What is the most accurate way to log how many calories you burn?

NerdyNix
NerdyNix Posts: 111 Member
edited November 18 in Health and Weight Loss
I was told my Wii and workout machines are more than likely overestimating my burn and also that MFP also tends to do so. So how do I get an accurate idea of what I am burning?

Replies

  • KyleeNicolle
    KyleeNicolle Posts: 43 Member
    edited May 2015
    I like to use my HR monitor for cardio.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Can you run 2-3 miles?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • NerdyNix
    NerdyNix Posts: 111 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Can you run 2-3 miles?

    Doubtful! I have dodgy joints from arthritis. I am more of a swimmer.

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,317 Member
    Carefully :smiley:

    Google compendium of physical activities.
    Google met to cal calculator
    Understand gross vs net calories.
    Understand that doing an activity with intermittent rest is not quite the same as doing it continuously

    Or, frankly, realize that a lot of the fitness trackers do an adequate job of estimating your TDEE, with maybe the help of some fine-tuning based on your actual results.

    Or for that matter that the 100% of steady state cardio, 75% circuit training or HIIT, 50% of weight training calories eat-back rules of thumb are good enough to start with, if you then adjust them based on your real life results.

    Also understand that you are less likely to be desperate for every single exercise calorie if you are not overdoing your deficit and shooting for too fast of a loss relative to how much you have to lose.
  • avskk
    avskk Posts: 1,787 Member
    edited May 2015
    ^ What PAV said. Even easier, once you've Googled the compendium of physical activities, use this formula:

    (MET of exercise performed) x (your weight in kilograms) X (time spent exercising as percentage of an hour)

    I'm 230lbs, which is ~104kg. My formula for half an hour of moderate cycling would be 3 x 104 x .5 = 156. I tend to shave a few off the total just to be completely safe, so I'd log 100-125 and call it good. I've been using this for a couple of months now and my loss has sped up -- not amazingly, but about an extra .25-.5lb/week. The thing you have to be careful about is selecting the appropriate MET, because often what feels "vigorous" or "moderate" is actually "light." Err on the side of downplaying your efforts, if you have to err (or if you're using machines, check online to see whether their MET readouts are reasonable).
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited May 2015
    avskk wrote: »
    (MET of exercise performed) x (your weight in kilograms) X (time spent exercising as percentage of an hour)

    This is a recipe for disastrous over-estimation for many, many activities, for many, many MFPers.

  • avskk
    avskk Posts: 1,787 Member
    edited May 2015
    Yeah, I'm aware -- but done properly, rigorously, and honestly, it's pretty useful. I did warn about overestimation at the end!

    ETA: Actually, I should clarify that I recommend using this formula for steady-state cardio only. When you're doing intervals or strength training the margin of error is way too high because you not only have the potential to select the wrong MET but also the wrong amount of time spent actually working. So, there's that.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories