calories & exercise

SuperMom7814
SuperMom7814 Posts: 5
edited November 9 in Fitness and Exercise
How do you calculate the calories you lose while exercising?? :\

Replies

  • lancelyell
    lancelyell Posts: 60 Member
    All depends on your metabolism. It's not as easy as calories in and calories out for most people. I always recommend people track their calories for a week so I can determine if the proper calorie deficit to avoid metabolic damage
  • sofaking6
    sofaking6 Posts: 4,589 Member
    I think for most people the best way is using a heart rate monitor (HRM) to track your level of effort which generally = calories burned. I estimate mine based on my height/weight/fitness level:
    5 per min for light exercise, 7 for regular and 10 if I'm all-out dying :) I'm 5'3, 160 and beginner/intermediate level.
    So this is the Super Unscientific Method :)
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    SuperMom7814 wrote: »
    How do you calculate the calories you lose while exercising?? :\

    Depends what kind of exercise you're doing. For most activities just use the MFP database, put in your time and perceived effort.

    If you do any running, cycling, walking or similar outside you can use GPS tracking apps that'll give you an approximation based on time and distance; Runkeeper, Endomondo, MapMyFitness.

    It doesn't sound like you do enough running or cycling that an HRM would be a worthwhile investment.

    Lots of people on here will just suggest an HRM regardless but in practice their usefulness as a calorie approximator are pretty limited outside a fairly narrow subset of activities; running, cycling, rowing etc.
  • sofaking6
    sofaking6 Posts: 4,589 Member
    I would say that WHATEVER you do, don't use the MFP estimates for exercises. Unless you weigh 4-500 pounds they are very far over anything realistic.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    sofaking6 wrote: »
    I would say that WHATEVER you do, don't use the MFP estimates for exercises. Unless you weigh 4-500 pounds they are very far over anything realistic.

    Depends what you're doing, in comparison tests on running, cycling, swimming, rowing using a range of tools they're generally inside a normal distribution, albeit a little high.

    Given that nothing is definitive outside a lab, as long as one uses them consistently and tracks progress, tweaking as required, MFP is no more nor less inaccurate than anything else.
  • hill8570
    hill8570 Posts: 1,466 Member
    While I realize part of the philosophy of MFP is that you "eat back" at least part of your exercise calories, I'd encourage you to not do that for the first few weeks (unless you're a serious gym rat, and popping off 1000 calories of exercise). If you end up losing faster than your target rate, then start eating back a percentage of your calories.
  • SuperMom7814
    SuperMom7814 Posts: 5
    Ok well since i recently had a c-section does that make it harder to lose the weight or just harder to tone up, or is it a bit of both??
  • LKArgh
    LKArgh Posts: 5,178 Member
    SuperMom7814 wrote: »
    Ok well since i recently had a c-section does that make it harder to lose the weight or just harder to tone up, or is it a bit of both??

    How recently? Until your dr clears you for exercise, do not try anything on your own. I had the pleasure of tearing one of the stitches open a few weeks after my last c-section and it is not an experience I recommend.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    sofaking6 wrote: »
    I would say that WHATEVER you do, don't use the MFP estimates for exercises. Unless you weigh 4-500 pounds they are very far over anything realistic.

    a lot of people say that, but i have always used MFP numbers, and i have always lost weight steadily eating back my exercise cals. my starting weight was 140 odd pounds, not 400!
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited February 2015
    sofaking6 wrote: »
    I would say that WHATEVER you do, don't use the MFP estimates for exercises. Unless you weigh 4-500 pounds they are very far over anything realistic.

    That is a dreadful generalisation and exaggeration.
    Walking and running are very standard calculations. Strength training is very conservative.

    Sure some seem inaccurate - but some of those inaccuracies are under as well as over. Even some of the cycling ones would appear to me to be a mixture of too low, about right and too high depending on speed.

    To answer the OP's question:
    For cardio in the gym I use a Polar HRM (with customised settings).
    For cycling I use a Garmin HRM/GPS unit.
    For strength training I just guess.
    For indoor cycle training I use a power meter equipped bike.

    There are plenty of websites you can compare MFP numbers against but it really depends on what your exercise is.

    In the past I've also used phone apps (Runkeeper, Strava), taken the numbers from gym cardio machines that display watts and used a bog standard HRM.

    It's really not that difficult to come up with reasonable estimates using a bit of common sense. And that includes using the MFP database.
  • SuperMom7814
    SuperMom7814 Posts: 5
    aggelikik wrote: »
    SuperMom7814 wrote: »
    Ok well since i recently had a c-section does that make it harder to lose the weight or just harder to tone up, or is it a bit of both??

    How recently? Until your dr clears you for exercise, do not try anything on your own. I had the pleasure of tearing one of the stitches open a few weeks after my last c-section and it is not an experience I recommend.
    Not too too recent i tried working out a few weeks after but it was too much on my body i decided to wait a while and ended upon procrastinating for about seven months now
  • sofaking6
    sofaking6 Posts: 4,589 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    sofaking6 wrote: »
    I would say that WHATEVER you do, don't use the MFP estimates for exercises. Unless you weigh 4-500 pounds they are very far over anything realistic.

    Depends what you're doing, in comparison tests on running, cycling, swimming, rowing using a range of tools they're generally inside a normal distribution, albeit a little high.

    Given that nothing is definitive outside a lab, as long as one uses them consistently and tracks progress, tweaking as required, MFP is no more nor less inaccurate than anything else.

    385 calories for 20 minutes of aerobics does not seem realistic to me. I'm 5'3 155 lb...there is no way I burn even half of that no matter what I do in those 20 minutes.

    For strength training I have no idea, you're right - I don't use those options since I don't lift so I'll refine my assertion to just include things I do on the regular, aerobics and circuit training.

  • hill8570
    hill8570 Posts: 1,466 Member
    sofaking6 wrote: »
    385 calories for 20 minutes of aerobics does not seem realistic to me. I'm 5'3 155 lb...there is no way I burn even half of that no matter what I do in those 20 minutes.

    ???? Even for "Aerobics, High Impact" MFP only gives me 200 calories gross for 20 minutes (roughly 170 net). Within the realm of reasonable if I was rockin' and rollin'. And I'm 6', 190 (old as crap, 'tho). Does it really give 385 for you?

    Personally, I've found the MFP data to be pretty reasonable for me (taking into account it's a gross burn, not net, but that applies to pretty much any method of getting calorie burn).
This discussion has been closed.

Categories