Working out your calories burned

brydo86

How does everyone work out how many calories they burn per excercise?

I purchased a HRM yesterday and used it during a 40 min, I used a website calculator which said that I had burned 747 calories? Thats very high is it not?

Thanks for any help.

Shock_Wave

How does everyone work out how many calories they burn per excercise?

I purchased a HRM yesterday and used it during a 40 min, I used a website calculator which said that I had burned 747 calories? Thats very high is it not?

Thanks for any help.

Nah some people can burn up to 1000 cals an hour(HIIT). Just stick with your HRM its going to be WAY more accurate then a guesstimate on a website calculator.

Thinspirational_Me

Its probably fairly close. I take it from your ticker and the mention of 40 mins that this was an Insanity workout? Did you use your max heart rate or an average? Bear in mind that even though Insanity is very full-on, there will have been periods where your heart rate was lower (the stretches at the start and end, the water breaks, for example)

All that being said, perhaps round it down to maybe 700?

For me, I'm 240lbs and I use a figure of about 400-600 cals for an Insanity workout, depending if its one of the less intense ones like Cardio Recovery, or more intense like Pure Cardio

MizSaz

An HRM will give you a WAY more accurate read than MFP's generic settings, or the counters on a treadmill would. However, the only way to get a a bang-on read is basically in a lab setting with machines hooked up to you while you work out. Your HRM is more than likely very close though.

PurpleTina

Doesn't seem that high if it's reasonably high intensity cardio. I ran for just over an hour last night and burned about 850 calories.

brydo86

Its probably fairly close. I take it from your ticker and the mention of 40 mins that this was an Insanity workout? Did you use your max heart rate or an average? Bear in mind that even though Insanity is very full-on, there will have been periods where your heart rate was lower (the stretches at the start and end, the water breaks, for example)

All that being said, perhaps round it down to maybe 700?

For me, I'm 240lbs and I use a figure of about 400-600 cals for an Insanity workout, depending if its one of the less intense ones like Cardio Recovery, or more intense like Pure Cardio

Yeah, cardio power and resistance. I used an average heart rate.

Yeah, 700 give or take. Im 230 lbs but pretty unfit.

Thanks for all the reply guys.

kiangel

Hi can you tell me website calculator you used please ? Husband just bought me a HRM and it doesn't tell me calories burned , so need to work it out myself

jacksonpt

If I'm logging cals burned, it's almost always based on my HRM. I have a few activities that I can't wear my HRM during (basketball and swimming), so I guesstimate based on perceived effort (which is hugely inaccurate, I know... but it gives me a reasonable number based on what I know about myself).

Andrew_peter

Can get around 600 calories burned at around 30 min here, but it's def high intensity to achieve that, so your numbers don't sound off.

Just make sure your HRM is setup correctly with your details and use that. Also, you can subtract your BMR during during your workout time from the total if you want to get really picky too, but most don't bother.

jacksonpt

How does everyone work out how many calories they burn per excercise?

I purchased a HRM yesterday and used it during a 40 min, I used a website calculator which said that I had burned 747 calories? Thats very high is it not?

Thanks for any help.

Most people is reasonably decent shape will burn around 10cals per minute doing a good, hard cardio workout. 15cals per minute is achievable during short bursts, but most people can't sustain it for a full workout. Going by that as your guide, I think 747cals in 40 minutes is really high. I'd guess closer to 5 or 600 depending on your level of fitness.

jld0411

HRMs are pretty accurate. Websites and other calculators use the "average" person's burn, which is obviously going to be all over the place. The HRM that go on your wrist are fairly accurate, especially if it's one you can customize with your weight, height, gender etc. If you want even better accuracy, go for a HRM with a chest strap. I have the chest strap and mine is often waaaaay different than any online calculators.

jonnythan

Every time I hear people tell me about their burns measured by HRMs, they seem wildly overestimating. I think the concept of an HRM is flawed because it's missing too many variables. That's JMO though.

emmaroid1981

I do Insanity and my HRM tells me Im burning around the 274 mark for 40 minutes of Pure Cardio.

I am 140lb and 5ft 7. The more weight I have lost, the fitter I have got, the less calories I burn. I also worked out my Vo2 max which I input into my HRM to be more accurate.

I think it all depends on your fitness level & weight everyone is different.

aas1277

I like using the HRM because it takes the guesswork out. I have the Polar FT4 chest strap HRM and it takes into consideration not only your weight and height but your age and gender. I just took a High Intensity Bokwa class for 50 minutes and it says I burned around 286 calories....The instructor was wearing a wrist HRM and half way through the class hers said she had already burned 300 calories.....

Just2Bhappy

I need a HRM. I use the number the treadmill or elliptical gives me. As for weights and yoga I just go wit what MFP list.

beatleschic87

I always make sure I at least eat my goal for the day.
I have protein when I'm done working out like a chicken breast, an egg or a hand full of almonds.
I work out at night too so it's usually too late for a meal but my body needs something for that recovery.

jacksonpt

I need a HRM. I use the number the treadmill or elliptical gives me. As for weights and yoga I just go wit what MFP list.

Treadmill will likely be more accurate than an HRM, just FYI. Weights... an HRM is probably about as inaccurate as anything. Probably the same for yoga.

HRMs are NOT miracle workers.

STrooper

I find that the HRM gives me lower calories expended (compared to the MFP website) when walking, even at a moderate pace. However, compared to my treadmill, my HRM reads higher by a good 30%. For some programs I use (like Map My Hike when I'm carrying a pack) the HRM and program values from the phone (or website) are about online. I am generally using my HRM for my activity specific values. I use a Fitbit for stepcount and typical daily, non-specific activities.

The HRM is particularly good for weight training or combined cardio-weight training.

Now its time for me to go use mine during lunch.

jacksonpt

I find that the HRM gives me lower calories expended (compared to the MFP website) when walking, even at a moderate pace. However, compared to my treadmill, my HRM reads higher by a good 30%. For some programs I use (like Map My Hike when I'm carrying a pack) the HRM and program values from the phone (or website) are about online. I am generally using my HRM for my activity specific values. I use a Fitbit for stepcount and typical daily, non-specific activities.

The HRM is particularly good for weight training or combined cardio-weight training.

Now its time for me to go use mine during lunch.

It's actually particularly BAD for weight training. HRMs are most effective for steady state cardio exercises. Weigh training is neither steady state nor cardio.

meshashesha2012

HRMs can be very accurate if you have set them up to be so.

a good HRM will need to take your resting hart rate and V02 max levels into account when estimating your calories burned, so you cant automatically go just by your age. for instance take 2 40 year old people of similar weight. one might be dying at 135 beats per minute while other considers it easy. they arent going to be burning the same amount of calories

jonnythan

HRM by its nature overestimates during weight training. Your body doesn't use nearly as many calories at a given heart rate while lifting as it does during cardio.

jonnythan

HRMs can be very accurate if you have set them up to be so.

a good HRM will need to take your resting hart rate and V02 max levels into account when estimating your calories burned, so you cant automatically go just by your age. for instance take 2 40 year old people of similar weight. one might be dying at 135 beats per minute while other considers it easy. they arent going to be burning the same amount of calories

.... Who actually knows their VO2 max? And the thing with VO2 is that oxygen transfer efficiency goes way up as you get in better shape, so it's not a static thing. It changes significantly over time. That's why you're huffing and puffing after 2 blocks when you start out but in 2 months you're barely breaking a sweat at a mile.

action_figure

I use my HRM to track exercise, and I always go by what the training computer gives me for total calories burned. If I put it in their website, it does some weird voodoo math and recalculates it up to something ridiculous. Ex: this morning, I did my abs and legs workout. Wearing my heart rate monitor got me an average heart rate of 101, and calories burned of 166. When I put the data in Polar's personal trainer website it jacked the number up to something like 760, I think? I just erase that number and put in my training computers number of 166. I have burned legit 700 calories before (The day I walked over 7 miles) and I felt WAAAAY different physiologically.

JoanB5

...The HRM that go on your wrist are fairly accurate, especially if it's one you can customize with your weight, height, gender etc. If you want even better accuracy, go for a HRM with a CHEST STRAP. I have the chest strap and mine is often waaaaay different than any online calculators.

^ THIS!

Warchortle

I don't even worry about tracking it because you can figure it out by yourself through adjusting your caloric intake.

If you do the same sort of exercise per week and let's say you set all your calories to maintenance and if you lose a lb a week bam 3500 calories / # of days exercised.

meshashesha2012

HRMs can be very accurate if you have set them up to be so.

a good HRM will need to take your resting hart rate and V02 max levels into account when estimating your calories burned, so you cant automatically go just by your age. for instance take 2 40 year old people of similar weight. one might be dying at 135 beats per minute while other considers it easy. they arent going to be burning the same amount of calories

.... Who actually knows their VO2 max? And the thing with VO2 is that oxygen transfer efficiency goes way up as you get in better shape, so it's not a static thing. It changes significantly over time. That's why you're huffing and puffing after 2 blocks when you start out but in 2 months you're barely breaking a sweat at a mile.

my point was that making it more accurate is better than just strapping it on and not feeding in any information besides height weight and age. my hrm has an option to either use my resting rate as a guide to estimate my V02 max OR i can test it on my own and enter a number myself. if people are interested in doing the tests then they will, if they arent then they wont, so the answer to your question about who knows their V02 is simply anyone who's curious enough to test it. it's not rocket science.

your way seems to imply throwing the baby out with the bath water. totally unnecessary. most people understand that these things aren't 100% accurate but making them 75% more accurate is still a better start for those who want an general ball park of calories burned.

maegmez

I'm so glad I have a hrm! I weigh 178 pounds but don't burn anywhere near the calories on my treadmill and elliptical. If I put 158 pounds into the treadmill, it's closer to what my hrm says.

I have been running since December and so my resting heart rate is 53 and thus I need to work harder to burn. When I get my heart rate to 135-140 I burn about 10-11 calories per minute. When I first started running, I would burn about 1000 calories running 6 miles, now I burn about 700.

So if you are just starting out, that number sounds very reasonable.

jacksonpt

HRMs can be very accurate if you have set them up to be so.

a good HRM will need to take your resting hart rate and V02 max levels into account when estimating your calories burned, so you cant automatically go just by your age. for instance take 2 40 year old people of similar weight. one might be dying at 135 beats per minute while other considers it easy. they arent going to be burning the same amount of calories

.... Who actually knows their VO2 max? And the thing with VO2 is that oxygen transfer efficiency goes way up as you get in better shape, so it's not a static thing. It changes significantly over time. That's why you're huffing and puffing after 2 blocks when you start out but in 2 months you're barely breaking a sweat at a mile.

my point was that making it more accurate is better than just strapping it on and not feeding in any information besides height weight and age. my hrm has an option to either use my resting rate as a guide to estimate my V02 max OR i can test it on my own and enter a number myself. if people are interested in doing the tests then they will, if they arent then they wont, so the answer to your question about who knows their V02 is simply anyone who's curious enough to test it. it's not rocket science.

your way seems to imply throwing the baby out with the bath water. totally unnecessary. most people understand that these things aren't 100% accurate but making them 75% more accurate is still a better start for those who want an general ball park of calories burned.

I tend to disagree. Just look at this thread... so many people swearing blindly by their HRMs for anything more active than sleeping.

jonnythan

HRMs can be very accurate if you have set them up to be so.

a good HRM will need to take your resting hart rate and V02 max levels into account when estimating your calories burned, so you cant automatically go just by your age. for instance take 2 40 year old people of similar weight. one might be dying at 135 beats per minute while other considers it easy. they arent going to be burning the same amount of calories

.... Who actually knows their VO2 max? And the thing with VO2 is that oxygen transfer efficiency goes way up as you get in better shape, so it's not a static thing. It changes significantly over time. That's why you're huffing and puffing after 2 blocks when you start out but in 2 months you're barely breaking a sweat at a mile.

my point was that making it more accurate is better than just strapping it on and not feeding in any information besides height weight and age. my hrm has an option to either use my resting rate as a guide to estimate my V02 max OR i can test it on my own and enter a number myself. if people are interested in doing the tests then they will, if they arent then they wont, so the answer to your question about who knows their V02 is simply anyone who's curious enough to test it. it's not rocket science.

your way seems to imply throwing the baby out with the bath water. totally unnecessary. most people understand that these things aren't 100% accurate but making them 75% more accurate is still a better start for those who want an general ball park of calories burned.

But people are saying "very accurate" or "more accurate than x" which I don't buy.

pwnderosa

Ehhh...I go with either MFP or Runkeep for walking/running or I look up different website calculators if MFP seems like it's not right or I'm doing an activity not in the MFP list. I usually put in just a little bit less time than I worked and hope that it's close enough. I've been losing on track with my goals so at this point I don't worry that it's not 100% accurate, after all calorie counting is not an exact science either...