Advice on calorie counts

thomasblastind
thomasblastind Posts: 23 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Today I started my commitment to ride a stationary bike for 30 min 3x a week. I got a heart rate monitor with the chest band and it says I burned 1120 calories. Is that possible? I am 6'4" tall and 426 lbs. My fitness pal says it should be around 600. I want to go with the lower number I think but i dont want to be starving at the end of the day cause thats how accidents happen:) Any thoughts? EDIT*Forgot to mention my heart rate was around 160 the whole time. Dont know if that matters or not.

Replies

  • Cyclink
    Cyclink Posts: 517 Member
    On a stationary bike, depending on how hard you go, you are looking at between 6 and 18 calories per minute (very easy to super super hard). Normal is about 8 to 10.

    The top end for 30 minutes is only 540 calories, and that's assuming a near-superhuman effort by a professional athlete.
  • thomasblastind
    thomasblastind Posts: 23 Member
    If that's the case why would my heart rate monitor and MFP be so over on their count? That seems pretty useless.
  • Erienneb
    Erienneb Posts: 592 Member
    First of all I want to say Blood Sport is an awesome movie and therefore your picture is great.

    Secondly. What kind of HRM is it? Is it formatted to you specifically? When did you turn it on and back off? There are SO many things that can effect how a HRM reads.

    As for MFP, I have found the calorie counts high with some things low with others. IT's just guessing based on what other people have plugged in, but since every body is at a different fitness level, the counts will be off. Before I got my HRM formatted for me, I would take the MFP guess but only log half of it to err on the side of caution.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    What HRM do you have? That seems WAY high, but you are also a really big guy. I would probably go with the MFP value anyway, but it is very unusual. Double check all your settings on the HRM - age, weight, gender, etc.
  • thomasblastind
    thomasblastind Posts: 23 Member
    I have a sportline 660. It is configured to my body and the fate zone feature is turned off. I'm not interested in eating all the calories back, or any if i can help it, but it would be nice to have a guideline if I need them. I turned it on right when i started and stopped at 30 mins.
  • Cyclink
    Cyclink Posts: 517 Member
    If that's the case why would my heart rate monitor and MFP be so over on their count? That seems pretty useless.

    VO2max is really a major limiter in burning calories. 1 liter of oxygen burned (processed and run to the muscle, not just breathed) burns 5 calories.

    Usually VO2max is expressed in milliliters/kilogram/minute, so we have t convert it to liters / minute to do the calorie calcs.

    To use some round numbers, a very fit (90th percentile kind of fit) 20-year old has a VO2max of about 50. He weighs 70 KG (154 pounds)

    That means his maximum sustainable effort is:
    50 ml/kg/min * 70 KG / 1000 ml/liter * 5 calories/liter= 17.5 calories/ minute

    I should probably correct my earlier calorie numbers slightly. Some chemically enhanced professional athletes have achieved VO2 numbers in the 90's. Doing their math:
    90 ml/kg/min * 65 KG / 1000 ml/liter * 5 calories/liter= 28.8 calories/ minute.

    So, if you are an athlete with extreme genetic gifts and access to EPO, you could burn up to 28.8 calories / minute.

    Now for the really bad news: the top elite athletes can only sustain VO2max intensity for 5 to 8 minutes. Most people can only do it for 3 to 5 minutes. You can do intervals of 3 minutes and repeat them (with 3 minutes rest between them), but it gives you an idea of what your true maximums will be like for an hour.

    For more info:
    http://www.livestrong.com/article/309789-calories-burned-per-liter-of-oxygen-consumed/

    Because it is not weight bearing and only uses your legs, cycling uses a lower amount of oxygen that other sports. Most heart rate monitors seem to be calibrated for running and its oxygen demands, not cycling.
  • thomasblastind
    thomasblastind Posts: 23 Member
    Very interesting. I guess the safest bet would be take take the MFP count and cut it in half then or not count it at all and try and make due. Thanks a lot for your time guys.
  • Goal_Line
    Goal_Line Posts: 474 Member
    Very interesting. I guess the safest bet would be take take the MFP count and cut it in half then or not count it at all and try and make due. Thanks a lot for your time guys.

    That's what I'd do. Your HRM numbers really don;t look right to me. I'm 190lbs when I ride my bike (outside at an ave speed 13 MPH) I assume 10 cals per minute.
  • Cyclink
    Cyclink Posts: 517 Member
    Very interesting. I guess the safest bet would be take take the MFP count and cut it in half then or not count it at all and try and make due. Thanks a lot for your time guys.

    A few years ago when I got my power meter for my bike, it was the first time that I ever had accurate calorie data (I'll save you the calcs this time, but 100 watts is about 6 calories per minute) and I was stunned by how much my heart monitor was exaggerating my calorie output.

    The trick I played with on MFP (before I started manually entering my calories) was to downgrade my workout by a level. If I was cycling at 16 to 20 mph, I'd put it in as 14 to 16 mph instead. It was still a bit high, but not nearly as bad.
  • mulderpf
    mulderpf Posts: 209 Member
    Today I started my commitment to ride a stationary bike for 30 min 3x a week. I got a heart rate monitor with the chest band and it says I burned 1120 calories. Is that possible? I am 6'4" tall and 426 lbs. My fitness pal says it should be around 600. I want to go with the lower number I think but i dont want to be starving at the end of the day cause thats how accidents happen:) Any thoughts? EDIT*Forgot to mention my heart rate was around 160 the whole time. Dont know if that matters or not.

    Probably the intensity matters the most. What most of the responders here keep ignoring, is that you are a fairly big guy (no offence intended!), the examples cited are for people weighing 65 or 70kg, not 190kg. That's a BIG difference and your body luckily, burns a lot more calories than someone much smaller. Your heart has to work a lot harder to get blood to your muscles and your lungs have to work much harder to keep all your cells oxygenated than someone weighing 65kg.

    http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

    If you went quite fast, 17.4mph according to the calculator above, it's entirely possible. to burn 1100 calories.
  • thomasblastind
    thomasblastind Posts: 23 Member

    Probably the intensity matters the most. What most of the responders here keep ignoring, is that you are a fairly big guy (no offence intended!), the examples cited are for people weighing 65 or 70kg, not 190kg. That's a BIG difference and your body luckily, burns a lot more calories than someone much smaller. Your heart has to work a lot harder to get blood to your muscles and your lungs have to work much harder to keep all your cells oxygenated than someone weighing 65kg.

    http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

    If you went quite fast, 17.4mph according to the calculator above, it's entirely possible. to burn 1100 calories.

    Thats a good point. I think Im going to cut the MFP number in half and see how that does me and if I cant handle it try something else.
    No offense taken I am a very large guy but hopefully not for long!
  • Cyclink
    Cyclink Posts: 517 Member
    If you went quite fast, 17.4mph according to the calculator above, it's entirely possible. to burn 1100 calories.

    No, it's still not.

    No one on the planet earth has ever recorded a VO2 of over 9 liters/min, regardless of size.

    No matter how big a normal person gets, their absolute VO2max will never get that high. It's why the importan part is the units: ml/kg. The number of liters of oxygen won't change, but the number of KG will.

    If one of those guys with a VO2 of 90 and a body mass of 70 kg increased his body mass to 210 kg (3x the mass), the VO2 number drops to 30 (1/3 the volume per mass).

    Yes, your heart may work harder to move the extra blood and mass, but the upper limits don't change.
  • mulderpf
    mulderpf Posts: 209 Member
    If you went quite fast, 17.4mph according to the calculator above, it's entirely possible. to burn 1100 calories.

    No, it's still not.

    No one on the planet earth has ever recorded a VO2 of over 9 liters/min, regardless of size.

    No matter how big a normal person gets, their absolute VO2max will never get that high. It's why the importan part is the units: ml/kg. The number of liters of oxygen won't change, but the number of KG will.

    If one of those guys with a VO2 of 90 and a body mass of 70 kg increased his body mass to 210 kg (3x the mass), the VO2 number drops to 30 (1/3 the volume per mass).

    Yes, your heart may work harder to move the extra blood and mass, but the upper limits don't change.

    Using your own reasoning and equation and substituting gives:

    50 ml/kg/min * 210 KG / 1000 ml/liter * 5 calories/liter= 52.5 calories/ minute

    Over 30 minutes that gets to 1500 calories.

    Let's substitute for poor VO2max of 40 ml/kg/min...

    40 * 210 /1000 * 5 = 42 cals / min

    That's 1260 calories...
  • rickpearce
    rickpearce Posts: 100 Member
    First of all, congrats on the 30 mins completed and the commitment to do it 3x/week.

    I understand your confusion, I've had some of that myself. In the end the real honest to God number doesn't really matter if you are not planning on eating them back.
  • Cyclink
    Cyclink Posts: 517 Member
    No, it's still not.

    No one on the planet earth has ever recorded a VO2 of over 9 liters/min, regardless of size.

    No matter how big a normal person gets, their absolute VO2max will never get that high. It's why the importan part is the units: ml/kg. The number of liters of oxygen won't change, but the number of KG will.

    If one of those guys with a VO2 of 90 and a body mass of 70 kg increased his body mass to 210 kg (3x the mass), the VO2 number drops to 30 (1/3 the volume per mass).

    Yes, your heart may work harder to move the extra blood and mass, but the upper limits don't change.

    Using your own reasoning and equation and substituting gives:

    50 ml/kg/min * 210 KG / 1000 ml/liter * 5 calories/liter= 52.5 calories/ minute

    Over 30 minutes that gets to 1500 calories.

    Let's substitute for poor VO2max of 40 ml/kg/min...

    40 * 210 /1000 * 5 = 42 cals / min

    That's 1260 calories...

    I'm realizing that my initial description was a little muddy, so let me clarify:
    the total VO2 capacity per minute, measured it liters, is the actual limiter,

    The ml/kg version, which divides total capacity by body weight, is meant to help compare one person to another and it is how Polar likes to tell it to people on their higher end heart monitors.

    VO2max is about 90% genetic and about 10% trainable. If you're born with a very high one, you will be a natural endurance athlete. If you are born with a low one, you will never be an elite endurance athlete no matter how much you train (though you could be great at other sports).

    Someone a relatively high VO2max of 5 liters/minute, their weight now comes into play:
    5000 ml / 200 kg = 25 ml/kg
    5000 ml / 150 kg = 33 ml/kg
    5000 ml / 100 kg = 50 ml/kg
    5000 ml / 70 kg = 71 ml/kg

    The problem with your example is that it requires a superhuman total oxygen processing capacity.
    50 ml/kg * 210 kg = 10.5 L/min.

    No human being has ever tested that high, not even genetic freaks who have trained for years to develop their capacity. A highly trained, national level athlete peaks out around 6 liters per minute. Normal people are more like 3 or 4 liters. The highest ever recorded was about 8 liters, and that's the type of top 0.01% athlete that comes along very rarely and dominates their sport at the professional level for a few years.
  • thomasblastind
    thomasblastind Posts: 23 Member
    First of all, congrats on the 30 mins completed and the commitment to do it 3x/week.

    I understand your confusion, I've had some of that myself. In the end the real honest to God number doesn't really matter if you are not planning on eating them back.

    Thanks! I think that's the way I'm going to go but there is the argument that you start burning muscle if you don't eat them back and have a deficit that's too high so I'm a little worried about that. I would like to find a middle ground. It seems like the safest bet is to not eat them back though because every calculator gives me a different number and I'd rather not sabotage myself.
  • Cyclink
    Cyclink Posts: 517 Member
    I think that's the way I'm going to go but there is the argument that you start burning muscle if you don't eat them back and have a deficit that's too high so I'm a little worried about that. I would like to find a middle ground. It seems like the safest bet is to not eat them back though because every calculator gives me a different number and I'd rather not sabotage myself.

    That's really the important part, which is annoyingly difficult to get right.

    Too many people think that a larger deficit is better, and that's really not the case. It needs to be in the Goldilocks zone: not too high, not too low, just right.

    Too large of a deficit starts burning off muscles (and other hormonal changes that mess with your metabolism),
    too small of a deficit can lead to really slow loss that gets frustrating.

    And of course, then there is surplus territory, where you only want to be if you are trying to gain muscle.
  • mrs_schultz2012
    mrs_schultz2012 Posts: 395 Member
    wow....a lot of math and a lot of confusing info....but congrats on your commitment and I wish you the best of luck in your weight loss :flowerforyou:
  • thomasblastind
    thomasblastind Posts: 23 Member
    wow....a lot of math and a lot of confusing info....but congrats on your commitment and I wish you the best of luck in your weight loss :flowerforyou:

    Thank you!

Categories