How much do you burn a day exercising and how much do you nett at?

Options
13»

Replies

  • kirzz92
    kirzz92 Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    ljones22903 wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    I burn about 500 calories with exercise five days a week. I really doubt someone can burn 600 calories with exercise while only eating 1200 calories. I expect the 600 is incorrect.

    i burn up to 800 an hour doing cardio at the gym via my hrm, it can be done if you keep your heart rate high

    Well, if you go by my HRM, I burn 1,300 with exercise five days a week. But HRMs rely on the same tables as MFP to determine how many calories you burn. I think my height throws them off. So, instead, I use the physics calculations for energy expended while riding a bicycle. I have more confidence in that, because even though there are some differences in efficiency between people, pushing a mass around on wheels is a relatively easy thing to calculate the energy for. It also matches what I expect based on my weight loss totals. I don't find 800 an hour doing cardio at the gym to be believable.

    Calories determined by a HRM are estimated using Norms of thousands of people and are far more accurate than mfp tables.....
    There is plenty more research into developing the norms to which hrms compare to than what you seem to be making out.

    In my opinion, and my biokineticist, there is hardly a mare accurate measure.
    heart rate
  • leahcollett1
    leahcollett1 Posts: 807 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    ljones22903 wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    I burn about 500 calories with exercise five days a week. I really doubt someone can burn 600 calories with exercise while only eating 1200 calories. I expect the 600 is incorrect.

    i burn up to 800 an hour doing cardio at the gym via my hrm, it can be done if you keep your heart rate high

    Well, if you go by my HRM, I burn 1,300 with exercise five days a week. But HRMs rely on the same tables as MFP to determine how many calories you burn. I think my height throws them off. So, instead, I use the physics calculations for energy expended while riding a bicycle. I have more confidence in that, because even though there are some differences in efficiency between people, pushing a mass around on wheels is a relatively easy thing to calculate the energy for. It also matches what I expect based on my weight loss totals. I don't find 800 an hour doing cardio at the gym to be believable.
    on Sunday I burnt 842 cals OK I'm over weight so it was hard work and boy did I sweat but I did burn them. I trust my hrm its never failed me in the past. So maybe the op burning 600 is totally feasible. Thanks tim
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    HRM marketing -1
    Reality - 0
  • strong_curves
    strong_curves Posts: 2,229 Member
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    HRM marketing -1
    Reality - 0

    :D


  • leahcollett1
    leahcollett1 Posts: 807 Member
    Options
    I'm. Not trying to market hrms I'm just explaining what works for me, my hrm goes by my weight height, sex, age, why shouldn't I trust it if it works for me, think its better than a fit bit or trusting the generic entries of the website
  • callsitlikeiseeit
    callsitlikeiseeit Posts: 8,627 Member
    Options
    it depends on the day but in general, i eat back at least half of my exercise (cardio) calories (anywhere from 300-600, depending on type and intensity). I lose (on average) a pretty steady 2 pounds/ week. I dont count strength training calories.

    if you want to build muscle, you need to eat more and lift heavy. you cant build muscle on a severe deficit.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    First, HRMs are not calorie counters. Second, the most commonly used devices by MFP members lack crucial data points needed to approach anything resembling accurate estimations. Third, even those that incorporate the additional data points only approach accurate estimates in a narrow band of activities and situations. Yet we see thread after thread believing that the device is accurate across the board, often for activities it cannot possibly work for such as lifting or yoga.

    But why let reality get in the way?
  • leahcollett1
    leahcollett1 Posts: 807 Member
    Options
    OK, hrm are inaccurate, and are not worth the money,
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    kirzz92 wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    ljones22903 wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    I burn about 500 calories with exercise five days a week. I really doubt someone can burn 600 calories with exercise while only eating 1200 calories. I expect the 600 is incorrect.

    i burn up to 800 an hour doing cardio at the gym via my hrm, it can be done if you keep your heart rate high

    Well, if you go by my HRM, I burn 1,300 with exercise five days a week. But HRMs rely on the same tables as MFP to determine how many calories you burn. I think my height throws them off. So, instead, I use the physics calculations for energy expended while riding a bicycle. I have more confidence in that, because even though there are some differences in efficiency between people, pushing a mass around on wheels is a relatively easy thing to calculate the energy for. It also matches what I expect based on my weight loss totals. I don't find 800 an hour doing cardio at the gym to be believable.

    Calories determined by a HRM are estimated using Norms of thousands of people and are far more accurate than mfp tables.....
    There is plenty more research into developing the norms to which hrms compare to than what you seem to be making out.

    In my opinion, and my biokineticist, there is hardly a mare accurate measure.
    heart rate

    You're missing the point. The way HRMs work is that they use your heart rate to measure the intensity of your exercise, then plug that intensity into exercises listed in a table that probably has the same original source as the tables used by MFP. The HRM should be marginally more accurate than MFP because the intensity would be spread over shorter segments of time rather than taking the average intensity for the exercise period, but if the table is wrong for the person, both MFP and the HRM will be wrong.
  • ScreeField
    ScreeField Posts: 180 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    Sorry to hear you went through difficult times. That's always tough, both emotionally and physically. Sometimes it's hard to get back on track and identify the right actions to accomplish your goals after something stressful. And, sometimes it's hard to even define those goals in the first place.

    Here's what I'd ask myself if I were in the same situation:

    1. What's my goal? to feel better? healthier? look better? gain weight? lose weight? maintain weight and build muscle?
    2. How do I get there?
    3. Will cardio help me reach my goal? If not, is there another reason I'm doing it? *
    4. Will eating a surplus/balance/deficit help me reach my goal?
    5. Will lifting weights help me reach my goal?

    * There are reasons other than energy balance for doing cardio. But, often people think of "cardio" as merely a way of burning calories.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    ljones22903 wrote: »
    OK, hrm are inaccurate, and are not worth the money,

    They are worth the money if you use them appropriately

    Exercises to trust the HRM calorie conversion: steady state cardio eg running, jogging, swimming etc

    Exercises where you cannot trust the calories: everything else including HIIT, weights, and general activity

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,940 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    kirzz92 wrote: »
    I don't eat back my calories and I'm pretty sure my calories burnt is accurate. I use a heart rate monitor... I do one hour cardio and one hour weights 5x per week.

    So, with a TDEE estimate of somewhere between 1866 and 2056 to maintain your current 42kg weight, you are MAYBE eating 1200 Cal, and wondering what exactly?

    Here's the link: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
    I am sure that some other calculator may predict you at a few calories up, or down.

    Anyway you look at it, you are eating at a ~700 deficit

    Given that you are at the absolute bottom of a healthy BMI range, any particular reason you are still trying to lose weight as opposed to eating at maintenance, or surplus, while trying to build muscle?

    Since in order to maintain your weight you need to eat AT, as opposed to below, maintenance, NO, you are not eating enough!

    To your question: everyone else works significantly closer to what the calculators predict for them...
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,940 Member
    Options
    kirzz92 wrote: »
    I don't eat back my calories and I'm pretty sure my calories burnt is accurate. I use a heart rate monitor... I do one hour cardio and one hour weights 5x per week.

    Any reason you're not eating back your exercise calories? Any reason you're doing cardio if you are not capable of eating enough to fuel it? Any reason why you can't eat some peanut butter on toast? Ice Cream? Cheese? Chocolate? Nuts?
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    ljones22903 wrote: »
    OK, hrm are inaccurate, and are not worth the money,

    Resorting to reductio ad absurdum when presented with facts is revealing.

    They are accurate for their purpose ... counting heart beats. They are not calorie counters. If they are worth the money or not depends if one plans on using it for its intended purpose.

Categories