Insanity and activity level

Callalili

I'm in my 2nd week of Insanity, after having completed p90x. I've kept my activity level at moderate with a cut between 15-20% (was 20%). Most of the rest of the day I'm sitting or standing. I now have a heart rate monitor which says 250-300 calories burned for the cardio days (130 on the cardio recovery day). I was expecting to burn more calories than that. I'm wondering if that may even be considered light activity, at least for the rest of the first month.
stats:
5'2" 38y
cw: 141
gw: 130
bmr 1375
tdee mod: 2131
tdee light: 1890
I'm currently eating 1750 (just raised from 1720). I only lost 2 lbs during the 3 months of p90x (net after a couple lb holiday gain). I lost 2 lbs last week (but TOM factored in there plus it was the leftover holiday gain gone) and gained 1 lb of it back this week. So I'm confused.

heybales

I'm in my 2nd week of Insanity, after having completed p90x. I've kept my activity level at moderate with a cut between 15-20% (was 20%). Most of the rest of the day I'm sitting or standing. I now have a heart rate monitor which says 250-300 calories burned for the cardio days (130 on the cardio recovery day). I was expecting to burn more calories than that. I'm wondering if that may even be considered light activity, at least for the rest of the first month.
stats:
5'2" 38y
cw: 141
gw: 130
bmr 1375
tdee mod: 2131
tdee light: 1890
I'm currently eating 1750 (just raised from 1720). I only lost 2 lbs during the 3 months of p90x (net after a couple lb holiday gain). I lost 2 lbs last week (but TOM factored in there plus it was the leftover holiday gain gone) and gained 1 lb of it back this week. So I'm confused.

Your HRM is wrong. Probably for couple reasons.

Insanity, by their own definition, is intervals upside down. It's intense near and over the anaerobic line. HRM calorie burn estimates only valid for steady-state aerobic exercise. So you are mostly not aerobic, nor steady-state with the same HR for 3-5 min for calorie counts to be valid.

If your are fit too, and your HRM has no VO2max stat, it's underestimating your burn. If your HRmax is wrong, that could go either way.

If you are doing all this exercise to improve your body, expect to see improvement - which has little to do with weight loss.

No, how many hours a week are you exercising.

Look at the difference between calories on Lightly Active and Moderately Active. That's how many calories is being given to 2 hrs of exercise (3 to 5 hrs difference). You burn more than that in 2 hrs? Likely not nearly enough.

You need to be doing measurements over weight if doing those kind of workouts.

Greenrun99

I'll kinda make a comment since I have done both P90x and Insanity (and planning on doing hybrid soon).. You burn more calories doing Insanity workouts over P90x just because its more cardio focused, but if your HRM has a chest strap and your HR is near the top 80% of your Max your burn maybe pretty close to accurate... After the third set of the interval that they give you, you should basically be drenched and unable to speak.. if your not there, you gotta push.. Insanity is really based on how hard you can push yourself cause there are no weights or anything its just you..
Also when I was doing it, to give better readings I would not count the warm up/cool down and would pause my HRM during the 30 second breaks (or if you hit pause on your player you should pause as well)..

But just because you don't like your calorie burn, doesn't mean your activity level is lower, that is definitely not the case, if anything you should probably eat at a 10% cut, so a total of 1910 (or so) daily intake..

For me it took to the second month to see results with Insanity, and I followed the macro #'s on the nutrition guide for both programs.. eating correctly is just as important as the workout.

Callalili

I was thinking maybe I may need to eat more. Today I did Cardio Power & resistance. Of the 39 minutes, I was in my zone for 28 minutes of that (including the warm up/cool down time). I'm often in 90%+ range for short amounts of time, but usually hang in the 80-85%. I can't really push more than that. I didn't need any additional breaks today. According to the hrm, I burned 280 cal.

heybales

I was thinking maybe I may need to eat more. Today I did Cardio Power & resistance. Of the 39 minutes, I was in my zone for 28 minutes of that (including the warm up/cool down time). I'm often in 90%+ range for short amounts of time, but usually hang in the 80-85%. I can't really push more than that. I didn't need any additional breaks today. According to the hrm, I burned 280 cal.

What is the HRM?
What is the HRmax figure?
Do you have weight with clothes, or then again, may workout naked?
What is the "zone"? Polar says fat-burning or fitness, I'm guessing fitness with that high readings, which are based on of course likely wrong HRmax figure.

Callalili

I was thinking maybe I may need to eat more. Today I did Cardio Power & resistance. Of the 39 minutes, I was in my zone for 28 minutes of that (including the warm up/cool down time). I'm often in 90%+ range for short amounts of time, but usually hang in the 80-85%. I can't really push more than that. I didn't need any additional breaks today. According to the hrm, I burned 280 cal.

What is the HRM?
What is the HRmax figure?
Do you have weight with clothes, or then again, may workout naked?
What is the "zone"? Polar says fat-burning or fitness, I'm guessing fitness with that high readings, which are based on of course likely wrong HRmax figure.

It's a New Balance N4 (got a good deal on it) so I'm guessing not one of the best HRM. I have it set to Level 3 which has the 90% rate for me at 169, which I think is high. Guess I should adjust that. I don't think it gives my my HRmax, says it sets it automatically. It doesn't say a zone, gives me the option to pick one. Maybe I should try picking different zones and see if it gives me different results. It's all too confusing. Based on my hunger level the last week, I'm burning more than it says anyway.

heybales

It's a New Balance N4 (got a good deal on it) so I'm guessing not one of the best HRM. I have it set to Level 3 which has the 90% rate for me at 169, which I think is high. Guess I should adjust that. I don't think it gives my my HRmax, says it sets it automatically. It doesn't say a zone, gives me the option to pick one. Maybe I should try picking different zones and see if it gives me different results. It's all too confusing. Based on my hunger level the last week, I'm burning more than it says anyway.

So it probably has 4 zone levels, based on it's calculated and maybe not displayed HRmax. That would actually be the correct zone for Insanity though, 80-90% of HRmax. The question is, is HRmax correct?

Based on 169 is 90%, it has assumed HRmax 188. Which is likely some variation of the 220 - age formula. Though trying all the major ones, I don't get 188 estimate, so not sure what they are using. Sure you got the age right?

Anyway, have you ever noticed your maxHR during a session, how high you got? If you got near the 188 and didn't have to stop almost immediately and have to recover, your HRmax is likely higher.

Or do you have a zone alarm on and slow down if you go above the 90%? Didn't sound like it.

Because that still sounds low. My guess is you are cardiovascularly fit, and so your HR doesn't have to be as high to supply the needed oxygen for burning energy. But the HRM doesn't know that.

If you care to see what a Polar funded study formula would give you, you'll need your body stats and restingHR, and the means of estimating your HRmax and VO2max, with help already included here.
After you get all that filled in at the top of this spreadsheet, there is a calorie burn table at the bottom based on your stats, using that Polar formula.
You can type in some past workout session times and avgHR if you still have the stats on them.

Use the HRM tab. But first read the top of the Simple Setup tab as to how to get a copy of the spreadsheet.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/813720-spreadsheet-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones

Callalili

Thanks for your reply. I'll have to read through all that. They base the HRmax on (for females) 209-(.7*age) which for me is 182.4 so I have no idea where the 169 comes from. Maybe it's the default and I'm supposed to change it. The highest I have saved on the HRM is 178 and that was too high for me. Upper 160's is about as high as I prefer for short times I've discovered. It has an alarm but I have it off.
"My guess is you are cardiovascularly fit, and so your HR doesn't have to be as high to supply the needed oxygen for burning energy. But the HRM doesn't know that."
Sounds good to me.

heybales

Thanks for your reply. I'll have to read through all that. They base the HRmax on (for females) 209-(.7*age) which for me is 182.4 so I have no idea where the 169 comes from. Maybe it's the default and I'm supposed to change it. The highest I have saved on the HRM is 178 and that was too high for me. Upper 160's is about as high as I prefer for short times I've discovered. It has an alarm but I have it off.
"My guess is you are cardiovascularly fit, and so your HR doesn't have to be as high to supply the needed oxygen for burning energy. But the HRM doesn't know that."
Sounds good to me.

The 169 is 90% of the 182 HRmax. Just the top of the zone.

So the 182 might be decently close if 178 was almost killing ya. That's the thing with the HRmax, you can't stay there, once you reach it you will have to stop to recover, and be pretty much out of it for day.

So it just must be using bad formula's then.