BMR, AMR, Calories per hour while awake vs asleep ?

rickloving
rickloving Posts: 90 Member
edited November 12 in Fitness and Exercise
My AMR is roughly calculated at 1960 calories per day. Take the 24 hours timeframe (1,440 minutes) and do the math, 1960/1440 = 1.36 calories per minute.
Has anyone seen or heard of what the estimated “calories per minute” would be looking at while being asleep vs awake..say percentage wise?

Example while asleep, only burn 1 calorie per minute for 8 hours, and 1.55 cals per 16 hours awake.

Total calories asleep and awake still net out to AMR of 1960…

Could I use a rough estimate of heart rate while asleep compare to average heart rate awake?
My HR is in the 40’s while asleep and in the 50’s-60’s while resting/up and moving around doing normal non-strenuous activities.

Before anyone says, why or it isn’t relevant…

I am trying to carefully track my calorie deficit as I am down to my last few lbs of body fat to lose. My AMR calc seems to work very well while at work at my desk. I have consistently lost almost lb for lb my exact calorie deficit over the last 14 weeks. I generally eat back all my calories, exercise included minus about 250 cals per day. I am hitting the weights hard and eating my body weight in protein to minimize the loss of lean tissue, which is why I am trying to avoid too large of a deficit.

Over the weekend, I spent about 16 hours installing 2 new doors and hardwood floor in my kitchen. I know I was a heck of a lot more active than I am at work. I wore my heart rate monitor the 2nd day to see how many “estimated” calories I burnt, I was “over” the 1.36 cal per minute of my average AMR, but not sure if it was just my waking cal per hour or something else.

I still have several more weekends of remodeling projects and would like to be able to eat more, without affecting my planned body fat reduction.

Your thoughts?

Rick

Replies

  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    I'm in as I am curious about the answers as well.

    The only thing I can really chime in on is the wearing of the HRM during installation of the floors and what not. The answer to that question would be "it was something else". HRMs aren't designed to track that kind of activity so the number it read out to you was meaningless.

    HR does not directly correlate to calorie burns which is why it would be inaccurate as it is was assuming you were doing steady state cardio.
  • rickloving
    rickloving Posts: 90 Member
    Yes, it isn't 100% accurate, but the correlation would be there to see a change in output. The largest percentage of calorie burn by product is in CO2 during exhale. The energy processed to fuel my activity increases O2 demand and my heart rate increases to keep my levels balanced.

    So if I wear my HRM for 8 hours at work and track 638 cals (1.33 cal per hour for 8 hours) of inactivity. Then wear my HRM while doing home remodeling for 8 hours and record 800 calories in 8 hours (1.66 cals per hour) , I could estimate a difference of .33 cals per hour...

    This would equate to an extra 317 calories burnt over 16 hours...or an extra 158.5 each day. I could drink an extra protein shake with that...
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    rickloving wrote: »
    Yes, it isn't 100% accurate, but the correlation would be there to see a change in output. The largest percentage of calorie burn by product is in CO2 during exhale. The energy processed to fuel my activity increases O2 demand and my heart rate increases to keep my levels balanced.

    So if I wear my HRM for 8 hours at work and track 638 cals (1.33 cal per hour for 8 hours) of inactivity. Then wear my HRM while doing home remodeling for 8 hours and record 800 calories in 8 hours (1.66 cals per hour) , I could estimate a difference of .33 cals per hour...

    This would equate to an extra 317 calories burnt over 16 hours...or an extra 158.5 each day. I could drink an extra protein shake with that...

    I am not sure I would trust the correlation between the numbers when they aren't accurate to begin with. The formula that spits out the calorie burn estimation is not designed for inactivity or for remodeling your house. It is designed to track steady state cardio. Just not sure how you can come up with any conclusions if the #'s aren't accurate to begin with.

  • rickloving
    rickloving Posts: 90 Member
    My HR isn't spiking up and down, like I'm doing HIT circuits. But if the whole time I am at my desk for an 10 hour shift, my HR floats between 55-65BPM and by comparison, while working on my project for 10 hours, my HR hovers between 75-85BPM due to being generally more active, it is 10 hours of "low level" steady state cardio....

    I have 2 choices, do nothing and KNOW I am burning more calories ( All AMR cals, have BMR modifiers based on activity (sedentary, mild activity, moderately active, etc) so I know the remodeling activity IS burning more cals.

    Or... I can try to give the best estimate possible....to maximize my calories in/calories out goal.

    Using applied differences between how the HRM and fitness tracker (Garmin 910xt) "calculates" estimated calories used, based on a comparison of 2 low level cardio activities with only a 10-20 BPM differences will get me closer than doing nothing.
  • _Waffle_
    _Waffle_ Posts: 13,049 Member
    Have you ever heard of weighing a scoop of protein powder because you don't trust that the label says 150 calories per scoop. Not that you can't be more accurate but there's a diminishing return on the time spent estimating and the difference it makes in your fitness goals. I think you've reached that point. You're not affecting your end results by that much just to factor in a 100 calories that you burned in theory. It's just not worth the hassle.

    Then again if it is worth it to you to find out, by all means keep searching. This is far to specific for most people to help you with.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    rickloving wrote: »
    My HR isn't spiking up and down, like I'm doing HIT circuits. But if the whole time I am at my desk for an 10 hour shift, my HR floats between 55-65BPM and by comparison, while working on my project for 10 hours, my HR hovers between 75-85BPM due to being generally more active, it is 10 hours of "low level" steady state cardio....

    I have 2 choices, do nothing and KNOW I am burning more calories ( All AMR cals, have BMR modifiers based on activity (sedentary, mild activity, moderately active, etc) so I know the remodeling activity IS burning more cals.

    Or... I can try to give the best estimate possible....to maximize my calories in/calories out goal.

    Using applied differences between how the HRM and fitness tracker (Garmin 910xt) "calculates" estimated calories used, based on a comparison of 2 low level cardio activities with only a 10-20 BPM differences will get me closer than doing nothing.

    Using the wrong tool for calculation while striving for greater accuracy is counterproductive.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories