How do I accurately count the calories I'm burning?
Options
Replies
-
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Again, for me, running gives me about 100 cals per mile. So an hour at c60%MHR will give me about 600-650cals. Ellipticals are about 2/3 as effective as running in burning fuel, so an hour on the elliptical at around 60% I'd expect around 400 cals. I can only run for an hour at lactate threshold pace but that would give me about 800 cals.
I can get two different levels of workout on an elliptical, though. If I'm using my arms heavily (being a girl), it's TONS more work at the same speed than if my arms are just "hanging out." My elliptical's going to read the same, regardless.
You also burn more calories on the same exercise for the same distance and duration when you're out of shape. That's why people plateau. They think they're getting the same workout, but they're not......
Nope - not true. It just feels like it.
That you have a higher heart rate than someone fitter doing the same amount of work and producing the same amount of power does not mean you are burning more calories.
As an example:
Take me (an average long distance cyclist), very fit.
Compare me to my mate (an exceptional long distance cyclist), extremely fit.
But us both on power meter equipped bikes and he can produce more power with a lower heart rate. But he's still burning more calories (energy remember) to produce that extra power.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
okay missed that one completely, must have lost something in the translationMeanderingMammal wrote: »ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »Oooookayy, that's just too much to be trying to figure out
think I'll just stick with that my HRM says, after all it is supposed to be one of the best.
Never mind the quality, feel the width
As long as I'm getting the results I want, I really don't care whether it's wrong are right, when it comes to certain things it's always an estimation no matter what these so called experts tell you.
That was kind of what I was getting at. Your whole approach is giving you the results you want. You're compensating for the measurement error in some other way, as the original person who was recommending the use of HR monitoring does, by essentially ignoring the figure she gets.
It's a tool, recognise the limitations and compensate accordingly.Contrary to popular belief, one size doesn't fix all.
In this case, where we're talking about the reliability and accuracy of HRMs, yes it does. The laws of physics are pretty much non-negotiable. What one does with this data that it presents is where the results come from.
Yea I do compensate, by exercising 5 days a week, and eating what ever I want to. MFP just told me what I already knew, not a heavy eater, never been. Just need to exercise.
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.
I'm doing circuits with no pauses. If I paused, I'd pause the HRM. (My HRM has my estimated VO2max in it, btw.)
It sounds logical...same distance/exercise/mass, same calories burned.
Except it's not. If you measure the body temperature of people of the same mass doing the same exercise, those who have to work harder at it will have a greater body temperature rise even if they sweat more. That's completely within thermodynamic models. According to thermodynamics, if one person is throwing off more heat doing the same thing, they HAVE to be expending more energy.
How big is the difference? I don't know. My weight loss is always much greater on the same exercises as a higher level of exertion.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Again, for me, running gives me about 100 cals per mile. So an hour at c60%MHR will give me about 600-650cals. Ellipticals are about 2/3 as effective as running in burning fuel, so an hour on the elliptical at around 60% I'd expect around 400 cals. I can only run for an hour at lactate threshold pace but that would give me about 800 cals.
I can get two different levels of workout on an elliptical, though. If I'm using my arms heavily (being a girl), it's TONS more work at the same speed than if my arms are just "hanging out." My elliptical's going to read the same, regardless.
You also burn more calories on the same exercise for the same distance and duration when you're out of shape. That's why people plateau. They think they're getting the same workout, but they're not......
Nope - not true. It just feels like it.
That you have a higher heart rate than someone fitter doing the same amount of work and producing the same amount of power does not mean you are burning more calories.
As an example:
Take me (an average long distance cyclist), very fit.
Compare me to my mate (an exceptional long distance cyclist), extremely fit.
But us both on power meter equipped bikes and he can produce more power with a lower heart rate. But he's still burning more calories (energy remember) to produce that extra power.
It also takes energy to create heat. That's what calories are a very literal measure of, after all! If I'm doing jumping jacks at rate X and am barely flushed versus pouring with sweat to try to maintain homeostasis, also at rate X...#2 takes more calories. It really does! Otherwise, that's magic heat. 0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Again, for me, running gives me about 100 cals per mile. So an hour at c60%MHR will give me about 600-650cals. Ellipticals are about 2/3 as effective as running in burning fuel, so an hour on the elliptical at around 60% I'd expect around 400 cals. I can only run for an hour at lactate threshold pace but that would give me about 800 cals.
I can get two different levels of workout on an elliptical, though. If I'm using my arms heavily (being a girl), it's TONS more work at the same speed than if my arms are just "hanging out." My elliptical's going to read the same, regardless.
You also burn more calories on the same exercise for the same distance and duration when you're out of shape. That's why people plateau. They think they're getting the same workout, but they're not......
Nope - not true. It just feels like it.
That you have a higher heart rate than someone fitter doing the same amount of work and producing the same amount of power does not mean you are burning more calories.
As an example:
Take me (an average long distance cyclist), very fit.
Compare me to my mate (an exceptional long distance cyclist), extremely fit.
But us both on power meter equipped bikes and he can produce more power with a lower heart rate. But he's still burning more calories (energy remember) to produce that extra power.
It also takes energy to create heat. That's what calories are a very literal measure of, after all! If I'm doing jumping jacks at rate X and am barely flushed versus pouring with sweat to try to maintain homeostasis, also at rate X...#2 takes more calories. It really does! Otherwise, that's magic heat.
Flushed and sweaty - those well known scientific measures of power output and exercise energy expenditure!
I will give up as you are listening to respond and not actually listening to what people are telling you.0 -
Okay, that made me curious. I'd always assumed that exertion, heart rate, and calorie burned were connected. I can't find jack on that, though, research-wise...
It's possible that people in good shape sweat earlier and so actually are producing as much heat. Found that.
Also found this: http://todayiwill.com/2010/07/treadmill-vs-elliptical-which-is-a-better-workout/#.VXrE7_lVhBc
Most important (and to me weirdest) bit is that with the SAME perceived exertion and the SAME calorie expenditure, they found higher heart rates on the elliptical group. Which has me going...what now?
I can KINDA see this as I officially burn WAY more on a Stairmaster than I do on a treadmill at the same perceived exertion, but my case is all messed up by a genetic muscular disorder (so God only knows what's going on in my muscles, lol) as well as exercise-induced anaphylaxis (which is triggered really fast by running/treadmills and by spinning but NOT by the Stairmaster because I don't breathe as hard).0 -
I would suggest you work it out yourself over time. Track your weight daily and work out what the average weight lost over a month is. At the same time record all your calories daily in a spreadsheet - both in and what you think are going out (far more difficult) in the form of the deficit MFP tells you you have been under from your chosen calorie used guesstimator. After a month as long as you haven't lost too much (in which case a lot of it will be muscle mass and will screw the calculation up as well as your body) work out the total deficit you were in by doing a simple 3500xlbs lost to give the total calories you have lost and then compare this with what MFP gives you. This to me seems to be accurate but won’t take into account any change in muscle mass. It will give you a good starting point though and as you progress through time you can tweak any adjustments you need to make to the guestimation to keep you at the correct deficit. The problem is we are all different and all calorie burn estimations (unless you perform a biological test measuring CO2 out/O2 in etc. ) are averages. You have your personal deficit calculator though that is more accurate than anything else – your body. It measures in a noisy way (readings up and down daily) but if you filter out the noise by averaging over a month then it should be pretty accurate. The better alternative would be do drop into a flotation tank or something similar and get %body fat readings a month or two apart. The methods are still not precisely accurate but the difference between readings will be quite close to the actual difference. For me its about knowing my body and understanding how this relates to what MFP is telling me. After using the site for a couple of months you will know if your calorie usage guestimator is off and you wil quickly be able to work out by how much :-)
0 -
Okay, thinking again...
New divers, who are really inefficient as SCUBA diving, use a ton more air than more experienced divers who are better able to move in water. (There's a big gender difference, too--might have to do with average size of the person plus relative lean mass.)
Using indirect calorimetry, new divers are spending more calories to cross the same distances as experienced divers. So their calories consumed would be higher.
Why would that not be the same across other forms of exercise?0 -
And another article of interest, which explains the elliptical higher heart rate thing...sorta: http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/caloricexp.html
I'm going WAYYYY off topic. I'm going to do some digging in my spare time. This is the first thing that's completely non-intuitive to me about any of this. So pardon my extreme interest!0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Again, for me, running gives me about 100 cals per mile. So an hour at c60%MHR will give me about 600-650cals. Ellipticals are about 2/3 as effective as running in burning fuel, so an hour on the elliptical at around 60% I'd expect around 400 cals. I can only run for an hour at lactate threshold pace but that would give me about 800 cals.
I can get two different levels of workout on an elliptical, though. If I'm using my arms heavily (being a girl), it's TONS more work at the same speed than if my arms are just "hanging out." My elliptical's going to read the same, regardless.
You also burn more calories on the same exercise for the same distance and duration when you're out of shape. That's why people plateau. They think they're getting the same workout, but they're not......
Nope - not true. It just feels like it.
That you have a higher heart rate than someone fitter doing the same amount of work and producing the same amount of power does not mean you are burning more calories.
As an example:
Take me (an average long distance cyclist), very fit.
Compare me to my mate (an exceptional long distance cyclist), extremely fit.
But us both on power meter equipped bikes and he can produce more power with a lower heart rate. But he's still burning more calories (energy remember) to produce that extra power.
It also takes energy to create heat. That's what calories are a very literal measure of, after all! If I'm doing jumping jacks at rate X and am barely flushed versus pouring with sweat to try to maintain homeostasis, also at rate X...#2 takes more calories. It really does! Otherwise, that's magic heat.
Flushed and sweaty - those well known scientific measures of power output and exercise energy expenditure!
I will give up as you are listening to respond and not actually listening to what people are telling you.
No, not just "flushed and sweaty" but also "having actual higher body temperatures."
Low fitness level is a risk factor for heat stroke: http://ksi.uconn.edu/emergency-conditions/heat-illnesses/exertional-heat-stroke/heat-stroke-risk-factors/
Heat sickness is caused by actual higher body temperatures. Not a feeling of being flushed and sweaty. But that could be caused by delayed sweating that isn't good at getting rid of the excess heat. (Arguing against myself. )
You're also assuming that all the energy that a person is exerting is going toward, say, running. But of course it's also going toward breathing and the heart beating, for certain, so a higher heart beat and breathing rate would require more calories. That's work, too--movement over distance. How much is it? I'm not sure.
Does the unfit person have a lot of excess movement, too, that's not directed toward moving their body across the ground? Also not sure.
VO2 as indirect calorimetry would NOT capture any anaerobic metabolism, too. If someone's working beyond their VO2max and into their anaerobic range, that wouldn't be captured. Only direct calorimetry could capture that. How much anaerobic exercise would a person who's out of shape be doing versus a person who's in shape? Not sure, again.
I'm not saying I'm absolutely sure. I'm saying is seems really counter-intuitive to be wrong...and interesting either way.0 -
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.
Get a HR monitor.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »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...
I agree with the point on consistency.
I use my Polar Heart Rate monitor for all workouts, cardio, circuit training, and lifting weights. For strength training, I don't mind if it overestimates my calories; I feel this introduces a mild form of calorie cycling. I'm happy with my weight loss progress. Note most of my workouts are in the 300-500 calorie range and my daily food deficit is around 750 cals. So even if I eat all 500 calories back, I'll still be in a deficit.
My opinion is...being consistent over the long-term and adjusting your daily calories (weekly/monthly) is the way to go.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 984 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions