So how many calories AM I burning during my workout?
OtakuMusician
Posts: 66 Member
I'm very much aware that no one can actually answer that question accurately, but I just want a better ballpark range.
I'm F, 5'6", SW:270, CW: 185, GW: 145. I've recently started working out on an elliptical machine for an hour everyday, and if I had to make a guess, I'd estimate that I keep a steady heart rate of 140.
The machine suggests that I burn 400 in the amount of time that I work out, but that seems too high. Is there any way I can get a more limited range for the amount of calories I burn with the information I have available?
I'm F, 5'6", SW:270, CW: 185, GW: 145. I've recently started working out on an elliptical machine for an hour everyday, and if I had to make a guess, I'd estimate that I keep a steady heart rate of 140.
The machine suggests that I burn 400 in the amount of time that I work out, but that seems too high. Is there any way I can get a more limited range for the amount of calories I burn with the information I have available?
0
Replies
-
A heart rate monitor is your best bet !!!0
-
At a good clip on any given cardio (bike, elliptical, gentle treadmill run) I'll get to about 100 cals per 20 minutes with a heart rate of about 135. I'm a bit lighter than you right now though so you might be burning more. I'm 5'5 and 135. So 400 might be high for you but it's not insane. Maybe 320-340?2
-
400 doesn't sound high - why would you assume that?
Is the machine asking for your weight? Does it record your power output (watts)?
If yes then it could well be a reasonable estimate.
The make/model of elliptical would help.
For example I use a Cybex ARC Trainer and found online how they created their own calorie tables by testing a cross section of people using it whilst hooked up to gas analysers - so I have more confidence the estimates are somewhat believable.
At least as believable as using a HRM which has far more variable accuracy than many people seem to think.1 -
http://www.fitclick.com/calories_burned?High_Intensity_Cardio&oc=740
You give it your weight, the duration of your exercise, and you search to see if elliptical machine is in their database. Then it tells you a number which, in my slight experience, seems realistic. You can compare that to the number mfp gives you for the elliptical exercise. I'd choose to trust the fitclick because I read so many complaining about the accuracy of the mfp database.0 -
If 400 seems you high to you based on ____, then what number would you consider reasonable?0
-
400 sounds reasonable to me. Heart rate tells very little about calories burned.1
-
My boyfriend simply suggested that may be an overestimation. He suggested 200 at most for an hour work out. Maybe that's why I've been so discouraged.0
-
The FitClick website suggests 420 calories burned.
Does this really seem like a reasonable calorie burn? If so, sweet! 0 -
OtakuMusician wrote: »The FitClick website suggests 420 calories burned. Does this really seem like a reasonable calorie burn? If so, sweet!
Far more reasonable than 200!
You have two estimates close to each other and one outlier - wonder which one you should disregard......
For comparison at your weight a leisurely walk for an hour at 3.5mph would give you almost 200 cals.
I assume you were working a lot harder than that on the elliptical.
5 -
Meanwhile, MFP suggests 750 calories. Not even going to bother with that one, haha.0
-
OtakuMusician wrote: »Meanwhile, MFP suggests 750 calories. Not even going to bother with that one, haha.
Be very wary of entries in the MFP database with no measurement of distance, speed or perceived exertion - they are pretty pointless except for giving you a heading to log under!
If I were you I would log under the category of "Elliptical" but overwrite the 750 with whatever the machine tells you.0 -
I don't enter anything into MFP for exercise, honestly. I just exercise.0
-
Does your boyfriend have reputable qualifications in this area? A degree in exercise physiology, or something? Perhaps he managed a study on calorific expenditure? No?OtakuMusician wrote: »My boyfriend simply suggested that may be an overestimation. He suggested 200 at most for an hour work out. Maybe that's why I've been so discouraged.
Health Harvard Publications gives a range of 270-400 calories, depending on the user's weight per half hour.
Someone may assert something in a confident voice... and still be wrong.
1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Does your boyfriend have reputable qualifications in this area? A degree in exercise physiology, or something? Perhaps he managed a study on calorific expenditure? No?
Health Harvard Publications gives a range of 270-400 calories, depending on the user's weight per half hour.
Someone may assert something in a confident voice... and still be wrong.
That's just what my boyfriend suggested. Hence why I came to ask for a second opinion.
0 -
Yes. I understand that you asked for a second opinion. My point is, develop a bit of a *kitten* detector. Every time someone declares something like this to you, think: "what are their qualifications in this area?"
The moment your friends and family and their acquaintances discover you are trying to lose weight, it turns out everyone is an armchair personal trainer or dietician, desperate to give you suggestions, many of them potentially hazardous to your health, and the remainder damaging to your morale.
(Visible pregnancy is similar; I once had a road safety instructor give me earnest instructions on how to tell a surgeon to best perform a potential caesarean section.)
