nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

MyFitnessPal Community

Logging gym classes

ceiswyn

I’ve just started to get over the horrors of school PE and dip my toe in going to classes at the gym, and I was looking for advice on the best way to log things that don’t have specific entries in the DB.

For example, I’m currently logging my Dance Fit class as dancing, and my Body Balance as yoga, and Body Pump as strength training... but I know that the strength training entry is basically guesswork anyway. So is there a more accurate way to do it or should I just carry on approximating?

Replies

bendyourkneekatie

Honestly once you get away from running or walking, which are fairly straight forward 'moving x weight over y distance in z time' equations it's all guess work. Body pump is actually in the database under cardio (as it really is more cardio than strength), but still: look around a class, different weights, different effort levels, etc. I used to do attack and there's no way me doing all the extra tuck jumps as high as I could was burning the same as the person who didn't ever get two feet off the ground at once.
So guess based on the info you can gather. Guess conservatively. Track your rate of loss. Adjust if necessary.

ceiswyn

When I search the database for 'body pump' under cardio no results come up. That's why I logged the cardio aspect as 'strength training'. Though point taken

jerber160

a heart rate monitor might suit your needs. polar ft. fitbit...garmin....

RadishEater

I will log a 45 min body pump class as 35 min doing "Calisthenics, home, light/moderate effort" since we do intervals often and do increase the heart rate throughout class.

For all the rest of the strength classes i.e barre, pilates, trx I log as pilates with shaving 10 mins off the actually time, since there is usually stretching and talking how to do the exercises.

SarahLascelles1

ceiswyn wrote: »

When I search the database for 'body pump' under cardio no results come up. That's why I logged the cardio aspect as 'strength training'. Though point taken

try searching "Less Mills"

SarahLascelles1

Sorry, Les Mills, not Less Mills.
I suppose I should just be grateful the phone didn't correct it to "Les Mis"

ceiswyn

Now I have this mental image of adding a red flag to the bar and belting out ‘Do you hear the people sing?!’ as I go

Aha, now I see; my gym lists it as two separate words and the DB has it as one. Wow, the MFP search facility is terrible if its fuzzy matching misses that!

ceiswyn

jerber160 wrote: »

a heart rate monitor might suit your needs. polar ft. fitbit...garmin....

I’m a postgrad student without an income so I am not going to splash out on an expensive bit of kit; especially one that’s actually no more accurate than manually logging against the MFP database. And doubly so as I’m allergic to the metal of my current watch and need to keep the back off my wrist. But thanks for the suggestion.

MeanderingMammal

jerber160 wrote: »

a heart rate monitor might suit your needs. polar ft. fitbit...garmin....

For those kind of classes you might as well use a random number generator.

AnnPT77

Here's a different view: If you do the same things consistently, log them conservatively and consistently, eat back about the same fraction of the logged exercise calories, stick with the routine for 4-6 weeks, then adjust your calorie goal based on your actual real-world results . . . you'll do fine.

All exercise estimates are approximations. All MFP or "calculator" calorie goals are statistical estimates. All food logging has errors.

To succeed, you don't actually need to be 100% accurate. You just need to be consistent, look at your results, and adjust. That's the successful way to work with estimates.

briscogun

I actually use the UA Record app to log my workouts since it is much more robust and has a lot of options included for different workouts (gym, walking, running, workout videos, etc), then it just feeds over to MFP. MFP only really has good tracking for cardio exercises.

ceiswyn

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Here's a different view: If you do the same things consistently, log them conservatively and consistently, eat back about the same fraction of the logged exercise calories, stick with the routine for 4-6 weeks, then adjust your calorie goal based on your actual real-world results . . . you'll do fine.

All exercise estimates are approximations. All MFP or "calculator" calorie goals are statistical estimates. All food logging has errors.

To succeed, you don't actually need to be 100% accurate. You just need to be consistent, look at your results, and adjust. That's the successful way to work with estimates.

But I don’t do the same things consistently

Walking yes, and I know how to log that and how much to eat back. But as I lose weight and gain in fitness and confidence, I’m more or less constantly trying new things and changing up my routine. I’m familiar with the principle of eating back 50-75% of logged calories, and I know MFP counts are only a ballpark, but I do need to be in the right ballpark. Or I might as well not bother logging exercise at all.

MeanderingMammal

ceiswyn wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Here's a different view: If you do the same things consistently, log them conservatively and consistently, eat back about the same fraction of the logged exercise calories, stick with the routine for 4-6 weeks, then adjust your calorie goal based on your actual real-world results . . . you'll do fine.

All exercise estimates are approximations. All MFP or "calculator" calorie goals are statistical estimates. All food logging has errors.

To succeed, you don't actually need to be 100% accurate. You just need to be consistent, look at your results, and adjust. That's the successful way to work with estimates.

But I don’t do the same things consistently Walking yes, and I know how to log that and how much to eat back. But as I lose weight and gain in fitness and confidence, I’m more or less constantly trying new things and changing up my routine. I’m familiar with the principle of eating back 50-75% of logged calories, and I know MFP counts are only a ballpark, but I do need to be in the right ballpark. Or I might as well not bother logging exercise at all.

There is an option for circuit training, which is probably appropriate for most class type environments.

AnnPT77

ceiswyn wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Here's a different view: If you do the same things consistently, log them conservatively and consistently, eat back about the same fraction of the logged exercise calories, stick with the routine for 4-6 weeks, then adjust your calorie goal based on your actual real-world results . . . you'll do fine.

All exercise estimates are approximations. All MFP or "calculator" calorie goals are statistical estimates. All food logging has errors.

To succeed, you don't actually need to be 100% accurate. You just need to be consistent, look at your results, and adjust. That's the successful way to work with estimates.

But I don’t do the same things consistently Walking yes, and I know how to log that and how much to eat back. But as I lose weight and gain in fitness and confidence, I’m more or less constantly trying new things and changing up my routine. I’m familiar with the principle of eating back 50-75% of logged calories, and I know MFP counts are only a ballpark, but I do need to be in the right ballpark. Or I might as well not bother logging exercise at all.

Yes, ballpark. But not standing squarely on home plate.

Large numbers of things are close in RPE (rate of perceived exertion) and type of work-creating movement. When you try something new, think what it's similar to, estimate. Look up some MET equivalents, check various online calculators (especially activity-specialized ones with more variables), estimate.

Think about (estimate) the probable magnitude of estimating error as a percentage of your day's calories - might be a big percent for endurance athletes, but usually not for gym classes. In maintenance, I estimate my spin class to burn around 20% of my total daily calories. Suppose I'm off by half that, a large estimating error - 10% of my daily calories. In the US, food package labels calories are allowed to be off by 20%, or so I've read. Some things (eating or exercise) will be over, some under. It's all estimates. So: Meh. If I don't gain/lose/ mauntain as expected, I'll adjust.

Keep approximating, make your best estimate, adjust based on results.

Betting it'll be close enough.

Not logging exercise is 100% guaranteed to be wrong.

ceiswyn

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Large numbers of things are close in RPE (rate of perceived exertion) and type of work-creating movement. When you try something new, think what it's similar to, estimate. Look up some MET equivalents, check various online calculators (especially activity-specialized ones with more variables), estimate.

Think about (estimate) the probable magnitude of estimating error as a percentage of your day's calories - might be a big percent for endurance athletes, but usually not for gym classes.

Which is exactly what you can see I am already doing from my first post. In which I estimated Body Pump as similar to strength training.

But there’s a 200kcal+ difference between the strength training entry and the specific Body Pump entry that has now been pointed out to me. Since I only eat back half anyway, that meant that I underate on a day when I’m already at the rock bottom of the calorie count my body will tolerate, and would explain why I felt seriously crap the next day until my main meal.

I have never expected complete accuracy, and I’m entirely familiar with the process of adjusting over time. But I DO need my initial logging to be close enough that I don’t undereat while in a low calorie phase and crash.

So thanks to the person who actually answered my question and pointed me at entries that are a better ballpark. I’ll use those next time

Dnarules

ceiswyn wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Here's a different view: If you do the same things consistently, log them conservatively and consistently, eat back about the same fraction of the logged exercise calories, stick with the routine for 4-6 weeks, then adjust your calorie goal based on your actual real-world results . . . you'll do fine.

All exercise estimates are approximations. All MFP or "calculator" calorie goals are statistical estimates. All food logging has errors.

To succeed, you don't actually need to be 100% accurate. You just need to be consistent, look at your results, and adjust. That's the successful way to work with estimates.

But I don’t do the same things consistently Walking yes, and I know how to log that and how much to eat back. But as I lose weight and gain in fitness and confidence, I’m more or less constantly trying new things and changing up my routine. I’m familiar with the principle of eating back 50-75% of logged calories, and I know MFP counts are only a ballpark, but I do need to be in the right ballpark. Or I might as well not bother logging exercise at all.

If you aren't doing the same things consistently, but you are exercising consistently, you may want to try the TDEE method?

Dnarules

ceiswyn wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Large numbers of things are close in RPE (rate of perceived exertion) and type of work-creating movement. When you try something new, think what it's similar to, estimate. Look up some MET equivalents, check various online calculators (especially activity-specialized ones with more variables), estimate.

Think about (estimate) the probable magnitude of estimating error as a percentage of your day's calories - might be a big percent for endurance athletes, but usually not for gym classes.

Which is exactly what you can see I am already doing from my first post. In which I estimated Body Pump as similar to strength training.

But there’s a 200kcal+ difference between the strength training entry and the specific Body Pump entry that has now been pointed out to me. Since I only eat back half anyway, that meant that I underate on a day when I’m already at the rock bottom of the calorie count my body will tolerate, and would explain why I felt seriously crap the next day until my main meal.

I have never expected complete accuracy, and I’m entirely familiar with the process of adjusting over time. But I DO need my initial logging to be close enough that I don’t undereat while in a low calorie phase and crash.

So thanks to the person who actually answered my question and pointed me at entries that are a better ballpark. I’ll use those next time

This doesn't really make sense to me, though. Just because you used a database entry for body pump doesn't mean that number is actually more accurate for you.

WilmaValley

Interesting discussion, thanks!

ceiswyn

Dnarules wrote: »

This doesn't really make sense to me, though. Just because you used a database entry for body pump doesn't mean that number is actually more accurate for you.

You don’t think that the DB entry for the activity I actually did is likely to be any more accurate than the one for a different activity that has even more individual variation?

ceiswyn

Dnarules wrote: »

If you aren't doing the same things consistently, but you are exercising consistently, you may want to try the TDEE method?

And if I exercised consistently, that would work. But I have a number of dodgy joints from past injuries that my old weight exacerbated, so there are quite often days where I have to do very little. So I’d much rather just log the exercise I know I’m actually doing.

Plus, on days where I’m not feeling motivated I tend to coax myself into exercise by pre-logging healthy meals and leaving no space for chocolate, so that if I want chocolate I gotta get off my bum. That won’t work if I just have a single number.

Dnarules

ceiswyn wrote: »

Dnarules wrote: »

This doesn't really make sense to me, though. Just because you used a database entry for body pump doesn't mean that number is actually more accurate for you.

You don’t think that the DB entry for the activity I actually did is likely to be any more accurate than the one for a different activity that has even more individual variation?

Possibly. I did body pump, and so much depends on weights used, intensity, etc. I used to log about 350 for an hour. I ate all of them, and weight loss was fine.

I guess my point was that it is still an estimate, and you will still have to monitor results just as @AnnPT77 mentioned.

mk11wagn

How come when logging strength exercises it doesn't count any calories?

MegaMooseEsq

mk1wagn wrote: »

How come when logging strength exercises it doesn't count any calories?

MFP is just weird that way. You can select “strength training” under cardio to log calories. Watch your results, though, and adjust as needed - the calorie burn from strength training is really difficult to estimate.

GOT_Obsessed

I go to quite a few group classes too and created my own "group fitness" exercise and assigned it a pretty low number. I use it for body pump, bootcamp zumba, 20 20 20, etc.

Those days I don't dip much into my exercise calories.

ceiswyn

Dnarules wrote: »

I guess my point was that it is still an estimate, and you will still have to monitor results just as @AnnPT77 mentioned.

Which I already said that I do anyway.

Why is this thread still going? I asked a question, and got an answer. What’s with all the people telling me how to do something I’ve been doing perfectly competently for the past year, or wanting me to buy equipment I don’t need and can’t afford, or change up a process that’s worked really well for me for the last 200lb?

I suppose at least on this thread, unlike the last one in this forum, I don’t have anyone flat disbelieving that I dd the exercise I’m asking about

MegaMooseEsq

ceiswyn wrote: »

Dnarules wrote: »

I guess my point was that it is still an estimate, and you will still have to monitor results just as @AnnPT77 mentioned.

Which I already said that I do anyway.

Why is this thread still going? I asked a question, and got an answer. What’s with all the people telling me how to do something I’ve been doing perfectly competently for the past year, or wanting me to buy equipment I don’t need and can’t afford, or change up a process that’s worked really well for me for the last 200lb?

I suppose at least on this thread, unlike the last one in this forum, I don’t have anyone flat disbelieving that I dd the exercise I’m asking about

These things do take on a life of their own - to offer some more unsolicited advice, I find it easiest to read everything, respond positively or not at all, and let the digressions and unhelpful stuff go. I posted a thread a while ago asking for recommendations for a specific type of pre-made food product, and over half of the responses were either recipies (I clearly stated I wasn’t in a situation to cook right now) or questions about why I wanted the product in the first place. It’s annoying, and hard not to get offended when people clearly don’t listen or question your judgment, but the good advice mixed in usually makes it worth it. And I find most people here really do want to help.