Fitness Blender - calories

Cladf
Cladf Posts: 60 Member
edited November 18 in Fitness and Exercise
Hey everyone!
So I've just found Fitness Blender (where has it been all my life?!) and although I know the only accurate calorie count will come from a HRM, I was wondering where the two different calorie counts on the videos comes from? Theres a lower one on the left, and a higher one on the right. Can anyone shed any light on this for me?

Replies

  • determined_14
    determined_14 Posts: 258 Member
    Somewhere on their website they have a video that explains this. Basically, that's the range of calories that (they estimate) will include 90% of the population. If you're a woman, smaller, or more adapted to that particular type of exercise, you will fall towards the lower end. Men, bigger people, and less fit people will burn more.
    The experts around here often say that an HRM is really only useful for the calorie burn of steady state cardio; strength, interval training, etc. are harder to measure that way.
    I trust Fitness Blender's numbers. I'm female, 5'6", and when I was losing (so 140-150lbs) I would always log their lowest number and eat them all back. (I also wasn't weighing my food, so there was some margin of error.) I lost pretty much on schedule. Good luck!
  • Cladf
    Cladf Posts: 60 Member
    Thanks - that's great! I'll stick with the lower number then, and not worry if I eat back the calories...their stuff looks fab, anything to get a bit more active :)
  • jetortola
    jetortola Posts: 198 Member
    edited May 2015
    determined_14 wrote: »
    Somewhere on their website they have a video that explains this. Basically, that's the range of calories that (they estimate) will include 90% of the population. If you're a woman, smaller, or more adapted to that particular type of exercise, you will fall towards the lower end. Men, bigger people, and less fit people will burn more.
    The experts around here often say that an HRM is really only useful for the calorie burn of steady state cardio; strength, interval training, etc. are harder to measure that way.
    I trust Fitness Blender's numbers. I'm female, 5'6", and when I was losing (so 140-150lbs) I would always log their lowest number and eat them all back. (I also wasn't weighing my food, so there was some margin of error.) I lost pretty much on schedule. Good luck!

    This is what I do too, and my experience is similar. I log the lowest number of their range. And I also don't weigh my food -- so hopefully it balances out somewhere. :)

  • CM9178
    CM9178 Posts: 1,251 Member
    I wear an HRM while doing my FitnessBlender workouts, and even though the HRM isn't entirely accurate for those types, my number burned is ALWAYS somewhere right in the middle of the range that FB says you should burn. Just go with the lowest number and you should be fine.
  • aharper84
    aharper84 Posts: 67 Member
    If I remember correctly, they base the lowest number off of a 130 woman. With that being said, I'm a 129 pound woman, and according to my HRM, I always fall in the mid range on their calorie burn scale. I don't think that you will have any issue if you just take the lowest number as your calorie burn.
  • cheshirecatastrophe
    cheshirecatastrophe Posts: 1,395 Member
    edited June 2015
    aharper84 wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, they base the lowest number off of a 130 woman. With that being said, I'm a 129 pound woman, and according to my HRM, I always fall in the mid range on their calorie burn scale. I don't think that you will have any issue if you just take the lowest number as your calorie burn.

    The low number is for 110.

    However, you need to know that heart rate is NOT a good way to measure calories burned in the Fitness Blender workouts. They are interval style, rather than steady state. Your HRM will most likely give you an inflated (too high) number of calories burned for the workout, especially on the strength portions. Their formula depends heavily on "afterburn" and continued calorie burn in between exercises. This exists, but is a much, MUCH weaker effect (like, single-digit extra calories) than we want it to be. Calorie burn is power: the power needed to move a given mass (you/weights) over a given distance in a given way. If you're not moving, you're not producing power, you're not burning calories. (Again, there is a lingering afterburn effect, but it is small.)

    I love me some Fitness Blender, but I have a fairly good idea of what it takes me to burn X calories running, and the FB videos making that claim don't even come close to that kind of workout. Alas!
  • determined_14
    determined_14 Posts: 258 Member
    cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »
    aharper84 wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, they base the lowest number off of a 130 woman. With that being said, I'm a 129 pound woman, and according to my HRM, I always fall in the mid range on their calorie burn scale. I don't think that you will have any issue if you just take the lowest number as your calorie burn.

    The low number is for 110.

    However, you need to know that heart rate is NOT a good way to measure calories burned in the Fitness Blender workouts. They are interval style, rather than steady state. Your HRM will most likely give you an inflated (too high) number of calories burned for the workout, especially on the strength portions. Their formula depends heavily on "afterburn" and continued calorie burn in between exercises. This exists, but is a much, MUCH weaker effect (like, single-digit extra calories) than we want it to be. Calorie burn is power: the power needed to move a given mass (you/weights) over a given distance in a given way. If you're not moving, you're not producing power, you're not burning calories. (Again, there is a lingering afterburn effect, but it is small.)

    I love me some Fitness Blender, but I have a fairly good idea of what it takes me to burn X calories running, and the FB videos making that claim don't even come close to that kind of workout. Alas!
    Actually, Fitness Blender specifically states that their calorie estimates DO NOT include any afterburn affects. I can't vouch for their numbers specifically, but I do have a lot of confidence in their knowledge and experience, and I know that by using the low number from their range and not weighing my food (so probably eating more than I thought) I lost weight right on or a bit ahead of target. Just my two cents.
  • cheshirecatastrophe
    cheshirecatastrophe Posts: 1,395 Member
    determined_14 wrote: »
    cheshirecatastrophe wrote: »
    aharper84 wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, they base the lowest number off of a 130 woman. With that being said, I'm a 129 pound woman, and according to my HRM, I always fall in the mid range on their calorie burn scale. I don't think that you will have any issue if you just take the lowest number as your calorie burn.

    The low number is for 110.

    However, you need to know that heart rate is NOT a good way to measure calories burned in the Fitness Blender workouts. They are interval style, rather than steady state. Your HRM will most likely give you an inflated (too high) number of calories burned for the workout, especially on the strength portions. Their formula depends heavily on "afterburn" and continued calorie burn in between exercises. This exists, but is a much, MUCH weaker effect (like, single-digit extra calories) than we want it to be. Calorie burn is power: the power needed to move a given mass (you/weights) over a given distance in a given way. If you're not moving, you're not producing power, you're not burning calories. (Again, there is a lingering afterburn effect, but it is small.)

    I love me some Fitness Blender, but I have a fairly good idea of what it takes me to burn X calories running, and the FB videos making that claim don't even come close to that kind of workout. Alas!
    Actually, Fitness Blender specifically states that their calorie estimates DO NOT include any afterburn affects. I can't vouch for their numbers specifically, but I do have a lot of confidence in their knowledge and experience, and I know that by using the low number from their range and not weighing my food (so probably eating more than I thought) I lost weight right on or a bit ahead of target. Just my two cents.

    I'm sorry, I was using "afterburn" to denote the time in between exercises (not chilling with a water bottle afterwards). My incorrect use of the term.

    I'm glad the system works for you, and I'm glad that I *know* it doesn't work for me (although it would be cool if it did, haha). That's what's important. :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories