How do I accurately count the calories I'm burning?
alohajudy
Posts: 1 Member
I do 60 minutes of cardio when I go to the gym, either the bicycle or the treadmill.
I enter my age, weight in the machines and they read I've used around 320 calories, but when I enter the cardio in My Fitness Pal it reads I've burned over 650. Which do you think is accurate? Some days I want to eat those extra calories and cannot afford to make a mistake.
I enter my age, weight in the machines and they read I've used around 320 calories, but when I enter the cardio in My Fitness Pal it reads I've burned over 650. Which do you think is accurate? Some days I want to eat those extra calories and cannot afford to make a mistake.
0
Replies
-
I would suggest the lower number.
It may be that you're overestimating your effort when you use MFP as it's reasonably accurate for running, a bit less so for cycling as there are many variables.
The main thing is to pick a method and use it consistently. That way you can adjust how much you eat back based on your progress.0 -
Get a heart rate monitor.
Polaris is the brand I have--I really like it. 0 -
0
-
In all probability neither is likely to be accurate - but you haven't mentioned speed, distance, power output, effort....
Would go with the machines - at least they are trying to estimate some of the above factors. 320 sounds low for an hour but you could be walking slowly on the treadmill and not putting much effort into the cycling.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Get a heart rate monitor. Polaris is the brand I have--I really like it.
They make some nice snowplows!
I think you meant Polar. I have it too, highly recommended...0 -
Even a heart rate monitor is not perfect.. everything is an estimate just like no two weighing scales are calibrated the same or even equal if they are different models.
Everything is important for calculating the estimate which is age, height, current weight, stride length, speed (rpm), distance, effort (level, incline)...
What I do, is take the computer on the machine if it has one and even decrease its total by a margin of error by about 25%.. I never eat back all exercise calories.. I am one of those that says I just burned it, why eat them back?... But if you are one of those that exercises to eat more, then this will not apply to you..0 -
andrikosDE wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Get a heart rate monitor. Polaris is the brand I have--I really like it.
They make some nice snowplows!
I think you meant Polar. I have it too, highly recommended...
Hahaha! You're right. Polaris is the north star, so I was confusing it. North Star = guiding light, etc. 0 -
Even a heart rate monitor is not perfect.. everything is an estimate just like no two weighing scales are calibrated the same or even equal if they are different models.
Everything is important for calculating the estimate which is age, height, current weight, stride length, speed (rpm), distance, effort (level, incline)...
What I do, is take the computer on the machine if it has one and even decrease its total by a margin of error by about 25%.. I never eat back all exercise calories.. I am one of those that says I just burned it, why eat them back?... But if you are one of those that exercises to eat more, then this will not apply to you..
But, for example, I'm hideously out of condition. HRMs make it much easier. Still not exact but better than other methods to take into account your actual exertion. Also, if you do circuit work, there's REALLY no practical other way to do it.
According to my HRM, I spent 258 cal on the first day of GM's 30-Day Shred. Anyone in decent shape of my weight would probably spend around 180-ish from what others have reported. It's nice to capture that even if it might be somewhat off. 0 -
Even a heart rate monitor is not perfect..
Given the calorie expenditures that the originator is reporting from the machines, HR is the wrong tool to be using. Given that HR is only a meaningful proxy for calorie expenditure in a fairly limited set of circumstances the originator is unlikely to be operating in a range where it's meaningful.
I'd go as far as to say, in the circumstances, an HRM is the least useful of the three measures talked about as it's not even going to be consistently wrong.
0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Still not exact but better than other methods to take into account your actual exertion.
Nope. It's the least suitable tool.Also, if you do circuit work, there's REALLY no practical other way to do it.
HRMs are explicitly not designed for circuit training as the research that they're designed around is predicated on steady state cardiovascular training; running, cycle and rowing ergometers.
0 -
@MamaBirdBossMamaBirdBoss wrote: »Even a heart rate monitor is not perfect.. everything is an estimate just like no two weighing scales are calibrated the same or even equal if they are different models.
Everything is important for calculating the estimate which is age, height, current weight, stride length, speed (rpm), distance, effort (level, incline)...
What I do, is take the computer on the machine if it has one and even decrease its total by a margin of error by about 25%.. I never eat back all exercise calories.. I am one of those that says I just burned it, why eat them back?... But if you are one of those that exercises to eat more, then this will not apply to you..
But, for example, I'm hideously out of condition. HRMs make it much easier. Still not exact but better than other methods to take into account your actual exertion. Also, if you do circuit work, there's REALLY no practical other way to do it.
According to my HRM, I spent 258 cal on the first day of GM's 30-Day Shred. Anyone in decent shape of my weight would probably spend around 180-ish from what others have reported. It's nice to capture that even if it might be somewhat off.
Being out of shape makes the calorie accuracy worse not better.
That you find it hard because you are unfit is a "feeling" and not an indication of energy output.
Circuit training is an inappropriate use for HRMs - the interval nature makes the burns very inflated.
You are right that it makes it easy to get a number - but easy isn't the same as accurate.0 -
my polar knows my age, height, weight VO2 level. It's not perfect but much better than the machines or the fitbits IMHO.0
-
Heart rate monitors are good for measuring heart rate believe it or not.0
-
Yep, either get a heart rate monitor or manually measure your heart rate a few time over your workout, average it and use the Brayden Calorie Calculator. MFP is generally way off, so never use what's in the database.
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm
As for HRMs, I have a Polar FT4 with chest strap. It was $50 on Amazon and it rules. Auto-syncs with machines that use Polar technology, too.
http://smile.amazon.com/Polar-Heart-Rate-Monitor-Purple/dp/B005M1P85O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434019561&sr=8-1&keywords=polar+ft40 -
-
I think the MFP calorie burned is way off, I usually only eat half back of what any machine or MFP says. I just got a polar chest strap and wore it yesterday to boot camp. Jumping jacks, burpees, etc my heart felt like it was going to beat out of my chest and I burned 368 in 45 minutes according to polar beat.0
-
I think the MFP calorie burned is way off, I usually only eat half back of what any machine or MFP says. I just got a polar chest strap and wore it yesterday to boot camp. Jumping jacks, burpees, etc my heart felt like it was going to beat out of my chest and I burned 368 in 45 minutes according to polar beat.
but would you put 368 in the calories burned?0 -
I see many comments on what doesn't work, but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
HappyTrails7 wrote: »I see many comments on what doesn't work, but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.
Mostly because the answer is: You can't accurately count your calorie burn unless you're hooked up to some serious metabolic testing equipment in a lab.0 -
FYI.GuitarJerry wrote: »
Higher spec ones allow you to custom set your VO2 max. Think that my FT60 is the cheapest one in their range that allows it.
It also has a proxy "fitness test" to estimate VO2.
How accurate that is... open to debate.
I use the number I got in a sport lab test of VO2 and HR max.
For true steady state cardio it compares very accurately to a power meter. As soon as you deviate from that with intervals or even simply getting hot the numbers start to diverge significantly.
But hey - it's a gadget so the numbers must be true!
/sarcasm.0 -
Rather I'm using MFP Fitbit or any other type of device or equipment I always decrease by 20-25% to adjust for error. And, I do not try to eat back my calories I worked hard to burn.0
-
HappyTrails7 wrote: »I see many comments on what doesn't work, but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.
Estimate. Or use the number on whatever tool you're using, but cut it by about 50% so you have a margin of error.0 -
HappyTrails7 wrote: »...but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.
That would be pick a method, stick with it, test and adjust based on your progress.
There is no reliable and consistent method to measure calorie expenditure in all circumstances. Some methods are less inaccurate than others in specific circumstances...
0 -
HappyTrails7 wrote: »I see many comments on what doesn't work, but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.
A lot of folks here also use the TDEE method and therefore, don't add exercise calories to their day.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Get a heart rate monitor
To give a third inaccurate number...
Newbie here...does everyone think heart rate monitors are inaccurate? I was thinking about adding one. ..0 -
hollydubs85 wrote: »HappyTrails7 wrote: »I see many comments on what doesn't work, but no suggestions on what should be used in place of HRM, machine readouts, etc.
A lot of folks here also use the TDEE method and therefore, don't add exercise calories to their day.
If using the TDEE method they add an average estimate for exercise calories to their day, not quite the same as no exercise calories.0 -
GolfSunFit wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »Get a heart rate monitor
To give a third inaccurate number...
Newbie here...does everyone think heart rate monitors are inaccurate? I was thinking about adding one. ..
People who understand how they work recognise the limitations and how they can be used as a tool for performance improvement.
Lots of people uncritically think that a gadget will give them accurate information.
They have a role, but they're not accurate for calorie estimation in a very wide range of situations.
0 -
-
I use a heart rate monitor, and have heard all the arguments about how wrong they are, but seeing as there is really no exact measure, I go by what it says 100%. I have a Polar V800 did the orthostatic test, and fitness test. I've used the Loop, and FT80 and went by them 100% also. If you decide to get one, make sure it gives you tests, and just doesn't read your heart rate.
Side note: 95% of my workout is Cardio, here are the guidelines
http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/adults.html0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions