How do you guys count calories burned at the gym?

Fitbit Charge 2

A lot to be done in a gym - what are you doing?

I use Endomondo on my phone. You input your age, gender, weight, etc. You can also pair it with a HRM.

I pretty much only count calories for steady state cardio. HIIT might be close to accurate with a HRM but forget about resistance training. No way I have found to accurately guess the amounts burned.

What I did was eat closer to maintenance when I was lifting 3x per week. I basically set my weight loss goal at .5 lbs. I lost at 1-1.5lbs doing this. I started lifting 5x per week and still haven't balanced out the calories for additional burn. I likely will need to eat at maintenance so I can keep my loss rate at around 1lbs per week.

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Okiludy wrote: »

HIIT might be close to accurate with a HRM

HRMs are not suitable for HIIT burn estimates. HIIT is in fact pretty much the worst use-case for them.

Kind of was think that but have not seen any proof. Only thing I'd really trust an HRM for calculating calories is steady state. Even that is likely best guess.

caloriemuse wrote: »

There is however a more important caveat to how you calculate them, it's how you consider them in your diet. On exercise calories and a diet for my money Yoni Freedhoff is a guy that seems to have a pretty good story to tell in this video.

The one thing that I'd like to see is what the supposed science is, the biochemistry. From the video, it seems like the most sensible explanation is that exercise induces your body to subsequently slow down energy expenditure; example you may without exercise burn your natural 2500 calories in energy in a day. Add exercise and although you burn 500 calories at that activity the body, following exercise, slows down its energy expenditure such that at the end of the day you are still right around the 2500. If there is any, and there is a question in the data if there is, the effective calorie deficit from exercise is probably in the single digits %'s.

From what I've read, it's not the biochemistry - it's just the fact that for many that aren't used to it, and especially if viewing it as a means to an end (weight loss or eating more) that isn't as important as overall health - they just flat out do less.

So indeed, a 2500 cal active lifestyle TDEE person throws a 500 cal workout in their day somewhere.
They would have burned say 200 anyway because normally busy with stuff - so only a net gain of 300.
Then they are more tired later so sit longer, so say miss out on 200 over the course of 3 hrs - so only net gain of 100.

Or the other person, 2000 not-so-active lifestyle TDEE person throws a 500 cal workout in replacing TV/computer sitting time.
So net gain their may 420, but then they do even less for many more hours and lose 300 - net gain only 120.
And they more than eat up that extra amount.

Only time I've seen the research say the body actually burns less is in a diet doing the wrong things (no exercise or extreme deficit) and body becomes more metabolically adapted beyond what muscle loss would cause.

20 some years ago I wondered if my very aerobic-conditioned system was causing me to burn less. There were research studies even then that showed no, as people got aerobically conditioned, they did not burn less daily, except for the very minor amount related to the heart not beating as fast, and breathing rate being slower. That wasn't the excuse for what I thought was happening.
And those both slowed down because the body could provide the same amount of desired oxygen for oxidizing energy sources.
(my reason - undereating for level of activity and then not moving as much outside exercise - lowered TDEE, exactly what he was talking about - except I needed to eat more).

I think his advice is still appropriate for free-range non-tracking situations.

But for people with activity trackers watching and getting a certain number of steps in, watching what they eating, ect - it's not actually as much a factor.

Because if they do sit around more - it shows up in lack of steps, and TDEE correctly shows being lower - so you eat lower if logging decently.

What works well for me is to work from a base sedentary level. "Steps" are accounted for separately, as is intentional vigorous exercise. I always calculate net calorie burns, so as to not double-up. And I'm extremely careful about burn estimates for non-steady state exercise.

Over the long term, this tracks extremely well for me, within 5%. Which, I guess, since the baseline is sedentary, does lend some anecdotal weight to the notion that the body will compensate by slowing down a bit.