Calories burned??

jenslife82

So I run outside doing intervals (c25k) and my heart rate monitor will tell me I burn any where from 550-650 calories (I'm just over 250lbs) when I calculate it online it says 420ish for calories burned. I guess it doesn't matter a ton because if I eat back my exercise it's only about half of them but I would like my journal to be as accurate as possible. Which is more accurate?? Does any one else have this kind of discrepancy?

jenslife82

Wow.. This topic didn't take off very well huh?? Lol.

klalaw

Unfortunately, they're both just estimates. My nutritionist told me that when you're in active weight loss mode, you actually tend to burn calories at a rate lower than any of the formulas estimate. I would be conservative in what you eat back.

Rach911

I always trust my heart rate monitor, it is more accurate based upon your age, height, weight, etc. Plus if it's a HRM with a chest strap its getting a reading of your heartbeat. MFP and other online calculations are strictly a guestimate. With that said, I would go with what your heart rate monitor tells you. Hope that helps :bigsmile:

Azdak

There are two general areas of possible discrepancy: 1) MFP data tables for things like interval workouts are not very precise--since the tables cannot calculate exactly how much time you spent at each effort level, they are very vagues estimates.
2) HRMs might not be any more accurate. If you do not have your max heart rate set up correctly, then you are likely overestimating calories; if you are doing hard intervals, you are likely overestimating calories, since the HR remains elevated during the recovery periods even though the actual workload is much lower. The work intervals are likely more "anerobic", which means you are not in steady-state, which means the HRM is not very accurate to begin with. However, there is more "afterburn" after a higher-intensity interval, which doesn't get factored in at all.

Sorry if that sounds confusing, but, in this case, that's just the reality. In this case, while not necessarily more accurate, changes in your HRM calorie readings might more accurately reflect improvements in your performance.

ahealthy4u

They are all est nothing is full proof. So when in doubt go with the lower account to play it safe in my book.

JBott84

My heart rate monitor (chest strap) seems to be working wonders. From everything I have heard and read it is going to be more accurate because it is constantly watching your heart rate, which fluctuates depending on how hard you are actually working. Who's to say someone my exact height weight etc is working out with the exact same momentum, power, pace etc...as me, everyone is different even if measurements are all the same..... It may still be approximate, but I believe my HRM is more accurate than MFP.

invisibubble

I hate this! My cheapy HRM gives one stupidly low number (I think the manufacturer's algorithm is poop) MFP another, and two different calculations using my stats and average BPM, one using V02 Max, give another. There's usually a 200-400 calorie difference for a 40 min workout. So, I take the lowest number and round up to the nearest 50. *shrug* I figure I'd rather underestimate than overestimate, and it's all educated guesswork anyway.

omma_to_3

An HRM with a chest strap will be more accurate. It's still not completely accurate but it's a good estimation. I've been using one for a long time and I eat back most, if not all of those calories. And it hasn't negatively affected my weight loss at all.

spartangirl79

HR monitor is more active. I weigh just over 200lbs and when doing a run/walk/jog combo, I burn about 10 calories per minute. The less fit you are, the harder you have to work, and the more calories you will burn. When I first started working out my HR would skyrocket up to 180+ during spin class, and I'd burn 1200 in an hour. No kidding. As I got more fit, the cals burned went down because my heart didn't have to work as hard.

spartangirl79

** more accurate, not active (provided you have it calibrated properly)

spartangirl79

Unfortunately, they're both just estimates. My nutritionist told me that when you're in active weight loss mode, you actually tend to burn calories at a rate lower than any of the formulas estimate. I would be conservative in what you eat back.

No offense to your nutritionist, but this kind of sounds like bunk. As a personal trainer, I have never heard of "active weight loss mode" in any ex phys texts or articles... and the "fat burning zone" is also hotly debated. Nutritionists do not necessarily have education in ex phys, fyi. If you have a quality HRM, it is going to be pretty accurate.

sabrinafaith

i would assume, depending on intensity that you are burning between 5 and 10 calories per minute. when i walk i burn 6-7 cals per minute, when i do jillian michaels dvds its between 8-10 cals per minute. also, most ppl say its about 100 calories per mile, if that helps.

Azdak

Unless your weight decreases, as you become more fit, your calorie burn will INCREASE because you can work at a higher intensity.

The fact that heart rate decreases at a particular workload does not mean you are burning fewer calories--it means that your max fitness level is now HIGHER so that the workload represents a lower percentage of your maximum--the absolute intensity number has not changed.

