Am I really burning less calories?
Options
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.
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 -
Not to be argumentative, and hopefully this doesn't completely derail the thread... but HRMs are inherently inaccurate. To make blanket statements like they give bad data or they are inaccurate isn't completely true, is it?
They calculate calorie burns based on a number of assumptions, and the closer you are to those assumptions (both as a person and in the workout you are doing), the more accurate the data will be, right? And even if you are very different from the assumptions, the number the HRM gives you could, by sheer luck, be accurate, right? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
More specifically... say you workout for an hour. An HRM says you burn 539 calories. You can't/shouldn't say unequivocally that 539 calories is wrong, can you? Assuming it's not a completely absurd number, you can't really say with any degree of certainty that it's correct or incorrect, can you?0 -
I think this is common. When I started out on the elliptical, I would regularly keep my heart rate in the 170s, sometimes 180s. Now, 2 months later (almost) it is usually in the 150s-160s, and if I'm really pushing it with HIIT it will get to low 170s. And as a result of your heart rate being lower, your HRM will calculate less calories burned.0
-
Based on what I've seen on these sorts of threads, most people burn 200-600 calories per hour doing insanity. Heart rate monitors are not designed for interval training like insanity.0
-
I think this is common. When I started out on the elliptical, I would regularly keep my heart rate in the 170s, sometimes 180s. Now, 2 months later (almost) it is usually in the 150s-160s, and if I'm really pushing it with HIIT it will get to low 170s. And as a result of your heart rate being lower, your HRM will calculate less calories burned.
@vixtris - that is actually not true. See Azdak's response to my post the page before this.0 -
But it gives you a concrete (less arbitrary appearing) number to work with. Ultimately, regardless of how you choose to estimate calorie burns, you have to start somewhere then compare your progress (actual vs estimated) over time. And HRMs offer a degree of consistency in that regard, no?
I guess I'm arguing on principle at this point, which doesn't have much real world use, so I'll stop. Sorry for the unnecessary tangent.0 -
LOL @jacksonpt I get it though. Which is, in essence, what I really wanted anyway.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions