burn 300 cals in an hour and a spin class only about 350.
but the problem is i dont eat alot not because im starving myself but because I just dont eat unless im hungry and prob only about 1300 calories a day, i am now at ideal weight but workout x 6 a week probabaly burn around 5000 calories a week and its because i just dont have 'excess' calories to burn as my body uses most of them to support bodily functions.
i am trying not to pay much attention to calories burnt infact the hrm band and watch has made me more concious, just eat healthy and clean during the week, lower your carbs and up the protein and have some treats at the weekend and excercise as you are. All will come good