Correct calories burned???

Options
techcommdood
techcommdood Posts: 37 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I'm skeptical about the amount of calories burned performing certain activities. The one I can monitor using another means (treadmill, Wii, etc.) seem to be accurate, but the one that really stands out as odd is "shoveling snow". Given we got pounded here (18") I used snow shoveling as my daily cardio (over an hour earlier this week!), but the caloric burn seems high. Is there a way to read about the intended intensity levels of the exercises in MyFitnessPal? I don't want to cheat the system, nor myself.

Replies

  • HotSouthernMess
    HotSouthernMess Posts: 474 Member
    Options
    i agree! this has concerned me too. i did 20 minutes on the stationary bike last night and the bike read i burned 100 cals...when i punched it in on here, it said 265 cals burned. i had to change it to "very light effort" which i wouldnt agree with either! lol i am interested to see where they get their numbers from....
  • lilchino4af
    lilchino4af Posts: 1,292 Member
    Options
    Best way to know exactly how much you burn in any activity is to invest in a heart rate monitor. You can get a decent one at Walmart for around $20. Really good ones w/chest straps range anywhere from $75 up.
  • BigBoneSista
    BigBoneSista Posts: 2,389 Member
    Options
    Invest in a heart rate monitor. If you search HRM on hear you will find alot of threads create about them. I just got one 2 days ago and now I have no questions regarding my calories lost.
  • scagneti
    scagneti Posts: 707 Member
    Options
    I don't know if it's correct or not, but shovelling snow is quite a workout! Your legs & arms are both engaged. Your heart beats faster (and you're often cold so your body needs to warm itself up). Your core is used to steady your balance and you're trampling all over the place (and walking through snow is much more difficult than walking on paved sidewalk).

    I think the only way you know for sure is one of those fancy heart rate monitors, but I'd go by the number that MFP indicates and maybe only eat back a portion of the calories if you feel it's really high.
  • MrsKelly73
    MrsKelly73 Posts: 23
    Options
    I agree...they seem over estimated....I'm going to stay on the conservative side of the numbers and see what happens. this is only day 3 for me! so lets up it all pans out at my first weigh in!
  • techcommdood
    techcommdood Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    Looks like the consensus is to get a heart rate monitor then. Thanks everyone! Now, is there a way to plug heart rate into MyFitnessPal to get at a calories burned, or do I have to do the calculations externally and plug something else in here?
  • hardybelle83
    hardybelle83 Posts: 57
    Options
    If you get a good HRM, it will tell you calories burned (based on your age, height, weight, gender) for each workout session. My husband & I each have a Polar FT7 and we love them.
  • BigBoneSista
    BigBoneSista Posts: 2,389 Member
    Options
    I have the Polar FT4 and I love it. Which ever brand u purchase I think the chest strap is more accurate. I've tried 2 wrist only ones and the failed miserably.
  • techcommdood
    techcommdood Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    Thanks! On the Polar, how is the chest strap? I was surprised that all of the ones I've looked at come with chest straps. No finger/wrist tracking?
  • lal73
    lal73 Posts: 116
    Options
    I have had concerns my self about the caloreis associated with certain excersises on this data base.....but...60 minutes of shoveling show is probablly about 400 - 500 calories......High impact 60 minutes aeorobic class can burn up to 600, so im guessing the snow shoveling is about right....
  • BigBoneSista
    BigBoneSista Posts: 2,389 Member
    Options
    Thanks! On the Polar, how is the chest strap? I was surprised that all of the ones I've looked at come with chest straps. No finger/wrist tracking?

    It is surprisingly comfortable. I jog with it on and play my wii & kinect games with no dis comfort. I thought my chest would be a problem...nope.

    The pedometers with HRM comes with finger tracking. I tried a $50 one and a $89 one...they both did poorly.
  • techcommdood
    techcommdood Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the follow-up! I've tossed the Polar one into one of my Amazon lists. Next rewards kickback... :-)

    And congratulations on nearly 100 lbs lost! Wow!!!
  • Lisa1971
    Lisa1971 Posts: 3,069 Member
    Options
    Yep, A HRM is the way to go! I have a Polar F3 and I LOVEEEEEEEEE IT!
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    Options
    The only accurate way to determine calories burned is in a human calorimeter where you do the activity in a special room and all energy input and waste output is measured to determine what your body is burning. The second most accurate is a metabolic cart where your inspired oxygen & CO2 and exhaled oxygen and CO2 are measured to estimate oxygen usage to determine calorie needs, but that usually has to be done in a lab setting as well. And it is an estimate based on human calorimetry. Anything done outside of a lab is an estimate, even heart rate monitors. If you have had a cup of coffee, for example, a heart rate monitor will estimate a high calorie burn because of the artificially elevated heart rate from the caffeine. The machines at the gym base their estimation of calorie burns on a 150 pound person, so if you are above or below 150 pounds, it will estimate incorrectly for you. The estimator on MFP uses a MET estimate. METs are metabolic equivalents. Certain activities have been tested in a lab to estimate how many times your base metabolism they elevate calorie burns. The base metabolism is estimated to be 1 MET, so if you double your resting metabolic rate, you're working at 2 METs. A basic estimate of calories burned then comes from multiplying the MET level of the exercise by your weight in kilograms to get calories per hour. Because of the possible inaccuracy of heart rate monitors because of medications, smoking, caffeine, or alcohol intake, we use the METs system for anything we are doing outside of our lab where we have a metabolic cart. So, I trust the system here more then I would any other estimate because those MET numbers are based on actual lab tests. The MET is the average of what people were burning in a lab test.
  • techcommdood
    techcommdood Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    Tonya, all well and good, but given my lack of resources for a bona fide laboratory and lack for a truly descriptive MET activity breakdown, I'm afraid that leaves me at step 1 (wondering how accurate the activity is and how well I'm adhering to the definition of said activity).
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    Options
    Sorry. Here is the METs compendium we use at our school. Just pick the activity level closest to what you are doing and multiply the MET level by your weight in kilograms (pounds / 2.2 = kilograms) to get calories per hour. Divide by 60 and multiply by however many minutes you actually do to get the estimation of calories burned.

    http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf
  • techcommdood
    techcommdood Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    The document helps, but still it's a bit ambiguous for many activities as to what they actually entail. Some are measurable enough (provide watts, speeds, etc.) but others are unknowns. Take rock guitar at 4.0 METs... Does that assume non-stop playing, and does that assume a Tom Petty performance or an Angus Young performance? Very, very different.

    What started this was my activity burn for "shoveling snow" using MFP. It said I burned 1003 calories for a total of 80 minutes. That seemed high to me, but I certainly was moving non-stop the whole time (this was a total of 80 minutes over 3 sessions... we got a lot of snow). Does the activity assume a constant shoveling motion (scoop, toss, repeat) or does it take into account the real-world action of hand-plowing and then scooping/shoveling the resulting pile at the end of the plowed row?

    It's just very difficult to try to find the right guesstimate (I realize I won't be able to get exact numbers). I just don't want to overshoot the actual burn by too much and eat the mistaken difference, nor do I want to underestimate too much and potentially kick my metabolism into a reserve mode despite the activity.
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    Options
    From everything I've been taught about the METs compendium, it is an average. So some people in the study probably half-assed it and others in the study probably pushed to their max and most were probably somewhere in between. Like I said earlier, nothing we have access to is 100% accurate. Maybe the best estimate would be an average you get from a heart rate monitor (if you aren't on any medications, caffeine, smoke, etc to artificially elevate your heart rate), the METs compendium, and MFP's estimate.
  • techcommdood
    techcommdood Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I think the plan is to use the heart rate monitor to just assess whether the METs are in the ballpark. Though health is a science, controlling your own caloric equilibrium is more of an art. Or a craft. Arts & crafts? Maybe I should just sniff the glue... ;-)

Categories