Massive Calorie Burns!!
sticky130
Posts: 101 Member
I know everybody says MFP overestimates calories burned, but are people really burning that much?? I'm set at sedentary on MFP and record all exercise throught FitBit. On a really good day I'll burn about 4-450 cals through rowing, walking briskly for about 2 hours and weight lifting. Some friends through who record through MFP are getting between 7-800 calories for going for a walk or cleaning the house! I know people will burn more if they are heavier but I'm no skinny minny at over 200lbs and it amazes me some of these massive burns. Sometimes I feel as though I'm not doing enough or are my counts just more accurate??
How do you record yours?
How do you record yours?
0
Replies
-
How long do you row and weight lift for? 450 sounds too low to me tbh, unless of course you row extremely slowly and lift 3lb weights!0
-
How long do you row and weight lift for? 450 sounds too low to me tbh, unless of course you row extremely slowly and lift 3lb weights!
I do about 30 minutes rowing, and I started 5x5 stronglifts a few weeks back so for example I'm up to squatting with 60lbs.0 -
Good call on StrongLifts, I'm starting on Saturday.
In that case I would say that 450cals is very low if that includes your 2 hour walk also? Do you have a HRM?0 -
Good call on StrongLifts, I'm starting on Saturday.
In that case I would say that 450cals is very low if that includes your 2 hour walk also? Do you have a HRM?
HRM monitor arrives today!!
I thought that may be the only way to definitively find out. And yes this also includes my 2 hour walk.0 -
HRM add in the calories you would of burned had you sat down for 2 hours instead of walked for 2 hours. When I walk my dog for an hour I walk 3.5 miles. Some people on my friend list walk 2 miles in same time. So distance is better to go with as faster you go in same time more you burn. Today my HRM says 834 calories for 1 mile walk and 5 mile run. I would need to take off the amount I would burn if u had done nothing for an hour. Do you know your BMR. I burn 60 cal an hour so as my workout was 80 minutes I take off 80 cal. Maybe this is what your fitbit does automatically for you where some HRm don't.0
-
i didnt think HRMs were effective for strength training?0
-
HRM add in the calories you would of burned had you sat down for 2 hours instead of walked for 2 hours. When I walk my dog for an hour I walk 3.5 miles. Some people on my friend list walk 2 miles in same time. So distance is better to go with as faster you go in same time more you burn. Today my HRM says 834 calories for 1 mile walk and 5 mile run. I would need to take off the amount I would burn if u had done nothing for an hour. Do you know your BMR. I burn 60 cal an hour so as my workout was 80 minutes I take off 80 cal. Maybe this is what your fitbit does automatically for you where some HRm don't.
To be honest I'd only use the HRM for the rowing & strength training not the walking bit as that's tracked through my FitBit. I know my BMR, so are you suggesting I just divide that by 24 to find out my hourly rate? (that works out at 70 an hour also taking fat % play)
I didn't realise that it's no good for strength training? My heart rate goes up quite a bit when I do this, takes me 40 mins to complete a session surely it should give me some idea?:ohwell:0 -
i didnt think HRMs were effective for strength training?
They will record the calories you burn aerobically during strength training, but they can't tell you how many you burn anaerobically/via raised metabolism.0 -
When I record my exercise on MFP which is usually a 30min walk at 4-4.5miles an hour and SL 3x5 which takes between 45-60mins it gives me about 450 calories as well...
HRM are not good for Strength training...only steady state cardio.
Those that are recording burns of 800-900 always have me wondering as well...for example 1 hour of zumba...over 800 calories...yah no...
Not sure why mine seem to be bang on to be honest (always have been even when I started), and I know they are pretty accurate because I use TDEE based on my own data and it is pretty bang on too.0 -
i didnt think HRMs were effective for strength training?
They will record the calories you burn aerobically during strength training, but they can't tell you how many you burn anaerobically/via raised metabolism.
No, because HR is a proxy for calorie consumption the assumptions in the algorithm completely break down. It becomes meaningless in strength training as there are too many variables to account for.0 -
HRM add in the calories you would of burned had you sat down for 2 hours instead of walked for 2 hours. When I walk my dog for an hour I walk 3.5 miles. Some people on my friend list walk 2 miles in same time. So distance is better to go with as faster you go in same time more you burn. Today my HRM says 834 calories for 1 mile walk and 5 mile run. I would need to take off the amount I would burn if u had done nothing for an hour. Do you know your BMR. I burn 60 cal an hour so as my workout was 80 minutes I take off 80 cal. Maybe this is what your fitbit does automatically for you where some HRm don't.
To be honest I'd only use the HRM for the rowing & strength training not the walking bit as that's tracked through my FitBit. I know my BMR, so are you suggesting I just divide that by 24 to find out my hourly rate? (that works out at 70 an hour also taking fat % play)
I didn't realise that it's no good for strength training? My heart rate goes up quite a bit when I do this, takes me 40 mins to complete a session surely it should give me some idea?:ohwell:
Yeah when using HRM take off 1/24th of your BMR if your session was 1 hr. Some HRM do this for you so depends on model it should say whether it's gross or net calories. It will give you some idea for strength training but it will be a low estimate as your metabolism will be up for hours after a session. I wouldn't worry about it to much your doing great and working out plenty. If you start losing weight to fast or feel tired and hungry up your calories. Do you measure as sometimes you will lose way more inches than weight strength training.0 -
HRM add in the calories you would of burned had you sat down for 2 hours instead of walked for 2 hours. When I walk my dog for an hour I walk 3.5 miles. Some people on my friend list walk 2 miles in same time. So distance is better to go with as faster you go in same time more you burn. Today my HRM says 834 calories for 1 mile walk and 5 mile run. I would need to take off the amount I would burn if u had done nothing for an hour. Do you know your BMR. I burn 60 cal an hour so as my workout was 80 minutes I take off 80 cal. Maybe this is what your fitbit does automatically for you where some HRm don't.
To be honest I'd only use the HRM for the rowing & strength training not the walking bit as that's tracked through my FitBit. I know my BMR, so are you suggesting I just divide that by 24 to find out my hourly rate? (that works out at 70 an hour also taking fat % play)
I didn't realise that it's no good for strength training? My heart rate goes up quite a bit when I do this, takes me 40 mins to complete a session surely it should give me some idea?:ohwell:
Yeah when using HRM take off 1/24th of your BMR if your session was 1 hr. Some HRM do this for you so depends on model it should say whether it's gross or net calories. It will give you some idea for strength training but it will be a low estimate as your metabolism will be up for hours after a session. I wouldn't worry about it to much your doing great and working out plenty. If you start losing weight to fast or feel tired and hungry up your calories. Do you measure as sometimes you will lose way more inches than weight strength training.
Oh yes! I learnt the hard way about the tape measure (lol) I weigh in once a week now, and every 3-4 weeks get attacked with a tape measure as well :bigsmile:
I must admit with what I've been recording it has been pretty steady and other than the bumpy start with the lifting (lovely retained water) it's been fine since. Just though I'd add in the rowing now a few days a week when I'm not lifting. I go on hols 10th September and I'd like to shift another half stone by then.0 -
It will give you some idea for strength training but it will be a low estimate as your metabolism will be up for hours after a session.
It'll give a significant overestimate, as it can't account for the spikes in heart rate going up to anaerobic range not reflecting the actual calorie consumption. the effect of post exercise oxygen consumption is negligible, essentially single figures of additional consumption.
The reason that improved body composition helps exercise efficiency in the long term is the relative effectiveness of lean mass. The point is not burning extra calories after a session, but in improving the bodies ability to convert fuel.0 -
I've got no idea how intense Zumba is tbh, so I can't comment.
I do know that if I walked for 2 hours, strength trained for an hour then rowed for another 30 mins and then if I saw just 450 cals burned at the end I'd be pretty discouraged. I still think that's too low for what you're doing, I'm convinced you're actually burning more than that. Maybe it all comes down to how intensity?0 -
I use my HRM (Polar FT60) for Steady state cardio and have figured up my calorie burn through trial and error to account for my strength training. I never have used any other method of tracking calorie burn besides that. I average 1000 to 1500 calories burned during exercise and that equates on average to about 2 hours sessions. HRM is just a guess too but I trust those numbers from it over random numbers given by the machines or elsewhere... Best of Luck0
-
I trust my HRM for the most part. 450 for what you're doing seems way too low. I know a few people with Fitbits and I'd heard they're good for calculating daily activities but not necessarily workout sessions.
According to my HRM, I'll burn between 500-600 during hour-long cycling classes but that's fairly steady state cardio at high intensity. If I take Body Pump (which combines strength and cardio), it tells me I'll burn 400-450-ish in the same amount of time. I use the numbers because I don't trust the ones on MFP, they seem high. I also haven't found anything else more accurate.
I have seen people log 1000+ calories for general gym activities but I don't know how they arrive at those numbers. Highest I've ever gotten was 900-ish but that was with well over two hours at the gym.0 -
Good call on StrongLifts, I'm starting on Saturday.
In that case I would say that 450cals is very low if that includes your 2 hour walk also? Do you have a HRM?
450 would be the burn above the the usual metabolic burn (which is 50~150 cals already included in your MFP numbers, woops) so it isn't too high for a two hour walk.
Most HRM are useless for either low intensity work like walking or high HR/low oxygen consumption work like lifting - the calibration curves are not intended for those activity curves - there are a few watches that do take those into account but they tend to cost more.
High burns for me would be 4-8 hrs of mountain biking or alpine trekking.
ETA: 450 estimate would be for walking ... if you are also rowing for 20-30 minutes AND weightlifting seriously for 30-45 minutes - it is likely an underestimate.0 -
Those calories will not be any where near accurate as the algorithm is only set up for steady state cardioi didnt think HRMs were effective for strength training?
They will record the calories you burn aerobically during strength training, but they can't tell you how many you burn anaerobically/via raised metabolism.0 -
I also noticed that the MFP calories burned are always way higher than my HRM. I swear by my Garmin HRM for all cardio activities. It usually takes me 2 hours (or close to it) of high intensity cardio to break into the 1,000's.0
-
Those that are recording burns of 800-900 always have me wondering as well...for example 1 hour of zumba...over 800 calories...yah no...
It's related to mass and intensity.
The other day, @ 165lbs, I burned 830 KCal in 47.5 minutes running.0 -
It usually takes me 2 hours (or close to it) of high intensity cardio to break into the 1,000's.
At about 100 cals/ mile about 1000 cals is 10 miles, so about 90 minutes worth of effort. I find the rowing machine gets me about 60-70% of the calorie consumption by time of running, and road cycling is about 50-60% of running consumption.0 -
Yikes! I was looking for help among my friends regarding HRMs and activity trackers.... now this topic is making me more indecisive! I know we want an accurate calorie burn, but I never "eat back" all of my exercise calories anyway (well, at least not intentionally)...0
-
Good call on StrongLifts, I'm starting on Saturday.
In that case I would say that 450cals is very low if that includes your 2 hour walk also? Do you have a HRM?
450 would be the burn above the the usual metabolic burn (which is 50~150 cals already included in your MFP numbers, woops) so it isn't too high for a two hour walk.
Most HRM are useless for either low intensity work like walking or high HR/low oxygen consumption work like lifting - the calibration curves are not intended for those activity curves - there are a few watches that do take those into account but they tend to cost more.
High burns for me would be 4-8 hrs of mountain biking or alpine trekking.
ETA: 450 estimate would be for walking ... if you are also rowing for 20-30 minutes AND weightlifting seriously for 30-45 minutes - it is likely an underestimate.
I don't think its included in my MFP numbers as I have MFP set at sedentary, so if I don't do the work, I don't get to eat it back if that makes sense. Also the 4-450 calories is all the activity, not just the walking. I also don't record activity using MFP as I don't trust the numbers, it's always way higher that Fitbit so I stick with those figures. :ohwell:0 -
Sunday morning gym session with Polar heart monitor 1700 + calories (2.5hrs In Total)
Treadmill Run 5k, Spin Class & Kettlercise, all cardio with some strength training thrown In
on the bike & kettles
Works for me, hope this helps ....0 -
Those that are recording burns of 800-900 always have me wondering as well...for example 1 hour of zumba...over 800 calories...yah no...
It's related to mass and intensity.
The other day, @ 165lbs, I burned 830 KCal in 47.5 minutes running.
Yah I did Zumba at my heaviest and put a lot of effort into it...i love dancing...
no way it burned over 800 calories for me...I was about 190lbs...
Zumba can be quite intense if you put a lot into it and jump a lot and do the moves very exaggerated...but then there is the lull between sets, the warm up the cool down...so in reality you are probably really only going "hard" for about 40mins...
but that means HRM aren't good for this as it's not steady state.
For me to burn 800 calories would require a 2 hour walk at 4mph, 1h 40min @ 4.5mph (both of which are my normal pace) or ride my bike at a moderate pace for 90mins...and I am at 152lbs...
Trust me the biking is more strenuous than Zumba could ever be.0 -
Yikes! I was looking for help among my friends regarding HRMs and activity trackers.... now this topic is making me more indecisive! I know we want an accurate calorie burn, but I never "eat back" all of my exercise calories anyway (well, at least not intentionally)...
The purpose of an HRM is not to measure calorie consumption, it's an additional capability that's available as a result of using HR as a proxy for calorie consumption.
If you're not eating back the calorie expenditure, without exploring whether that's sensible or not, then it's pointless to spend the money on something that doesn't really do what you need and you wouldn't actually be using the information from anyway.0 -
Sunday morning gym session with Polar heart monitor 1700 + calories (2.5hrs In Total)
Treadmill Run 5k, Spin Class & Kettlercise, all cardio with some strength training thrown In
on the bike & kettles
Works for me, hope this helps ....
300 Cals from the run, the rest is probably over-estimated0 -
It may well be, I'm only posting what It has recorded ...
200Lbs In weight 47yr old so I'm working hard & the HR Is set to my exact weight, height, age etc
It recorded :
Run 472, not jogging, running at pace
Spin 681
Kettles 614
I'm already warmed up & my heart rate Is higher from the treadmill, so the calorie burn I would expect to be higher
at each of the next classes ..
If nothing else It's a great motivator
Get one ...0 -
i didnt think HRMs were effective for strength training?
When I lift I use my HRM, but I record the time in MFP as cardiovascular circuit training for the amount of time that I spent lifting (i.e 45 minutes). That nets me about 65-70% of what my HRM tells me. I have 18 months of spreadsheets with tons of data and this method is pretty much spot on for me and my results reflect this.0 -
HRMs are only accurate when calculating calories burned for steady state cardio (running, jogging, walking, eliptical)
I don't trust the accuracy of zumba burns. Sure "it's intense" but you are not maintaining the same HR for the entirety of the workout, no way.
I also base it on myself. At 160 I burned ~300 calories in a 1/2 hour with an average HR of 180, which is 90% my max effort. When I see people log 30 minutes walking or jogging as 300-400, I assume that they are over logging and probably have no idea.
I switched to TDEE method a while back and I like it better because I don't do as much cardio. I'm totally unsure how much I burn lifting, so it's easier just to eat the same goal every day.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions