this has got to be the most stupid question but..

Options
2

Replies

  • emacb123
    emacb123 Posts: 254 Member
    Options
    Not stupid at all! I researched this to make sure I was as accurate as you can be with calorie burns. So, this is my opinion - If you are planning to eat the exercise calories back, yes you have to subtract those calories. A great website to determine your actual burn instead of gross...

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn-conversion-calculator.aspx

    And this one describes the difference between net and gross calorie burns...

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/articles/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn.aspx

    Yayyy! Thank you! I just got my HRM the other week and agonized over this. I've been subtracting my BMR calories from my calorie burn but this makes things so much easier.

    See, not a stupid question at all!
  • NWCountryGal
    NWCountryGal Posts: 1,992 Member
    Options
    thanks Kls, I'm gonna keep researching this, I think there is something to it and yes, I want to know if I am eating too many cals because of logging to many burned;) denise
    I subtract one calorie for each minute of the workout. (I just randomly came up with this formula and have no idea if it is accurate or close, but it seemed reasonable to me.) Since the entire reason I log my exercise on here is to keep track of how many calories I can eat back, it does not seem accurate to me to log calories that I would have burned even if I hadn't worked out.

    So, if I work out for an hour and my HRM says I burned 460 calories, I only log 400 calories.
  • NWCountryGal
    NWCountryGal Posts: 1,992 Member
    Options
    oops wrong post, I replied to this one, sorry;)
    I get what you mean. The is a possibility of double-counting your calories. I would find a website that does the Mifflin-St. Jeor basal metabolic rate test, find out your BMR, and account for what you would have burned just lying around. Say your BMR is 1500, and you burned 300 calories working out for half an hour. Divide 1500 by 48 (to get the amount of calories burned just laying around for half an hour), and subtract that from your 300 calorie burn. That will give you an approximate value for your actual burn, that doesn't double count the calories you would have used by just lying around during that same period of time.
  • NWCountryGal
    NWCountryGal Posts: 1,992 Member
    Options
    That's what I've been doing but if I wouldn't have worked out, would I log the calories that appear on my hrm and eat them back?
    I put my HRM on before I work out. I log the total of calories burned during my workout.
  • NWCountryGal
    NWCountryGal Posts: 1,992 Member
    Options
    Yes, but if I layed down for a nap instead would I log the number of cals I burned during that nap? I'm with the gal above that says she wants to know because of "eating our exercise cals" that's why I am concerned. Am I eating too many cals back? denise
    I put my HRM on before I work out. I log the total of calories burned during my workout.
  • NWCountryGal
    NWCountryGal Posts: 1,992 Member
    Options
    Not a bad plan. I'm thinking just to figure how many I would burn sitting around literally in a 50 or so minute period and subtract that from my total number. Lots of people don't eat their calories (exercise)so this doesn't really affect them. I eat my ex. cals, or most of them.
    I shave 15% off the reading from my HRM just to be safe.
  • TriggerStorm1309
    TriggerStorm1309 Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    For everyone who has a HRM do you find the calories burned on there is about the same number that MFP would have put for the same workout?
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    Options
    I totally understand your question and I have wondered the same! I think a lot of people replying here don't get what you're asking...

    But yeah I've thought about the same thing. My BMR is about 1400 calories a day - I'd burn that in a coma. That means my body burns about 58 calories an hour, just by existing. MFP has already included this in my calorie allowance! So if I work out for an hour and my HRM says I burned 400 calories, shouldn't I only enter 342 burned because I would've burned the other 58 anyway, and MFP already included those? So confusing...
  • NWCountryGal
    NWCountryGal Posts: 1,992 Member
    Options
    Can you explain it in simple terms then? Those calories are going to add up no matter what I am doing, even if I am in bed. So there are calories already figured into my net, those are my bmr calories. So if I burn 500 exercising, some of those are already calculated in my bmr right? And if I'm wrong, tell me how you see it, you may be right. denise
    no. you are over-thinking it.
  • porcelain_doll
    porcelain_doll Posts: 1,005 Member
    Options
    For everyone who has a HRM do you find the calories burned on there is about the same number that MFP would have put for the same workout?

    NO WAY! MFP over-estimates big-time!
  • EnchantedEvening
    EnchantedEvening Posts: 671 Member
    Options
    I get what you're saying.

    If I were in a coma, I'd burn 50 calories per hour. Those calories are going to get burned no matter what I do, so I subtract them from my HRM reading.

    I may not be doing it right, but I'd rather err on the side of caution than enter too many calories.
  • TriggerStorm1309
    TriggerStorm1309 Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    MFP already calculates that in your daily intake and stuff. So you would only log what your HRM says not what you do at rest as that is already calculated :)

    I totally understand your question and I have wondered the same! I think a lot of people replying here don't get what you're asking...

    But yeah I've thought about the same thing. My BMR is about 1400 calories a day - I'd burn that in a coma. That means my body burns about 58 calories an hour, just by existing. MFP has already included this in my calorie allowance! So if I work out for an hour and my HRM says I burned 400 calories, shouldn't I only enter 342 burned because I would've burned the other 58 anyway, and MFP already included those? So confusing...
  • TriggerStorm1309
    TriggerStorm1309 Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    Really?
    For everyone who has a HRM do you find the calories burned on there is about the same number that MFP would have put for the same workout?

