The calories burned counter on here looks overly optimistic

Not if the descriptions of pace or intensity match what you actually did.

For instance the running and walking speeds, if you actually did that level, are more accurate than HRM.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

The problem comes in people estimating how fast they think they went when outside.
Treadmill is fine, accurate enough for speed.

I've seen folks estimate their biking speed based on a couple of high speeds they happened to get, not the total distance divided by time.
So they selected the wrong speed.

Other things would be right if the timing was right too, even one with only a couple of levels.
But you have to be honest with the time. Was the 45 min Zumba workout really 45 of normal intense class - or was easily 10 min warm-up and cool-down?
Was your strength training really 30 min with only the set rests, or between each lift did you talk to someone for 5 min?

I've even found the swimming to be within 20 calories to best calculation for only 40 min, at least vigorous was. If I swam better it might be wrong.

And for all the claims the HRM must be more accurate because it's different, well, that's not even logical first, second the chances of that are rather narrow too with all the cheaper HRM's being used that are missing a vital stat.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

Men aren't off the hook either.

http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/JEPonlineOctober2011Esco.pdf

Plus the HRM is the wrong tool for getting calorie counts for anything besides steady-state aerobic with same HR for 2-4 min.
So all the lifting, intervals, insanity, Crossfit, ect, where the HR goes up and down constantly, is really an inflated HR, so the calorie calculation is inflated too.

In...

...to see how the experts fare in this thread.


(Lately, it seems like the "snowflakes" have been besting the "experts"...not so much on facts, but just in the sheer number of them.)

In...

...to see how the experts fare in this thread.


(Lately, it seems like the "snowflakes" have been besting the "experts"...not so much on facts, but just in the sheer number of them.)

What are snowflakes?

heybales, I didn't consider the warm up and cool down times. I just assumed that would be included, because you should always do those and nobody would do a class or workout DVD without them.

Snowflakes are those people for whom the experts' facts don't apply...

...at least in the snowflakes' minds.

As long as you are accurate with your calories (weighing portions) AND realistic about the effort expended, you should be able to eat back the caloires - I have eaten back my calories and lost 42lb with no trouble at all.

But you MUST weigh everything, and you must be realistic about effort - have you really walked briskly, or are you worn out and sweaty because you are out of condition? was it vigourous aerobics or was it your first ever class?

Well I have a Polar monitor and myfitnesspal says I burn on average 50 calories more than I should be :S

Than you should be?

You might have to explain, because that doesn't even make sense?

Or you are assuming the Polar is accurate because .... ?

And 50 calories more with 2 hrs, or 2 minutes of workout time?

This in itself is an interesting debate...... I wear my Polar HRM when i'm out running or at the gym. I also take the phone out for cardio running and track with runkeeper.

EVERYTHING reports a massively inflated calorie burn for me compared to the Polar HRM.

For example - a 5km run with my polar reports around 400 calories. MFP / Runkeeper etc reports closer to 750.

Now .... I'm quite a big guy .... 225lbs (down from 281) and 180cm tall. All of these apps know my age (42), height and weight .... but only the HRM takes account of my usual resting heart rate.

Despite my size, I run a lot ...... 4-5 times per week and my resting HR is 59bpm. My cardio fitness is therefore (I guess) better than the average 225lbs 180cm 42 year old male.

For me therefore, I take the Polar as being the likely most accurate...... heck, I've even sat in my armchair for an hour wearing it to see the reported calorie burn at rest (90kcals). If I multiply that "sitting on my butt time" by 24 hours, ir indicates a 2160kcals per day.

Now - if I'm running for an hour, I'll just subtract 90 of the reported calories from what the HRM shows (since I'd have burned 90 anyway by doing nothing) ... and will just record the "additional benefit" from the workout.....

Can you please stop talking about endomorphs I don't beleive in that stuff and don't even know what it means anyways and won't read to find out. If you describe it here I won't bother either but will just exit the thread.

I think you need a bowl of ice cream because I don't think you realize just how petulant that sounded. Is this your normal demeanor or are you having a bad day?

Probably will only make sense to those in the UK "around a certain age" ..... but this was always the best morph....

Depending on the weight of the person who posted the exercise, it might be accurate for that person's weight. Too bad no one posts the weight used to calculate it. I use a treadmill calculator that factors in my weight to make sure. The calories burned go down as I lose the weight.

Not if the descriptions of pace or intensity match what you actually did.

For instance the running and walking speeds, if you actually did that level, are more accurate than HRM.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

The problem comes in people estimating how fast they think they went when outside.
Treadmill is fine, accurate enough for speed.

I've seen folks estimate their biking speed based on a couple of high speeds they happened to get, not the total distance divided by time.
So they selected the wrong speed.

Other things would be right if the timing was right too, even one with only a couple of levels.
But you have to be honest with the time. Was the 45 min Zumba workout really 45 of normal intense class - or was easily 10 min warm-up and cool-down?
Was your strength training really 30 min with only the set rests, or between each lift did you talk to someone for 5 min?

I've even found the swimming to be within 20 calories to best calculation for only 40 min, at least vigorous was. If I swam better it might be wrong.

And for all the claims the HRM must be more accurate because it's different, well, that's not even logical first, second the chances of that are rather narrow too with all the cheaper HRM's being used that are missing a vital stat.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

Men aren't off the hook either.

http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/JEPonlineOctober2011Esco.pdf

Plus the HRM is the wrong tool for getting calorie counts for anything besides steady-state aerobic with same HR for 2-4 min.
So all the lifting, intervals, insanity, Crossfit, ect, where the HR goes up and down constantly, is really an inflated HR, so the calorie calculation is inflated too.

This is why I switched to the TDEE method, so much easier than worrying about whether or not my calorie burn was accurate.

I get frustrated by the inconsistency with some of the activities in the MFP database. I weigh around 185 at the moment, so I do think that around 300-350 cals for 30-40 mins of a hard circuit/boot camp class or a running at about 10kmph seems roughly accurate at my weight (although I don't tend to eat all of those cals back, just in case). However, the burns that MFP give for things like slow walking, gardening and cleaning seem vastly overestimated compared to what it gives for harder exercise - did I *really* burn 1000 cals last Saturday just by cleaning, doing light gardening plus about an hour's leisurely walk? Frustrating.

Love the Morph and Chas pic btw (UK 45 year old here )

Those things should be factored in your activity level. After wearing a FitBit for a couple of months and comparing my "actual" daily burn to MFP's estimated daily burn, I realized that "sedentary" literally means sitting on your butt all day. All. Day. If you're doing a tiny bit of slow walking, shopping, cleaning, gardening... You're probably "lightly active" at the very least.

eta; typo

Hmm. I've been thinking about changing my setting to lightly active rather than sedentary, but the thing is that most weekdays, if I don't do any deliberate workouts I could easily be classed as sedentary - I drive to my job about 10 miles away, sit at a desk all day, drive home and do minimal if any housework when I get home (I blitz the cleaning at the weekends, before anyone thinks I'm a dirty mare!) and I have no kids. I don't log all my walking or cleaning by any means.

(Btw, as an experiment I input my figures into iifwym's calculator to measure BMR and TDEE, and my given MFP calorie amount was actually not too far off iifwym's figure for my TDEE - 20% at 3 workouts a week.)

Whether I change my personal settings or not, in general MFP still wildly overestimates the burn for those types of activities.

Well I have a Polar monitor and myfitnesspal says I burn on average 50 calories more than I should be :S

Than you should be?

You might have to explain, because that doesn't even make sense?

Or you are assuming the Polar is accurate because .... ?

And 50 calories more with 2 hrs, or 2 minutes of workout time?

This in itself is an interesting debate...... I wear my Polar HRM when i'm out running or at the gym. I also take the phone out for cardio running and track with runkeeper.

EVERYTHING reports a massively inflated calorie burn for me compared to the Polar HRM.

For example - a 5km run with my polar reports around 400 calories. MFP / Runkeeper etc reports closer to 750.

Now .... I'm quite a big guy .... 225lbs (down from 281) and 180cm tall. All of these apps know my age (42), height and weight .... but only the HRM takes account of my usual resting heart rate.

Despite my size, I run a lot ...... 4-5 times per week and my resting HR is 59bpm. My cardio fitness is therefore (I guess) better than the average 225lbs 180cm 42 year old male.

For me therefore, I take the Polar as being the likely most accurate...... heck, I've even sat in my armchair for an hour wearing it to see the reported calorie burn at rest (90kcals). If I multiply that "sitting on my butt time" by 24 hours, ir indicates a 2160kcals per day.

Now - if I'm running for an hour, I'll just subtract 90 of the reported calories from what the HRM shows (since I'd have burned 90 anyway by doing nothing) ... and will just record the "additional benefit" from the workout.....

Almost everything you cited in this post indicates that your hrm is giving you inaccurate readings

I get frustrated by the inconsistency with some of the activities in the MFP database. I weigh around 185 at the moment, so I do think that around 300-350 cals for 30-40 mins of a hard circuit/boot camp class or a running at about 10kmph seems roughly accurate at my weight (although I don't tend to eat all of those cals back, just in case). However, the burns that MFP give for things like slow walking, gardening and cleaning seem vastly overestimated compared to what it gives for harder exercise - did I *really* burn 1000 cals last Saturday just by cleaning, doing light gardening plus about an hour's leisurely walk? Frustrating.

Love the Morph and Chas pic btw (UK 45 year old here )

Those things should be factored in your activity level. After wearing a FitBit for a couple of months and comparing my "actual" daily burn to MFP's estimated daily burn, I realized that "sedentary" literally means sitting on your butt all day. All. Day. If you're doing a tiny bit of slow walking, shopping, cleaning, gardening... You're probably "lightly active" at the very least.

eta; typo

Hmm. I've been thinking about changing my setting to lightly active rather than sedentary, but the thing is that most weekdays, if I don't do any deliberate workouts I could easily be classed as sedentary - I drive to my job about 10 miles away, sit at a desk all day, drive home and do minimal if any housework when I get home (I blitz the cleaning at the weekends, before anyone thinks I'm a dirty mare!) and I have no kids. I don't log all my walking or cleaning by any means.

(Btw, as an experiment I input my figures into iifwym's calculator to measure BMR and TDEE, and my given MFP calorie amount was actually not too far off iifwym's figure for my TDEE - 20% at 3 workouts a week.)

Whether I change my personal settings or not, in general MFP still wildly overestimates the burn for those types of activities.

I suspect there are very few MFPers who are truly "sedentary" as defined by MFP's active level settings

So, the fact that a woman needs 2000 calories a day is wrong, which I have suspected for ages.

no wonder so many people are overweight.

So, you don't know the definition of the word "average" then?...as in on "average" females need roughly 2,000 calories....meaning there will be individuals who fall below and go above that average?

My wife is 5'3" and 39 y.o. and maintains on roughly 2300 calories per day. The "average" male needs around 2500 calories to maintain...without exercise I need around 2300 - 2400...with my exercise I need around 2800 or so...right now, it's actually around 3000 - 3200 because I'm training like a boss.