Initial heart rate/calorie numbers observed when taking up a new activity are not reliable (calorie numbers are not accurate). That is because the body is not in a steady state--the heart rate number is real, but not the calorie reading.

mandimuscles

I'd go with the heartrate monitor and just try not to use those as "extra" calories to eat. I have been using some of mine and I've been stuck. Time to go strict!

ruby142

I always trust my heart rate monitor, it is more accurate based upon your age, height, weight, etc. Plus if it's a HRM with a chest strap its getting a reading of your heartbeat. MFP and other online calculations are strictly a guestimate. With that said, I would go with what your heart rate monitor tells you. Hope that helps :bigsmile:

I totally agree...

iWaffle

Personally I just add up 6-10 calories a min depending on the amount of sweat I'm working up. I suppose a HRM would be nice but I can't really justify spending the money on one. Just checking my pulse I'm doing 130 - 140 bpm and I can tell the difference when I'm at either end of the spectrum. 130 doesn't feel that bad and 140 makes me keep looking at the clock to see how much longer I have to suffer.

Normally I just multiply minutes of cardio x 7 and use that as calories burned. I'm sure that I could get a HRM and get a slightly better reading but that's close enough for me. I eat back my cardio calorie estimate but I also do strength training 4 days a week and I don't factor that into calories burned. This has been dead-on accurate for me and I'm losing at pretty much the exact rate I have as a goal.

dcregal

I know this is an old post but I'm hoping someone will find my plan useful. I just bought a Zephyr bluetooth heart rate monitor and use Endomondo app for Android (app) to automatically track and post my calories burned in myfitnesspal. This awesome integration works great but I think it is overestimating calories and I'm gaining weight!

To figure out the overestimate, here's my plan:
1. With HR monitor on, run 1 mile on level ground and calculate calories burned through myfitnesspal Cardio - running (jogging), 6 mph (10 min mile) x 10 min. For me, this is 127 calories per mile. It does not matter my speed but this is a different topic.
2. Get the estimate calories burned with my app. Let's say app says 150 calories.
3. Calculate overestimate. With numbers above, overestimate = [ app estimate - myfitnesspal estimate ] / [ app estimate] = ( 150 - 127 ) / 150 = 0.15 (rounded). In friendlier percentages, this is 15% (0.15*100).

Now, if I have some random exercise which I cannot easily calculate through myfitnesspal (e.g. intense cardio yard work), I can use my HR monitor and app. If the app says I burned 150 calories digging holes through hard clay soil, then I will subtract 15% from that estimate and put that into myfitnesspal (150 - 150 * 15% = 150 - 150*0.15 = 150 - 22.5 = 127 calories, rounded).

I gained 1 pound and 1/2 this week from trusting my HR monitor and app estimates because I ate more. It was a good week but now have to work that gain off.

I did not see anyone talking about calculating the margin of error in any google results I found. I did find a tip that said don't use the HR monitor for non-cardio work (e.g. light house cleaning).

Good luck. Live well.

likemeinvisible

c25k includes walks and during a walk your heart rate will still be high from the run yet the activity is less demanding, so the hrm will give a higher number than the actual work being done. I'd go with the mfp numbers for intervals, and with the hrm for a solid run.

edit: sorry, didn't notice the thread age.
@dcregal I wouldn't count anything unless it feels equivalent to running - continuous work of big muscles. Yard work may be hard and increase your HR but still won't burn much. Better err on the safe side - eat if you are bulking, don't eat if losing.

ATT949

Who knows. Really, who knows. Unless you go to a physio lab, the best you can get is an estimate and estimates can vary significantly.

I've used a variety of values since I started losing weight in December 2010 and the "gold standard" that I use is the values that I got when I went to a lab and put a mask on my face for about 15 minutes while the instruments measured HR, breathing, and CO2 output. the machine spit out a report that showed what my caloric expenditure will be for a variety of exercises. You can have this testing done for in the region of $75 and it removes all doubt.

In addition to testing, I've used the formulas at runners world, the formulas here at MFP, the values from various cardio machines, the values from a Garmin 305, and the values from a Garmin 610.

If you want a GPS/HRM that will give you heart rate based calorie measurements, the Garmin HRM's that end with 10 use HR. The others, including my beloved 305, use estimates. The estimates can be very accurate (my 305 matched my lab testing) but some are quite inaccurate (my 610 tells me that I can run a mile while burning only 106 cals, for example)

Looking back over almost 2 years now, the money spent in the lab is well worth it because it tells you not only how many calories you expend during exercise but it also gives you an accurate number for BMR (MFP calculates me at 2150, my lab work shows 2058).

RainxPain

I always overestimate on calories and underestimate on exercise, so go for something closer to 420ish.