    NO WAY! MFP over-estimates big-time!
  • californiagirl2012
    californiagirl2012 Posts: 2,625 Member
    Options
    All of that is too much work and not accurate anyway. I just ignore the calories burned for exercise. You know if you are eating enough if you feel strong, you know if you need to eat less if you are not losing weight over time. It's simple that way and it works. Listen to your body, it tells you far more than any calculations or estimates, which are just that, ESTIMATES. The proof is in the pudding :)
  • emacb123
    emacb123 Posts: 254 Member
    Options
    Yes, but if I layed down for a nap instead would I log the number of cals I burned during that nap? I'm with the gal above that says she wants to know because of "eating our exercise cals" that's why I am concerned. Am I eating too many cals back? denise
    I put my HRM on before I work out. I log the total of calories burned during my workout.

    Here is the way I see it. I'm given a set amount of calories to "spend" each day. I'm set on sedentary, so the calories I spend sitting on the sofa for any given hour are already accounted for. If I choose to spend that hour working out, the calories reading I get on my HRM includes the calories I would have spent had I just been lazing around PLUS the extra calories I worked up a sweat for.
  • NWCountryGal
    NWCountryGal Posts: 1,992 Member
    Options
    Ok, I can't wait to go see these links, thank you much! I am glad my mind wasn't messin with me, something didn't seem right;) And yes, I eat the calories back, even though I have it averaged with a TDEE minus deficit, there are still exercise cals figured into that according to my daily expenditure which I have set at moderate which for me means burning an extra 1000 calories a week or more! Denise
    Not stupid at all! I researched this to make sure I was as accurate as you can be with calorie burns. So, this is my opinion - If you are planning to eat the exercise calories back, yes you have to subtract those calories. A great website to determine your actual burn instead of gross...

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn-conversion-calculator.aspx

    And this one describes the difference between net and gross calorie burns...

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/articles/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn.aspx
  • BaconMD
    BaconMD Posts: 1,165 Member
    Options
    Can you explain it in simple terms then? Those calories are going to add up no matter what I am doing, even if I am in bed. So there are calories already figured into my net, those are my bmr calories. So if I burn 500 exercising, some of those are already calculated in my bmr right? And if I'm wrong, tell me how you see it, you may be right. denise

    When I asked this question months ago, I was told that Polar's equation factors out your BMR using the values you program in (height, gender, age, weight), so you just use the numbers as given by the HRM without having to calculate anything else. That's what I do. Works fine.
  • to_the_surface
    to_the_surface Posts: 38
    Options
    The two links for net and gross calories are a simple explanation. HRMs in general overcalculate calories burned for a given activity. I compared numbers from my HRM with the MFP database and found that the MFP database is about 10-15% higher than the HRM in some activities (bike,run) and 5% lower in some others(swim).

    For simplicity, when logging calories, i take the lowest number between my HRM and the MFP database and slash it by 20%.

    Probably not scientifically accurate, there will be days with overestimated calories burned and days with underestimated calories burned. However, over time, the error will have less weight (no pun intended), and as a general approach for weight loss/maintenance it will work fine.
  • ixap
    ixap Posts: 675 Member
    Options
    I know exactly what you're saying.

    Does the manual for your hrm monitor specify how it calculates?
    If not, I think most of them calculate your total burn for the time you are wearing it, not just your "extra" burn from exercising.

    Does it matter? I think it depends on how much of your activity you are logging as exercise.

    Your resting metabolism is probably burning about 50-75 calories per hour. If you "double log" your resting and exercise calories for that hour, it's probably not significant. 50 calories is well within the margin of error for estimates anyway.

    But if you are someone who wears the hrm monitor for half the day, logging "lawn mowing, 2 hours," "laundry, 30 minutes," "walking dog, 1 hour," etc. those 50 calories x 1 hour will add up and cause a significant miscalculation of calories burned. To be clear I'm not saying that sarcastically; I think it's fine to log all those daily life activities as exercise if you have your activity level set as sedentary, but in that case it is important to think about total vs. "net exercise" calories.
  • NWCountryGal
    NWCountryGal Posts: 1,992 Member
    Options
    It came to 51 calories each workout which is a total of 250 ish per week I am eating that I shouldn't. My numbers were just examples I know they weren't realistic.
    Just during workouts. But if I sat on my but for that 40 minute workout I would burn say 100 (just guessing)so it seems logical that should not be counted in the final hrm reading. Like if it says 296, I should put I burned 196??
    do you wear your hrm all day or just during workout?

    This is an ok example but you're numbers are way off... the difference is essentially negligible. If you're only burning 296 cals during 40 minutes of exercise you're not gonna burn 100 sitting doing nothing.. you're gonna burn like 20..... so 296 to 276 is no difference.

    A variance of even up to 100 calories is not gonna mess you up. Your defecit is set to 1000 or even more... 20-40 calories makes no difference.

Categories