Start considering people's credibility first off.
Otherwise, you're going to spend a lot of time googling the supposed benefits of apple cider vinegar.0 -
a leisurely walk for an hour at 3.5mph would give you almost 200 cals.
I assume you were working a lot harder than that on the elliptical.
I'm guessing you're tall. As an average-height woman, 3.5mph (a 17 minute mile) is "I'm in great shape, intentionally trying to walk fast, and can't string two words together without a gap in between." 4.0mph (a 15 minute mile) is a speed I can't sustain for more than a mile, and I need a pace person to get there, even when I've been diligently increasing my walking pace for a year; my legs just don't move that fast at a walk.
For comparison, I can get wattage-based calorie counts from an elliptical of 600+ per hour at a pace I can sustain for an hour.
0 -
Lol you're kinda taking this the wrong way. I hope you have a good rest of your day regardless, though.0
-
OtakuMusician wrote: »The FitClick website suggests 420 calories burned. Does this really seem like a reasonable calorie burn? If so, sweet!
Looking back over your posts, I realize that you haven't mentioned the time interval of your workout.
How long did you tell fitclick you were working?0 -
a leisurely walk for an hour at 3.5mph would give you almost 200 cals.
I assume you were working a lot harder than that on the elliptical.
I'm guessing you're tall. As an average-height woman, 3.5mph (a 17 minute mile) is "I'm in great shape, intentionally trying to walk fast, and can't string two words together without a gap in between." 4.0mph (a 15 minute mile) is a speed I can't sustain for more than a mile, and I need a pace person to get there, even when I've been diligently increasing my walking pace for a year; my legs just don't move that fast at a walk.
For comparison, I can get wattage-based calorie counts from an elliptical of 600+ per hour at a pace I can sustain for an hour.
@allyphoe
No I'm not tall (5'9") and don't think I'm a fast walker at all. A fraction under 4mph is my normal walking speed in town for part of my daily commute, not walking for exercise. 3.5mph is leisurely for me.
My colleague is 5'6" and walks everywhere at almost 5mph comfortably, not sweating or puffed out. He's fit but not super fit - his little legs do go like pistons though!
0 -
No I'm not tall (5'9")
You have 8" on my pace person. That kind of makes you tall.
I'm the person who everyone says, "slow down; it's not a race" to, and my natural walking pace is about 3.3mph. The people I walk with are all close to 5' even, though. And I'd consider my natural walking pace to be brisk, rather than leisurely.
Back to the OP's original question, I personally found that my NEAT decreases as my elliptical burn increases, so I can't eat back any significant number of those calories. But it took me a long time to reach that conclusion; I need about 90 days of data to wash out the effect of random fluctuation.
0 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Otherwise, you're going to spend a lot of time googling the supposed benefits of apple cider vinegar.
LOLOLOLOL
0 -
a leisurely walk for an hour at 3.5mph would give you almost 200 cals.
I assume you were working a lot harder than that on the elliptical.
I'm guessing you're tall. As an average-height woman, 3.5mph (a 17 minute mile) is "I'm in great shape, intentionally trying to walk fast, and can't string two words together without a gap in between." 4.0mph (a 15 minute mile) is a speed I can't sustain for more than a mile, and I need a pace person to get there, even when I've been diligently increasing my walking pace for a year; my legs just don't move that fast at a walk.
For comparison, I can get wattage-based calorie counts from an elliptical of 600+ per hour at a pace I can sustain for an hour.
What now?
I'm 5'3" and that's my normal walking pace. Also, my post run walk back home pace (add a min per mile if it was a really long run for me). Yes, my normal walk is quicker than most, I'm always having to go around people, but it isn't even close to a workout.0 -
Must vary a lot between people? I work in kilometres, and 3.5mph is 5.6km per hour. On the treadmill that was just my brisk-walk-because-I'm-running-late pace, and I can carry on a conversation without difficulty. I can't go above 6.4km per hour (3.9 mph) without running, though. I'm nearly 5'3.a leisurely walk for an hour at 3.5mph would give you almost 200 cals.
I assume you were working a lot harder than that on the elliptical.
I'm guessing you're tall. As an average-height woman, 3.5mph (a 17 minute mile) is "I'm in great shape, intentionally trying to walk fast, and can't string two words together without a gap in between." 4.0mph (a 15 minute mile) is a speed I can't sustain for more than a mile, and I need a pace person to get there, even when I've been diligently increasing my walking pace for a year; my legs just don't move that fast at a walk.
For comparison, I can get wattage-based calorie counts from an elliptical of 600+ per hour at a pace I can sustain for an hour.
What now?
I'm 5'3" and that's my normal walking pace. Also, my post run walk back home pace (add a min per mile if it was a really long run for me). Yes, my normal walk is quicker than most, I'm always having to go around people, but it isn't even close to a workout.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions