Machine Calories or MFP Calories?

I also recommend getting an HRM.. It has been one of my best purchases in the goal to losing weight...

I'm currently using the Polar FT7.. I cant remember how much I paid but I grabbed mine off ebay for around $80-$100

Not necessarily. HRMs don't know what activity you are doing, and thus they don't know the workload associated with the workout. All they know is HR, which is at best tangentially related to calorie burns.

But isn't the workload based on how hard your heart has to work (i.e. your heart rate)?

No. Calorie burns are based on workload, which is a function of the activity you are doing and the amount of weight you are moving.

In my experience, both were wrong. Get an HRM. I got my Polar F4, and I think it was around $60. Much better than guessing.

Heart Rate mOnitors are the best way to go. But if u can´t afford one, make sure that u set the machine for urself before using it, that is sex, age, weight and height al least, that should giev u a better idea of how many calories ur burning. Another option are the apps, endomondo has worked very well for me, lets you log all ur data, and uses a gps so it's pretty accurate too.

I'm just wondering if a HRM can really be accurate when you add resistance/increase stride length, etc.? What about for lifting and calisthenics? I generally put in the MFP calories and then discount them by 20% ... which is just a little more than the machines (which may or may not be properly calibrated) usually indicates --- and I've been steadily losing weight.

I was going by MFP's calories until I got a Polar FT4 and found that MFP's estimates were about 30% more than the HRM was telling me I was burning. I like the FT4 because it's simple to use and gives you a calorie estimate.

Which ever number is lower

and then i'd multiply it by .8 and use that number. you NEVER want to overestimate your exercise calories burned.

Not necessarily. HRMs don't know what activity you are doing, and thus they don't know the workload associated with the workout. All they know is HR, which is at best tangentially related to calorie burns.

But isn't the workload based on how hard your heart has to work (i.e. your heart rate)?

No. Calorie burns are based on workload, which is a function of the activity you are doing and the amount of weight you are moving.

I can see your high post count and I will assume that you mean well but I'm just going to walk away from this conversation after I say one last thing. Workload is usually measured by your heart rate because your heart has to beat faster in order to move oxygen more quickly to the muscles that are doing the work. With that being said, most HRMs use a specific formula to calculate calorie burn but that formula requires your heart rate to be increased past a certain point to be the most accurate. So it fails, for example, when calculating calorie burns for weight lifting (which I see you do). But for cardio it is the most accurate method of calculation. And I believe someone asked before... if an HRM isn't the most accurate what do you think is more accurate than it?

Not necessarily. HRMs don't know what activity you are doing, and thus they don't know the workload associated with the workout. All they know is HR, which is at best tangentially related to calorie burns.

But isn't the workload based on how hard your heart has to work (i.e. your heart rate)?

No. Calorie burns are based on workload, which is a function of the activity you are doing and the amount of weight you are moving.

I can see your high post count and I will assume that you mean well but I'm just going to walk away from this conversation after I say one last thing. Workload is usually measured by your heart rate because your heart has to beat faster in order to move oxygen more quickly to the muscles that are doing the work. With that being said, most HRMs use a specific formula to calculate calorie burn but that formula requires your heart rate to be increased past a certain point to be the most accurate. So it fails, for example, when calculating calorie burns for weight lifting (which I see you do). But for cardio it is the most accurate method of calculation. And I believe someone asked before... if an HRM isn't the most accurate what do you think is more accurate than it?

Why walk away? Let's have a conversation about this... While I feel pretty certain about this stuff, I certainly don't know everything and talking things through is a great way to learn and think about things differently.

This guy knows way more about this than I do, and frankly is where I've learned most of what I think I know. Read through some of his blog posts... it's well worth the time.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/

The bottom line is this: Things like HR, breathing rate, sweating, etc are only indications of how hard you are pushing in terms of your current fitness level. Calories required to do something is largely a fixed value - it takes x amount of calories to walk 1 mile regardless of how hard/fast you go. Calories are measure of energy, energy is a measure of work, workloads are generally pretty consistent across and activity with weight being the only meaningful variable.

And I never meant to say that any method was always bad or always good. HRMs seem to have this aura of perfection, machines seems to have this aura of worthlessness. People need to not be so quick to assume that HRMs are always right and machines are always wrong. My point is that HRMs are not the miracle tool that so many people make them out to be. Sometimes they are great, sometimes they aren't. Just because you have one, don't assume it's perfect.

I can see your high post count and I will assume that you mean well but I'm just going to walk away from this conversation after I say one last thing. Workload is usually measured by your heart rate because your heart has to beat faster in order to move oxygen more quickly to the muscles that are doing the work. With that being said, most HRMs use a specific formula to calculate calorie burn but that formula requires your heart rate to be increased past a certain point to be the most accurate. So it fails, for example, when calculating calorie burns for weight lifting (which I see you do). But for cardio it is the most accurate method of calculation. And I believe someone asked before... if an HRM isn't the most accurate what do you think is more accurate than it?

Why walk away? Let's have a conversation about this... While I feel pretty certain about this stuff, I certainly don't know everything and talking things through is a great way to learn and think about things differently.

This guy knows way more about this than I do, and frankly is where I've learned most of what I think I know. Read through some of his blog posts... it's well worth the time.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/


And I never meant to say that any method was always bad or always good. HRMs seem to have this aura of perfection, machines seems to have this aura of worthlessness. People need to not be so quick to assume that HRMs are always right and machines are always wrong. My point is that HRMs are not the miracle tool that so many people make them out to be. Sometimes they are great, sometimes they aren't. Just because you have one, don't assume it's perfect.

Firstly, because I have to go to work LOL.

Not everyone is saying that they are 100% accurate (because they aren't) but what they are saying is that they are more accurate than the machines (which calculate your calorie burn based off of statistics gathered from non-overweight, average height females [it could be males, but I don't have time to double check]). If you are a 5'6" female of average weight then the machine might actually be accurate.

I agree that HRMs aren't "miracle tools" but I do believe they are more accurate than what MFP will tell you. And from what I've read/researched, not a lot of people fall into the zone that the machine will be accurate in. I'll check out that link you posted later tonight, I'm always open to learning more.

I don't post a lot (although I read a lot) here because I generally try to stay away from the threads that pop up daily like this but your post(s) caught my attention because you were challenging people (over and over again) without explaining to them why they might be inaccurate in their beliefs. Hopefully either that link you posted to me does or that you will (if I haven't already with my previous post).

Fair enough. I didn't mean to say/imply that HRMs are worthless. In some situations, for some activities they are great and certainly are the most accurate you'll be able to get.

My point was that many people in this thread (and virtually all the other threads like this) are too quick to assume that HRMs are always more accurate and that machines are always inaccurate. I have no idea where the MFP numbers come from, so I won't comment on the accuracy of those.

There are a lot of situations where machines are very accurate, and certainly close enough to make the "need" for an HRM unnecessary for most people who are simply interested in calories burned. Alternatively, there are a lot of situations where HRMs are more accurate and certainly accurate enough to be a reasonable gauge for cals burned.

The best thing to do is to pick 1 method of estimating and do that consistently for a month. Then evaluate. if your estimations have you in a calorie deficit and thus you expect to be losing weight but are actually gaining, then chances are good your estimates are off (eating more than you think and/or burning less than you think) and you can adjust appropriately. At the end of the day everything we do is based on estimates so some trial and error is a necessary part of all this.