Am I really burning less calories?
carmenrosab
Posts: 44 Member
I've been doing Insanity for three weeks now. I noticed that, although I'm getting stronger and better at the exercises, I am not burning as many calories. Is it too early to say that? I am still pushing as hard and probably doing more of the reps since I am able to. I wear a heart monitor so I'm assuming that's pretty accurate.
0
Replies
-
Hard to say for certain, but it's not uncommon. Most people don't increase effort/intensity as fast as their body progresses. Less relative effort means less overall calorie burn, assuming all other factors remain constant.
0 -
HRMs are only accurate for steady state cardio ... not intervals ... not lifting ... not yoga ... not most workout DVDs.0
-
@brianpperkins so I shouldn't use my heart rate monitor as a calorie counter when I do insanity? What should I use?0
-
carmenrosab wrote: »@brianpperkins so I shouldn't use my heart rate monitor as a calorie counter when I do insanity? What should I use?
HRMs are not calorie counters, period. Even under the best circumstances, they are near approximations and that is only for steady state cardio .
0 -
Can you get a graph out of the HRM, or is it just a basic "average heart rate" sort of model? I'd assume what you're seeing is a quicker heart rate drop during the recovery portions due to better fitness, which lowers your average heart rate. Unlikely your "real" calorie burn has changed all that much (since the majority of the burn is during the high-intensity portions), but if the calorie burn algorithm is some variation of "average heart rate times fudge factor" (pretty typical), the number out of the HRM is going to be lower. One reasons why HRMs are relatively useless for measuring burn for non-steady-state cardio. Clear as mud?0
-
@hill8570 Nope its just a basic monitor. It shows me what I am burning as I am progressing. I am assuming that Insanity is considered Calisthenics, is that right? Because when I put it into the MFP exercise calculator, it gives me a way higher calorie burn. I just feel like I'm putting in more work and getting less of a calorie burn. In the end I guess it doesn't matter much since I'm toning up really nicely and I'm losing weight. So obviously its not so bad. IDK I'm just rambling I guess, its pretty confusing. If I have to do math to figure this out then forget it
0 -
I'll add that if you've lost weight, you'll burn less too. You'll need to adjust you BMR every 10 lbs or so
. 0 -
@May_Rose I wish I could copy and paste your arms onto my body!0
-
HRM are an approximation, so if your aim is to lose weight use those results conservatively.
I'll give you an example - on a hot day, your HR is likely to be elevated doing the equivalent workout (say, run 5 km. Calories from running are almost independent of pace or HR, mass, route and distance are the major contributors) than on a cool day.
Your calorie burn is pretty much the same, but your HR monitor would say you burnt more calories. Sad but true, our monitors are just approximations. Even for steady state cardio (say a 20-21 minute effort), I have averaged anything from 150 to 165 bpm, depending on temperature, fitness level, fatigue, caffeine intake, sleep state, and other factors.0 -
So basically, its better to under estimate than over estimate. My HRM shows the least amount of calories burned so I guess I'll use that instead of what MFP or the online calculators say. And from what I gather, there really is no great way to calculate calories burned?0
-
You can @carmenrosa...you should have seen my stick arms four year ago . Keep up the good work! 0
-
carmenrosab wrote: »So basically, its better to under estimate than over estimate. My HRM shows the least amount of calories burned so I guess I'll use that instead of what MFP or the online calculators say. And from what I gather, there really is no great way to calculate calories burned?
I have the Polar FT 7 HRM which I use for HIIT workouts like Insanity, TurboFire, and Focus T25. Like yours, my HRM also says that I burned less calories than MFP. I record the number of calories burned that my HRM lists.0 -
Hard to say for certain, but it's not uncommon. Most people don't increase effort/intensity as fast as their body progresses. Less relative effort means less overall calorie burn, assuming all other factors remain constant.
This is not true. Calories burned are determined by absolute effort, not relative. If I run a mile at an 8:00/mile pace, I burn about 105 calories. That was true a year ago, when an 8:00 pace was at my limit, and it's true now, even though I have gotten faster. The difference is that I can run farther in the same amount of time, and thus burn more calories.
Some people think that they burn fewer calories at the same effort as they get more fit because their HRMs show a lower calorie burn. That's because trained athletes' hearts get larger, so they pump the same amount of blood with fewer heartbeats. The HRM doesn't know that, so it assumes fewer heartbeats mean fewer calories.0 -
Hard to say for certain, but it's not uncommon. Most people don't increase effort/intensity as fast as their body progresses. Less relative effort means less overall calorie burn, assuming all other factors remain constant.
This is not true. Calories burned are determined by absolute effort, not relative. If I run a mile at an 8:00/mile pace, I burn about 105 calories. That was true a year ago, when an 8:00 pace was at my limit, and it's true now, even though I have gotten faster. The difference is that I can run farther in the same amount of time, and thus burn more calories.
Some people think that they burn fewer calories at the same effort as they get more fit because their HRMs show a lower calorie burn. That's because trained athletes' hearts get larger, so they pump the same amount of blood with fewer heartbeats. The HRM doesn't know that, so it assumes fewer heartbeats mean fewer calories.
This is true for simpler activities with consistent workloads in which performing the movement does not require a lot of skill. For something like a workout class or video, mechanical efficiency will be more variable. Depending on the structure of the workout and the ability of the exerciser, it might be possible to reach a point where work intensity cannot be increased any more.
0 -
HRMs don't give reliable calorie estimates for activities like Insanity.
0 -
Hard to say for certain, but it's not uncommon. Most people don't increase effort/intensity as fast as their body progresses. Less relative effort means less overall calorie burn, assuming all other factors remain constant.
This is not true. Calories burned are determined by absolute effort, not relative. If I run a mile at an 8:00/mile pace, I burn about 105 calories. That was true a year ago, when an 8:00 pace was at my limit, and it's true now, even though I have gotten faster. The difference is that I can run farther in the same amount of time, and thus burn more calories.
Some people think that they burn fewer calories at the same effort as they get more fit because their HRMs show a lower calorie burn. That's because trained athletes' hearts get larger, so they pump the same amount of blood with fewer heartbeats. The HRM doesn't know that, so it assumes fewer heartbeats mean fewer calories.
Very Interesting...I had no idea. So I am right, I am working harder but it is just not showing that I am.0 -
Hard to say for certain, but it's not uncommon. Most people don't increase effort/intensity as fast as their body progresses. Less relative effort means less overall calorie burn, assuming all other factors remain constant.
This is not true. Calories burned are determined by absolute effort, not relative. If I run a mile at an 8:00/mile pace, I burn about 105 calories. That was true a year ago, when an 8:00 pace was at my limit, and it's true now, even though I have gotten faster. The difference is that I can run farther in the same amount of time, and thus burn more calories.
Some people think that they burn fewer calories at the same effort as they get more fit because their HRMs show a lower calorie burn. That's because trained athletes' hearts get larger, so they pump the same amount of blood with fewer heartbeats. The HRM doesn't know that, so it assumes fewer heartbeats mean fewer calories.
A question for those more knowledgeable them I am on this subject....
While I agree that the energy need to move a person of a given weight (lot's say 150 lbs) at a specific pace (8:00/mile) will be consistent (absolute), just for example purposes let's say it take 100 Watts output to move a 150 lbs person a mile in 8:00 minutes. But since our bodies are not 100% efficient would it not take less fuel (calories) to generate that 100 watt output as we become more fit (efficient). Is this not the purpose of training, to get more fit and efficient so we require less fuel for the same output? Along the analogy of a poorly tuned automobile having poorer fuel consumption then the same automobile being properly tuned. And since calories are fuel would we not burn fewer calories as we become more fit?0 -
Also the MFP calorie burns are pretty inflated. I would always underestimate their numbers. For example if I ran for 60 minutes I would log it as 30 and eat those calories. I lost steadily so the exact accuracy of mfp's burns didn't worry me much.0
-
getalife9353 wrote: »Hard to say for certain, but it's not uncommon. Most people don't increase effort/intensity as fast as their body progresses. Less relative effort means less overall calorie burn, assuming all other factors remain constant.
This is not true. Calories burned are determined by absolute effort, not relative. If I run a mile at an 8:00/mile pace, I burn about 105 calories. That was true a year ago, when an 8:00 pace was at my limit, and it's true now, even though I have gotten faster. The difference is that I can run farther in the same amount of time, and thus burn more calories.
Some people think that they burn fewer calories at the same effort as they get more fit because their HRMs show a lower calorie burn. That's because trained athletes' hearts get larger, so they pump the same amount of blood with fewer heartbeats. The HRM doesn't know that, so it assumes fewer heartbeats mean fewer calories.
A question for those more knowledgeable them I am on this subject....
While I agree that the energy need to move a person of a given weight (lot's say 150 lbs) at a specific pace (8:00/mile) will be consistent (absolute), just for example purposes let's say it take 100 Watts output to move a 150 lbs person a mile in 8:00 minutes. But since our bodies are not 100% efficient would it not take less fuel (calories) to generate that 100 watt output as we become more fit (efficient). Is this not the purpose of training, to get more fit and efficient so we require less fuel for the same output? Along the analogy of a poorly tuned automobile having poorer fuel consumption then the same automobile being properly tuned. And since calories are fuel would we not burn fewer calories as we become more fit?
Theoretically this might be true, however, mechanical efficiency does not increase nearly as much as people think--and not enough to account for changes in HRM calorie readings. A study of young, professional cyclists showed that in 5 years, riding thousands of miles each year, pedaling efficiency increased by only 3%-6%.
The oxygen cost of performing an activity is relatively constant. For example, the aerobic cost of running 6 mph is a relatively constant 10 METs. Calorie burn--which also depends on weight--will vary more widely among individuals. But the oxygen cost of the activity alone does not. Over time, it is likely that improved efficiency might lower that 10 MET cost somewhat, but it will not be a drastic change. I have not found any studies that have actually examined this in detail, so if anyone has seen any, I would be interested.
From a practical standpoint, however, the whole topic is a false argument. The "I am burning fewer calories because I am more efficient and fit" statement requires that someone remain at the same exercise workload forever, which is silly.
Let's say that one was running at 6 mph, and became 10% more "efficient" at running. The natural response/progression would be for the person to run 10% faster with that same effort. Why would the person who was more fit and more efficient continue to run at the same pace?
0 -
@Azdak So if a person was running three miles at 4mph and was able, over time, to increase their speed to 5mph, but still only ran three miles; wouldn't they be burning more calories? Because I am doing the same workout routines but I am able to do more reps of each activity and able to continue through without taking rests. I just assumed that I would be burning more calories.0
-
Hard to say for certain, but it's not uncommon. Most people don't increase effort/intensity as fast as their body progresses. Less relative effort means less overall calorie burn, assuming all other factors remain constant.
This is not true. Calories burned are determined by absolute effort, not relative. If I run a mile at an 8:00/mile pace, I burn about 105 calories. That was true a year ago, when an 8:00 pace was at my limit, and it's true now, even though I have gotten faster. The difference is that I can run farther in the same amount of time, and thus burn more calories.
Some people think that they burn fewer calories at the same effort as they get more fit because their HRMs show a lower calorie burn. That's because trained athletes' hearts get larger, so they pump the same amount of blood with fewer heartbeats. The HRM doesn't know that, so it assumes fewer heartbeats mean fewer calories.
Right (assuming your weight is basically the same). You are keeping the activity and the distance constant. But if you run at an RPE of 9 for an hour, how many cals do you burn? Now run at an RPE of 6 for that same hour. The distance you cover should change, right? Isn't that a a better comparison to what I think is happening with the OP. Do a 1-hour class/DVD at max effort and you burn, say, 500 cals. Over time, you get better at said workout, you're strength and/or conditioning improve, your effort/intensity drops off, and now you're doing the same workout for the same amount of time, but at a lower intensity. Doesn't the cals burned change?0 -
carmenrosab wrote: »@Azdak So if a person was running three miles at 4mph and was able, over time, to increase their speed to 5mph, but still only ran three miles; wouldn't they be burning more calories?
Not really, at least not to a meaningful extent.
The whole notion of fitness meaning less calorie burn is kind of backwards - the fitter you are, the MORE you can burn in the same amount of time.
0 -
carmenrosab wrote: »@Azdak So if a person was running three miles at 4mph and was able, over time, to increase their speed to 5mph, but still only ran three miles; wouldn't they be burning more calories?
Not really, at least not to a meaningful extent.
The whole notion of fitness meaning less calorie burn is kind of backwards - the fitter you are, the MORE you can burn in the same amount of time.
I think a lot of that comes from using HR monitor for calorie estimates. People assume lower HR = lower calorie burn and fitter people tend to have lower HR.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »carmenrosab wrote: »@Azdak So if a person was running three miles at 4mph and was able, over time, to increase their speed to 5mph, but still only ran three miles; wouldn't they be burning more calories?
Not really, at least not to a meaningful extent.
The whole notion of fitness meaning less calorie burn is kind of backwards - the fitter you are, the MORE you can burn in the same amount of time.
I think a lot of that comes from using HR monitor for calorie estimates. People assume lower HR = lower calorie burn and fitter people tend to have lower HR.
I didn't go into it because I've written about it dozens of times before, but the fundamental error of HRMs is that they don't fake into account changes in fitness level (or, if they do, it must be manually adjusted which many people don't know how to do).
Changing fitness level changes the "scale" for exercise HR. As fitness level increases, working out at a given workload represents a smaller percentage of Max HR. However, absolute workload (and thus calorie burn) remains the same. Unless one can program the higher fitness level into the HRM, the HRM assumes the lower heart rate is due to a lower absolute workload, and it calculates calories accordingly.0 -
carmenrosab wrote: »@Azdak So if a person was running three miles at 4mph and was able, over time, to increase their speed to 5mph, but still only ran three miles; wouldn't they be burning more calories? Because I am doing the same workout routines but I am able to do more reps of each activity and able to continue through without taking rests. I just assumed that I would be burning more calories.
Yes and no. With running, a faster speed means that you are burning at a higher rate (i.e. more cals per minute). However, the faster speed means that you are covering the 3 miles in less time (12 min vs 15 min). The two cancel each other out, so that, when comparing DISTANCE, the calorie burn for the total distance will remain roughly the same. If you are comparing runs of a similar DURATION, e.g. 30 minutes, then absolutely, running at the faster speed burns more total calories.
Because there is more variety and less consistency in a workout class, it is harder to make general statements. In the scenario you describe--more reps, higher weights, fewer reps, more vigorous limb movements--it is highly likely that you are burning more calories. It's just tougher to quantify.0 -
just calculate your TDEE and don't worry about your calorie burn numbers. Much easier.0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »carmenrosab wrote: »@Azdak So if a person was running three miles at 4mph and was able, over time, to increase their speed to 5mph, but still only ran three miles; wouldn't they be burning more calories?
Not really, at least not to a meaningful extent.
The whole notion of fitness meaning less calorie burn is kind of backwards - the fitter you are, the MORE you can burn in the same amount of time.
I think a lot of that comes from using HR monitor for calorie estimates. People assume lower HR = lower calorie burn and fitter people tend to have lower HR.
I didn't go into it because I've written about it dozens of times before, but the fundamental error of HRMs is that they don't fake into account changes in fitness level (or, if they do, it must be manually adjusted which many people don't know how to do).
Changing fitness level changes the "scale" for exercise HR. As fitness level increases, working out at a given workload represents a smaller percentage of Max HR. However, absolute workload (and thus calorie burn) remains the same. Unless one can program the higher fitness level into the HRM, the HRM assumes the lower heart rate is due to a lower absolute workload, and it calculates calories accordingly.
Yes.
I often reference your blogs.
(Just in case my post, my point was that that type of thinking is incorrect).
0 -
I disagree with the comment about HRM not being accurate during these kind of workouts...find your target heart rate and push harder I have found this to be the case with me lately because I am getting into better shape I have a HRM that also does calories and its fairly accurate when I compare it to other machines or my friends Polar ..I work with a trainer and for me my max HR for my workouts is in the 160 and I definitely have to push past my comfort zone to get there and in insanity you can definitely push it with that program ...also if you belong to a gym ask one of the trainers/instructors there thats where I learned to use it to get the best workout I can .....i never go without it0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »carmenrosab wrote: »@Azdak So if a person was running three miles at 4mph and was able, over time, to increase their speed to 5mph, but still only ran three miles; wouldn't they be burning more calories?
Not really, at least not to a meaningful extent.
The whole notion of fitness meaning less calorie burn is kind of backwards - the fitter you are, the MORE you can burn in the same amount of time.
I think a lot of that comes from using HR monitor for calorie estimates. People assume lower HR = lower calorie burn and fitter people tend to have lower HR.
I didn't go into it because I've written about it dozens of times before, but the fundamental error of HRMs is that they don't fake into account changes in fitness level (or, if they do, it must be manually adjusted which many people don't know how to do).
Changing fitness level changes the "scale" for exercise HR. As fitness level increases, working out at a given workload represents a smaller percentage of Max HR. However, absolute workload (and thus calorie burn) remains the same. Unless one can program the higher fitness level into the HRM, the HRM assumes the lower heart rate is due to a lower absolute workload, and it calculates calories accordingly.
Yes.
I often reference your blogs.
(Just in case my post, my point was that that type of thinking is incorrect).
Oh, yeah, I understood completely. I was continuing on your line of thought, not disagreeing at all.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 437 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions