And this is why you buy a Hear Rate monitor. Ignore machines

xxcooneyxx
xxcooneyxx Posts: 221 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Cknb3JM.jpg

This much of a disparity could ruin someone's perceived caloric deficit.

Replies

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    You are assuming that the HRM is the correct value. It may be, but it may not be as well.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories?hl=accuracy+of+HRM&page=1%23posts-16031917

    For the record, I always go with the lowest value so I'd lean towards the HRM as well. I just feel that the boards here tend to overstate the accuracy of HRMs.


    If the numbers had been reversed, would you have come to the same conclusion?
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    You are assuming that the HRM is the correct value. It may be, but it may not be as well.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories?hl=accuracy+of+HRM&page=1%23posts-16031917

    For the record, I always go with the lowest value so is lean towards the HRM as well. I just feel that the boards here tend to overstate the accuracy of HRMs.


    If the numbers had been reversed, would you have come to the same conclusion?
    Exactly
  • xxcooneyxx
    xxcooneyxx Posts: 221 Member
    IF the numbers were reversed, I would still go with the HRM. It's strapped to my chest measuring my actual heart rate. This machine doesn't even read heart rate, and the ones that do, only do it during the time I put my hands on the censor pads. This thing measures me continuously through my entire workout.

    On top of that MFP readings are largely based off of how hard you think you worked. That is such a relative term. "Oh, do I feel like I pushed light? Moderate? Intense? hmmm let me put on a blindfold and pick!" You put a couch potato (same height age weight and gender as me) on a treadmill and me on one, and have us both run a 9 min mile. Chances are I'll call it a light-moderate workout and they will call it intense.

    So would I trust the device strapped to my chest measuring my actual heart rate over a machine without one, one with intermittent HR monitors or what MFP thinks is an intense workout? Absolutely. 100% yes.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    IF the numbers were reversed, I would still go with the HRM. It's strapped to my chest measuring my actual heart rate. This machine doesn't even read heart rate, and the ones that do, only do it during the time I put my hands on the censor pads. This thing measures me continuously through my entire workout.

    On top of that MFP readings are largely based off of how hard you think you worked. That is such a relative term. "Oh, do I feel like I pushed light? Moderate? Intense? hmmm let me put on a blindfold and pick!" You put a couch potato (same height age weight and gender as me) on a treadmill and me on one, and have us both run a 9 min mile. Chances are I'll call it a light-moderate workout and they will call it intense.

    So would I trust the device strapped to my chest measuring my actual heart rate over a machine without one, one with intermittent HR monitors or what MFP thinks is an intense workout? Absolutely. 100% yes.

    That is exactly the problem and my point.
    You should check out the link I posted above. HR is not directly related to calories burned. There is a relationship between HR and VO2 max that allows for *estimation*. These algorithms are based on averages. If you are outside of average, with Hr or VO2, you will get an inaccurate estimate.
    Also, these algorithms are based on steady state moderate intensity cardio. Outside of that, accuracy goes down.

    I agree, vague entries that don't account for intensity (or give vague descriptions of intensity) are less reliable. But entries that have specific activities over specific times at specific paces - like walking 30 minutes at 3.0 mph are fairly well researched and accurate.

    The more info, the closer you will be.

    Another good one in regards to machine estimates
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041
  • JoeCWV
    JoeCWV Posts: 213 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.
  • thavoice
    thavoice Posts: 1,326 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.
    Exactly.

    People are getting too tied up in the HRM and how much calories are burned, or perceived to burn.

    HRM should be used to determine the intensity of your workout and if you are getting the most bang for your buck.
    I use it to figure out how hard I am to be working out and dont give a crap aobut the cals burned. Matter of fact, I took the calories burned off of every tracking screen it has on the watch. I only weat it periodically to see where I am at condition-wise and if I need to amp it up a little bit.

    People are getting to tied up with the HRM and cals burned and trying to figure out what they should or should not eat back etc etc etc.
    I eat at a def and the exercise cals burned create a bonus deficit.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    If you want to use TDEE rather than NEAT, set things up accordingly.
  • MallieRose91
    MallieRose91 Posts: 159 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.

    I use a heart rate monitor and also follow that policy. I just use the heart rate monitor as a tool to see where I am calorie wise for my own sanity. I don't rely on it heavily and avoid eating back the calories. Honestly, unless you are working out for hours or doing something that would cause a MASSIVE amount of calorie burn, then I do not think it is necessary to eat back the calories. Works for me. lol
  • MallieRose91
    MallieRose91 Posts: 159 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.
    Exactly.

    People are getting too tied up in the HRM and how much calories are burned, or perceived to burn.

    HRM should be used to determine the intensity of your workout and if you are getting the most bang for your buck.
    I use it to figure out how hard I am to be working out and dont give a crap aobut the cals burned. Matter of fact, I took the calories burned off of every tracking screen it has on the watch. I only weat it periodically to see where I am at condition-wise and if I need to amp it up a little bit.

    People are getting to tied up with the HRM and cals burned and trying to figure out what they should or should not eat back etc etc etc.
    I eat at a def and the exercise cals burned create a bonus deficit.




    Well put!
  • shining_light
    shining_light Posts: 384 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.

    I use a heart rate monitor and also follow that policy. I just use the heart rate monitor as a tool to see where I am calorie wise for my own sanity. I don't rely on it heavily and avoid eating back the calories. Honestly, unless you are working out for hours or doing something that would cause a MASSIVE amount of calorie burn, then I do not think it is necessary to eat back the calories. Works for me. lol

    Same here. I just set my activity level to "lightly active" and get my 10,000 steps a day.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.

    I use a heart rate monitor and also follow that policy. I just use the heart rate monitor as a tool to see where I am calorie wise for my own sanity. I don't rely on it heavily and avoid eating back the calories. Honestly, unless you are working out for hours or doing something that would cause a MASSIVE amount of calorie burn, then I do not think it is necessary to eat back the calories. Works for me. lol

    It also depends on where you calorie deficit is. If we are talking a huge calorie deficit, it is a good idea to account for exercise somehow. If you have a modest deficit and a bit of exercise, it's not as big of a concern.

    But then, I come from a mindset of balancing performance and weight loss. I don't exercise to lose weight. I want to exercise and lose weight.
  • Erilynn93
    Erilynn93 Posts: 256 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.

    I use a heart rate monitor and also follow that policy. I just use the heart rate monitor as a tool to see where I am calorie wise for my own sanity. I don't rely on it heavily and avoid eating back the calories. Honestly, unless you are working out for hours or doing something that would cause a MASSIVE amount of calorie burn, then I do not think it is necessary to eat back the calories. Works for me. lol

    That's funny because people on these messaging boards keep telling me I need to eat back at least half of my calories burned, but I greatly disagree. I burned them for a reason.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • aarnwine2013
    aarnwine2013 Posts: 317 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.

    I use a heart rate monitor and also follow that policy. I just use the heart rate monitor as a tool to see where I am calorie wise for my own sanity. I don't rely on it heavily and avoid eating back the calories. Honestly, unless you are working out for hours or doing something that would cause a MASSIVE amount of calorie burn, then I do not think it is necessary to eat back the calories. Works for me. lol

    Same here. I just set my activity level to "lightly active" and get my 10,000 steps a day.

    I do the same as well. I have a Garmin Viofit and I love it. You can buy a chest strap and it has a HR setting to track burns. I let the Garmin decide how many calories I have left but I don't eat them back.

    It was huge wakeup call to see that I didn't burn near the calories I thought I did.
  • accelerashawn
    accelerashawn Posts: 470 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.
    Same here....kind of...

    If I was super active all day and know I burned a huge amount...i'd potentially drink that extra glass of milk and eat the rest of my peanut butter...

    but if all i did was fly my desk, and surf the web...then maybe work out for an hour or two...no, stay at my normal calorie goal.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.

    I use a heart rate monitor and also follow that policy. I just use the heart rate monitor as a tool to see where I am calorie wise for my own sanity. I don't rely on it heavily and avoid eating back the calories. Honestly, unless you are working out for hours or doing something that would cause a MASSIVE amount of calorie burn, then I do not think it is necessary to eat back the calories. Works for me. lol

    That's funny because people on these messaging boards keep telling me I need to eat back at least half of my calories burned, but I greatly disagree. I burned them for a reason.

    This site is based on the premise of logging exercise and eating those calories. It is set up that way for a reason.
  • LynndaMaree
    LynndaMaree Posts: 88 Member
    I have to use my Polar hrm when I exercise. I was going by the stats on mfp. They were all wrong. Maybe the calorie count is not as accurate as it could be, but it helps me out a lot. It makes me want to keep exercising and burn even more calories. Since I got it I'm losing every week. And I don't eat back any calories burned. Just my opinion.
  • thavoice
    thavoice Posts: 1,326 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.

    I use a heart rate monitor and also follow that policy. I just use the heart rate monitor as a tool to see where I am calorie wise for my own sanity. I don't rely on it heavily and avoid eating back the calories. Honestly, unless you are working out for hours or doing something that would cause a MASSIVE amount of calorie burn, then I do not think it is necessary to eat back the calories. Works for me. lol

    Same here. I just set my activity level to "lightly active" and get my 10,000 steps a day.

    I do the same as well. I have a Garmin Viofit and I love it. You can buy a chest strap and it has a HR setting to track burns. I let the Garmin decide how many calories I have left but I don't eat them back.

    It was huge wakeup call to see that I didn't burn near the calories I thought I did.

    Yeah, it is a big wake up call about how little we burn in exercise compared to how hard we perceive it to be. One thing that always go me as about 100-120 cals/mile burned while running. Some people it is more if they are much bigger, but that is a general guide. There are times when I had wanted to eat something extra/more and I would think..."is that candy bar worth 3 miles of running???!?"
    I use the HRM to guage intensity, especially if it is a newer type of cardio workout, just to guage if it is the best workout for the time I am giving it!
  • Erilynn93
    Erilynn93 Posts: 256 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.

    I use a heart rate monitor and also follow that policy. I just use the heart rate monitor as a tool to see where I am calorie wise for my own sanity. I don't rely on it heavily and avoid eating back the calories. Honestly, unless you are working out for hours or doing something that would cause a MASSIVE amount of calorie burn, then I do not think it is necessary to eat back the calories. Works for me. lol



    That's funny because people on these messaging boards keep telling me I need to eat back at least half of my calories burned, but I greatly disagree. I burned them for a reason.

    This site is based on the premise of logging exercise and eating those calories. It is set up that way for a reason.

    Yes, but I'm also never sure quite how much I'm actually burning. That's why on days I exercise, I let myself go over my goal a bit, just not nearly as much as it tells me to. I'm going to continue this way until I can afford a HRM or something that can be more reliable for measuring my burns.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.

    I use a heart rate monitor and also follow that policy. I just use the heart rate monitor as a tool to see where I am calorie wise for my own sanity. I don't rely on it heavily and avoid eating back the calories. Honestly, unless you are working out for hours or doing something that would cause a MASSIVE amount of calorie burn, then I do not think it is necessary to eat back the calories. Works for me. lol

    That's funny because people on these messaging boards keep telling me I need to eat back at least half of my calories burned, but I greatly disagree. I burned them for a reason.

    Then use TDEE rather than NEAT otherwise why even bother setting up a deficit on MFP since you ignore its guidance anyway?
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.

    I use a heart rate monitor and also follow that policy. I just use the heart rate monitor as a tool to see where I am calorie wise for my own sanity. I don't rely on it heavily and avoid eating back the calories. Honestly, unless you are working out for hours or doing something that would cause a MASSIVE amount of calorie burn, then I do not think it is necessary to eat back the calories. Works for me. lol



    That's funny because people on these messaging boards keep telling me I need to eat back at least half of my calories burned, but I greatly disagree. I burned them for a reason.

    This site is based on the premise of logging exercise and eating those calories. It is set up that way for a reason.

    Yes, but I'm also never sure quite how much I'm actually burning. That's why on days I exercise, I let myself go over my goal a bit, just not nearly as much as it tells me to. I'm going to continue this way until I can afford a HRM or something that can be more reliable for measuring my burns.

    Again, even with a HRM you don't know what you are really burning. There are plenty of people who get overinflated burns with them.
    Plenty of people have done just fine with thee MFP suggestions.

    You don't need to be accurate, I do suggest being realistic and consistent.

    In the end, you are accounting in some way by allowing a few extra calories, which is good. We don't need exact.

    HRMs are useful, I don't disagree with that, I just hate the thoughts of people spending money they don't necessarily have under the guise of accuracy that they may or may not get.

    (Really, check out the links above. Azdak does a really great job of break down best ways to estimate)
  • aarnwine2013
    aarnwine2013 Posts: 317 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.

    I use a heart rate monitor and also follow that policy. I just use the heart rate monitor as a tool to see where I am calorie wise for my own sanity. I don't rely on it heavily and avoid eating back the calories. Honestly, unless you are working out for hours or doing something that would cause a MASSIVE amount of calorie burn, then I do not think it is necessary to eat back the calories. Works for me. lol

    Same here. I just set my activity level to "lightly active" and get my 10,000 steps a day.

    I do the same as well. I have a Garmin Viofit and I love it. You can buy a chest strap and it has a HR setting to track burns. I let the Garmin decide how many calories I have left but I don't eat them back.

    It was huge wakeup call to see that I didn't burn near the calories I thought I did.

    Yeah, it is a big wake up call about how little we burn in exercise compared to how hard we perceive it to be. One thing that always go me as about 100-120 cals/mile burned while running. Some people it is more if they are much bigger, but that is a general guide. There are times when I had wanted to eat something extra/more and I would think..."is that candy bar worth 3 miles of running???!?"
    I use the HRM to guage intensity, especially if it is a newer type of cardio workout, just to guage if it is the best workout for the time I am giving it!

    I totally put food back in the fridge when I do the math in my head. The first time I wore a HRM, I almost cried... All that work for 100 calories... It really changed the way I view exercise and food.
  • ElliottTN
    ElliottTN Posts: 1,614 Member
    My policy is to not eat back exercise calories. Problem solved.
    word
  • Jessie24330
    Jessie24330 Posts: 224 Member
    I am sure I am going to get called out for this but it works for me. I have looked around at tons of places that say how much I am burning doing any particular exercise and went with a number that was a little lower than they all say. I assign that number to all my cardio, calculated by the minute. This is not my number but if it came out to be 10 calories a minute (for simplicity) and I did 30 minutes on whatever cardio machine, as long as I wasn't walking and and I was keeping my heart rate up enough, I would assign that exercise 300 calories. I don't personally believe that heart rate is directly connected to calorie burn but I do believe that it shows me how hard I am working. Then I also try to have at least 100 calories left at the end of the day. It might not be for anyone else but it simplifies things and works for me.

Categories