how much do i really burn?

reeserox
reeserox Posts: 55 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I was reading a post about the accuracy of calorie counters on Treadmills/other machines and even on mfp for things like circuit training and I was thinking of taking 15-20% of the calories that the treadmill or mfp gives me off and using the new number as my total calorie burned.

I don't want to short myself from the effort I put in, but I don't want to think I burned more than I did. What do you guys think????

Replies

  • wendybird5
    wendybird5 Posts: 577 Member
    It's not going to be completely accurate, but the point isn't to be precise, but rather to take in fewer calories than you burn. Remember that even your calorie counts on your food or estimates for your total calories you need are not going to be precise either, but data from food labels and treadmills/HRMs/MFP are going to get you in the ball park and help you get to where you need to be. If you are worried, you can always make it a goal to not eat all of your exercise calories. Otherwise, as long as you are seeing results, there's no need to worry about how exact the measurements are.
  • reeserox
    reeserox Posts: 55 Member
    yea i usually don't eat back all the calories i burn anyways...well at least i try to eat at the most half of it back only

    thanx
  • thatblueyedchic
    thatblueyedchic Posts: 128 Member
    Get a heart rate monitor! I have a polar and I love it. I know exactly how many calories I burn.
  • AmyJeanMarie84
    AmyJeanMarie84 Posts: 54 Member
    Get a heart rate monitor! I have a polar and I love it. I know exactly how many calories I burn.

    ^^^^this I have the polar F4 and I love it.
  • sullykat
    sullykat Posts: 461 Member
    Yes!!! Heart rate monitors are your best bet. Though not 100% accurate, pretty darn close.
  • haymancm
    haymancm Posts: 280 Member
    I love my Garmin HRM. With my heart pounding & sweat, the numbers are much higher than the numbers on any machine or MFP. It's definitely worth the investment! :)
  • tricksee
    tricksee Posts: 835 Member
    The key is that consistency is better than accuracy.
  • Seraphemz
    Seraphemz Posts: 84 Member
    I have a heart rate monitor as well. The eleptical that I use actually reads my heart rate from the strap. And the calories on the machine and on my watch are rarely the same. I go by what my watch says. Since its usually less...just to push myself harder.
  • 2horsestoride
    2horsestoride Posts: 37 Member
    MFP really over estimates how many calories you burn, IME. For example, when I log that I've put in 30 mins on my elliptical, MFP says I've burned 350 calories. My elliptical says I've burned 160 and that's with really amping up the intensity. Because of the discrepancies, I don't eat back my exercise calories.
  • springs47
    springs47 Posts: 82 Member
    I just got a Polar heart rate monitor and I love it! MFP was overestimating the calories I burned on the elliptical (the machine was overestimating even more..) .and MFP was underestimating what I burned while walking. Its definitely a good investment if you really want to know how many calories you're burning.
  • kloser2kona
    kloser2kona Posts: 15
    the machines are off more like 35%
  • pannellkat
    pannellkat Posts: 709 Member
    I've worked out on ellipticals, stairmasters, treadmills, bikes etc. while wearing my polar heart rate monitor and have resulted in significantly different calorie burn numbers between the HRM and the machines. The machines typically show a lesser calorie burn result for me.

    Nothing is precise, so if you are serious about being as accurate as possible counting calories in and measuring calories out my advise is to invest in your health and fitness and purchase a heart rate monitor with a calorie counter AND CHEST STRAP A MUST for continous monitoring.

    I just went to Big 5 sporting goods and purchased one for my hubby who just started back at the gym for $29.99 and it came with a chest strap. I use a Polar F4, I have had it for years and I love it and do not leave home without it.

    Good luck!
  • cyclist_44060
    cyclist_44060 Posts: 86 Member
    I agree with those who say get a heart monitor. I do alot of cycling and found MFP calories to be off (high) by as much as 50%. With a heart monitor you can more accurately figure your calorie burn. Most on-line calulators seem to read high.
  • pannellkat
    pannellkat Posts: 709 Member
    Oh and i NEVER use mfp numbers....those have always been WAY off both ways.

    If you are not taking into account your height, weight, age and gender...then I just don't trust it.
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    I always enter low on calories burned and high on calories I eat or drink.

    I know I did a 5 nile run in just over 50 minutes and my fitness watch and HR monitor said I burned around 600 calories.

    I know the total burn is more based on weight x's calories per minute x's total duration and that gives you the calories burned for the exercise session.
  • phjorg
    phjorg Posts: 252 Member
    1) All calculators/hrm's include your BMR. which can be 2-3cal/min. so you need to subtract that.

    2) all calculators/hrm's can overestimate as is. There is a thread on the fitness and exercise forum that says even the numbers HRM's give are still inflated by up to 30% for females when testing the accuracy of them.

    Here's what I do know. aprox 16cal/min can be seen as the upper limit for calorie exertion as I've seen measured in metabolic chamber tests... this is what marathon runners and tour de france riders hit while competing. This is a measured value from actual machines. And not HRM's. If there is a measured value thats higher, I can say I haven't seen it. Though It's certainly possible.

    so subtract your BMR from that and you get about 13-14cal/min. At an hour thats 780-840 calories burned from exercise.. And thats at an elite level of intensity that 99.99% of the people on this forum would be lucky enough to reach a fraction of.

    So in light of this, look at what a lot of people on here are trying to claim for their calorie burn. They actually believe their 6mph jog for an hour burns 800 calories?!??! lol, just no.

    Take your HRM total, and halve it. That should be enough to account for BMR and natural inaccuracies to give a somewhat accurate enough reading.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    The key is that consistency is better than accuracy.

    Hell yeah....

    1233445870_ae19b02.gif
  • sullrico18
    sullrico18 Posts: 261 Member
    I always enter low on calories burned and high on calories I eat or drink.

    I agree with this---helps diminish room for error.

    and this:

    1) All calculators/hrm's include your BMR. which can be 2-3cal/min. so you need to subtract that.

    2) all calculators/hrm's can overestimate as is. There is a thread on the fitness and exercise forum that says even the numbers HRM's give are still inflated by up to 30% for females when testing the accuracy of them.

    Here's what I do know. aprox 16cal/min can be seen as the upper limit for calorie exertion as I've seen measured in metabolic chamber tests... this is what marathon runners and tour de france riders hit while competing. This is a measured value from actual machines. And not HRM's. If there is a measured value thats higher, I can say I haven't seen it. Though It's certainly possible.

    so subtract your BMR from that and you get about 13-14cal/min. At an hour thats 780-840 calories burned from exercise.. And thats at an elite level of intensity that 99.99% of the people on this forum would be lucky enough to reach a fraction of.

    So in light of this, look at what a lot of people on here are trying to claim for their calorie burn. They actually believe their 6mph jog for an hour burns 800 calories?!??! lol, just no.

    Take your HRM total, and halve it. That should be enough to account for BMR and natural inaccuracies to give a somewhat accurate enough reading.

    Well put!
  • mmctaw
    mmctaw Posts: 30 Member
    +1, I completely agree with what she says...
    It's not going to be completely accurate, but the point isn't to be precise, but rather to take in fewer calories than you burn. Remember that even your calorie counts on your food or estimates for your total calories you need are not going to be precise either, but data from food labels and treadmills/HRMs/MFP are going to get you in the ball park and help you get to where you need to be. If you are worried, you can always make it a goal to not eat all of your exercise calories. Otherwise, as long as you are seeing results, there's no need to worry about how exact the measurements are.
  • jme6976
    jme6976 Posts: 49 Member
    I have a heart rate monitor- body media fit. You wear it on your left tricep. Doesn't require a chest strap and I have the optional display that shows calories burned and steps. You synch it with Mfp and shows how much intake you have and how much you burn off. They have been tested and proven to be 90% accurate. I don't have to log exercise because Mfp automatically adjusts when I synch up. But it does have a trip feature that you monitor exactly how many cals you are burning for a specific activity. It is based on heart rate. This has been an excellent tool to understand my body better. It monitors your sleep as well to show how efficient your sleep is. My weight loss has sped up since getting this tool. Not cheap but well worth it!!

Categories