Exercise question

oriole35 · November 2014

I have also joined a gym and have a trainer for a while. She is teaching me core exercises and we do some free weight work as well as some machines each week. I also stationary bike for 35 minutes to warm up.
I don't know about this program but it says I burn way more calories biking than the bike says and I am usually at 80 rpms at level 4-6, and burn about 170. This program says that I burn 460 something. Also if you don't know the name of the machine you have worked out on how in the ______ are you suppose to enter the weight and reps and sets? I can't seem to find a list of machines or common exercises so entering gym information will be a nightmare.
How do you enter your information?

999tigger · November 2014

1. If you are looking for a calorie burn on resistance machines, then most people dont bother. I dont bother with entering resistance exercises although I did see the machines were there.
2. Calorie burns on cardio tends to be hit and miss with MFP being percieved as exaggerating burns. People also exaggerate the effort they put into cardio as well. Most Gym equipment readings tend to be unreliable as well. They are estimates. They become importnat if you start to eat back calories. To that end many people eat back at most 50%.

SueInAz · November 2014

You can enter your strength exercises on the Exercise tab; it's a completely different entry than the Cardio exercises and you'll see it further down the page. You can "guesstimate" the calorie burn from strength exercises in the Cardio section by choosing "Strength training (weight lifting, weight training)". I usually give myself 100 calories or so for a one hour session.

I'd also caution against MFP's cardio entries to earn extra calories. Every one I've seen has been much higher than my heart rate monitor reading for the workout. MFP just doesn't know your level of exertion. Most gym machines also seem to inflate calories burned and you also need to factor out the calories you would have burned just by sitting on the sofa during the time you were exercising, too.

jos05 · November 2014

I would save yourself the hassle of trying to guess...and get yourself a HRM and wear it religiously! That will give you the most accurate calorie burn for your cardio and weight training. Also you can use www.bodybuilding.com to look up the machines and know the names to look for if you want to accurately log all of your workouts on MFP.

good luck!

AgentOrangeJuice · November 2014

jos05 wrote: »

I would save yourself the hassle of trying to guess...and get yourself a HRM and wear it religiously! That will give you the most accurate calorie burn for your cardio and weight training. Also you can use www.bodybuilding.com to look up the machines and know the names to look for if you want to accurately log all of your workouts on MFP.

good luck!

HRM is the most accurate way, make sure to get one with a chest strap, and not just a watch unit only. I suggest the Polar line.

bennettinfinity · November 2014

HRMs are really only good for steady state cardio. The calorie burns of resistance training are negligible - do yourself a favor and just assume zero for your weight machines.

oriole35 · November 2014

Thanks, Everyone
I ordered a Fitbit One last night and got a wrist band for it as well. Now I can't wait to get started.

SueInAz · November 2014

AgentOrangeJuice wrote: »

jos05 wrote: »

I would save yourself the hassle of trying to guess...and get yourself a HRM and wear it religiously! That will give you the most accurate calorie burn for your cardio and weight training. Also you can use www.bodybuilding.com to look up the machines and know the names to look for if you want to accurately log all of your workouts on MFP.

good luck!

HRM is the most accurate way, make sure to get one with a chest strap, and not just a watch unit only. I suggest the Polar line.

Actually, some of the new watch units are very accurate for heart rate, especially the ones that have an integrated smart phone interface. They are using a light system that is far above and beyond the old "hold the contacts for a momentary heart rate" units people used to wear.

oriole35 · November 2014

I have been looking for a new phone and saw these watch type fitness bands. I thought they were a bit big, although they are really cool as far as the display goes. It would be a toss up buying one of those or a HRM. I haven't checked those out yet.
I've been told that my heart rate should peak at 160. Does that mean I should strive to keep it at 160 as I work out? I can't seem to get an answer to this.`

SueInAz · December 2014

oriole35 wrote: »

I have been looking for a new phone and saw these watch type fitness bands. I thought they were a bit big, although they are really cool as far as the display goes. It would be a toss up buying one of those or a HRM. I haven't checked those out yet.
I've been told that my heart rate should peak at 160. Does that mean I should strive to keep it at 160 as I work out? I can't seem to get an answer to this.`

A peak of 160 would mean that it shouldn't go higher than 160. Keep in mind, though, depending on how that number was reached, that every one is different when it comes to max heart rate. According to the calculators, my max should be somewhere between 163 and 186. That's a fairly large deviation. (http://www.digifit.com/heartratezones/maximum-heart-rate.asp?Age=48#table) Better than one of the tables is getting a metabolic assessment done which will give you an individual number.

In reality, when I first started running, it would get up to around 182 before I would start to feel like I needed to slow down for a bit. Now, after several years of running, it doesn't often get over 173 and it doesn't feel the same as it did then. By contrast, my sister, who also runs, is 2 years younger and about the same height and weight as me, can never get her heartrate up that high no matter how hard she goes. She and I will be running side by side during a race and her heart rate is consistently 30 BPM or so slower than mine.

Sued0nim · December 2014

oriole35 wrote: »

Thanks, Everyone
I ordered a Fitbit One last night and got a wrist band for it as well. Now I can't wait to get started.

A fitbit is a pedometer not a HRM - it's good for non-workout stuff so a good purchase to map regular activity, walking and running

the new ones have a pulse reader ...I think it's the force or charge and possibly the yet to be released surge you'd need

oriole35 · January 2015

I still haven't bought a HRM, I lost the Fitbit One about a month after I got it. So got the Charge. I had wanted the Charge HR, but then reading some reviews that said they weren't that accurate. I will look at the Polder HRM's any other suggestions?

brandiuntz · January 2015

bennettinfinity wrote: »

HRMs are really only good for steady state cardio. The calorie burns of resistance training are negligible - do yourself a favor and just assume zero for your weight machines.

^^This. If you're going to use an HRM to estimate calories, the only time it might be accurate is for steady state cardio. HRM's are good for zone training, but as a calorie tracker, they're limited.

As someone else said, if you're inputting calorie burns in MFP, no matter where you get that from (an HRM, machines, etc), best to eat no more than 50% back.

Resistance training doesn't burn a lot of calories during the actual session, which is why the estimate of 100 calories burned is a good suggestion. Its benefits show up in other ways.

wrecktechno · January 2015

if you're not getting calorie burn from resistance training and weights, you're not working hard enough.

oriole35 · February 2015

I did get a Polder HRM, and tested it against the treadmill I use, seem as if they both had the same HR, but not calorie burn. The HRM said I burned 100 more calories than the treadmill.
Which one would you go by for Fitbit? I don't enter my exercise in MFP anymore.

Exercise question

Replies

Categories