Needing to tone my arms. Tell me if Im wrong
tequierosince06
Posts: 101 Member
I am getting married in 1.5mo in April and of course like every bride on the planet I want to lose some weight. In the past I have lost a good amount of weight and looked pretty good and Im trying to recreate that workout & diet plan but I didn’t give myself as much time as I should to lose weight but its ok. I will take whatever progress I can get. I started working out & dieting/eating healthy at the end of November.
My focus in toning is my problem areas which are my lower belly and my arms. Whenever I workout I get gains in my legs/thighs and butt fairly easily and they tone quickly but my upper body is so hard lol.
Anyways I started boxing in December twice a week (my heart rate is similar to HIIT workout and Im burning 600-700 calories per hour workout (I use a heart rate monitor)) And strength training 2 days a week according to my workout video plan (My plan tells me what videos to do). But my strength training didn’t necessarily focus on arms, switches between lower body, upper, and core. On strength training days I also add in 20min of light cycling, I watch my heart rate and try to keep in in the fat burning zone (roughly 130bpm) to add a little light cardio & add some extra time to my workout since strength is usally about 30min.
Sometimes I substitute a day for my Zumba Strong which is pretty much a HIIT workout (600 cal/hr). I am starting to see some definition in my arms not a whole lot but its some progress. Also my gut has gotten smaller by some, again not alot but def looks better.
So with all that backstory now im getting to my question. Im feeling a little confused after talking to a friend about my workout routine. Shes no expert but she works out with a trainer and as I was complaining about my arms she told me: to tone my arms I should use lighter weights and boxing is going to bulk my arms instead of toning.
Now im questioning my efforts & re-doing my research because im like what? Tell me if im wrong please:
-Bulking is hard to do and does not come quickly or easily
-Boxing will not necessarily bulk the arms but because it involves a lot of cardio it will make the body overall more lean
-Heavier weights will add muscle mass and burn fat so heavier weights are better and wont necessarily bulk because once again it takes a lot of work to bulk
With that being said. I know I need to lose fat overall in my whole body before I can start seeing my muscle tone underneath my fatty arms. Am I doing a good job with my HIIT/Cardio and adding in some strength training. I know I dont have much time left but What should I change as far as workout?
My focus in toning is my problem areas which are my lower belly and my arms. Whenever I workout I get gains in my legs/thighs and butt fairly easily and they tone quickly but my upper body is so hard lol.
Anyways I started boxing in December twice a week (my heart rate is similar to HIIT workout and Im burning 600-700 calories per hour workout (I use a heart rate monitor)) And strength training 2 days a week according to my workout video plan (My plan tells me what videos to do). But my strength training didn’t necessarily focus on arms, switches between lower body, upper, and core. On strength training days I also add in 20min of light cycling, I watch my heart rate and try to keep in in the fat burning zone (roughly 130bpm) to add a little light cardio & add some extra time to my workout since strength is usally about 30min.
Sometimes I substitute a day for my Zumba Strong which is pretty much a HIIT workout (600 cal/hr). I am starting to see some definition in my arms not a whole lot but its some progress. Also my gut has gotten smaller by some, again not alot but def looks better.
So with all that backstory now im getting to my question. Im feeling a little confused after talking to a friend about my workout routine. Shes no expert but she works out with a trainer and as I was complaining about my arms she told me: to tone my arms I should use lighter weights and boxing is going to bulk my arms instead of toning.
Now im questioning my efforts & re-doing my research because im like what? Tell me if im wrong please:
-Bulking is hard to do and does not come quickly or easily
-Boxing will not necessarily bulk the arms but because it involves a lot of cardio it will make the body overall more lean
-Heavier weights will add muscle mass and burn fat so heavier weights are better and wont necessarily bulk because once again it takes a lot of work to bulk
With that being said. I know I need to lose fat overall in my whole body before I can start seeing my muscle tone underneath my fatty arms. Am I doing a good job with my HIIT/Cardio and adding in some strength training. I know I dont have much time left but What should I change as far as workout?
0
Replies
-
Sheesh sorry that was kind of a long post1
-
At least part of your problem is the conception. There isn't really a way to "tone" muscle - it is a buzz word the fitness industry came up with to sell exercise plans to women who were afraid they'd grow Arnold Schwarzenegger arms by biking up a dumbbell weighing more than 5 pounds.
There are two things that control the size of a body area that diet and exercise can change: losing fat, or building muscle. There isn't really a way to build "tone" muscle, you just have bigger or smaller muscles, and more or less fat on them.
Losing fat is not really compartmentable - there isn't much to suggest ways to lose fat in a particular area, besides liposuction. Instead, one has to lose fat overall if they want less fat, and see if the area they want to lean out is getting leaner. Fat is lost via a calorie deficit - eating less / moving more.
Gaining muscle is pretty much the opposite - it is hyper specific, doing bicep curls won't increase your calf muscle size one iota - unless you have the worst form imaginable. Muscle grows from subjecting it to resistance training, generally lifting weights or using machines to create resistance, with enough resistance that it isn't really possible to repeat the lift too many times (being able to doing a movement more than 30 times or so without rest means it is more cardio than resistance training).
You probably are not burning 600 to 700 calories in your boxing. Heart rate monitors are only good for estimating calories in activities with consistent heart rates. HIIT is not that kind of activity.
Adding strength training will potentially lead to some muscle gains. A woman isn't going to build muscle very fast, and a calorie deficit is not good for building muscle. On top of that, beginners can have slow increases in muscle because at first they gain skill in the movement before they really cause the changes that lead to muscle growth. On a 1.5 month deadline, you probably want to avoid the beginner advice of using compound barbell movements, and instead, if you want more muscle, look towards machines that limit the need for learning the movement pattern.15 -
@magnusthenerd
Thank u so much for your comment but can you Simplify That last part, ur suggesting to add weight training to build more muscle? I should have mentioned I workout at home, gym isn’t really an option I know gym is ideal but its just not something I can do.
What do you mean by limit the need for learning movement pattern
Also since HRMonitors are just an estimate do u think im burning a lot less, that kinda sucks.0 -
Sorry one more thing. Is boxing w a heavy bag not helping with my goals one way or another (Whether its helping me burn fat or build muscle) ? @magnusthenerd0
-
Boxing burns calories not fat as you think of it.
Diet as are you in a caloric deficit on average will burn fat.
Heavy bag won't produce significance muscle growth long term. Though still a viable source for cardiovascular health if you wish.
Building muscles is done with resistance training with the right conditions.2 -
Yea thats true My heart rate gets up pretty high with boxing so I kinda knew its not fat being burned ^^ I didn’t mean to say burn fat in that comment now that I think of it. Thanks for confirming that my boxing is still useful & im not bulking like my friend said since im not really building Significant muscle.
Thanks for ur comment @Chieflrg1 -
I am not a lifter as such so I am sure I will be corrected if I say something wrong.
No you won't bulk boxing, it takes a lot of dedidcation/time and effort for a woman to bulk
As you lose weight the muscle you do have will show a bit more which will make your arms look firmer.
Lifting heavy things up and down is great for women in general as it strengthens muscles and bones so
if you haven't already get some decent weight dumbells and check out some programmes for arm exercises.
You are doing fine, you will see progress in time don't let well meaning but possibly ill informed friends put you off. You are doing the right thing researching and asking questions on here. So many knowledgeable people on here. I am sure you will get some great advice.2 -
Thank you!! @manderson27 Sometimes in life we need a little confirmation. Thanks.0
-
tequierosince06 wrote: »@magnusthenerd
Thank u so much for your comment but can you Simplify That last part, ur suggesting to add weight training to build more muscle? I should have mentioned I workout at home, gym isn’t really an option I know gym is ideal but its just not something I can do.
What do you mean by limit the need for learning movement pattern
Also since HRMonitors are just an estimate do u think im burning a lot less, that kinda sucks.
You can weight train at home - I've listened to a pro natural bodybuilder discuss working out on vacation with two milk jugs filled with water as his main piece of equipment.
Limiting the learning is about the kinds of lifts done. Most beginner programs will do some movements that are actually hard to do right: bench press, deadlifts, squats, overhead press, rows. All of those movements have skill components one can learn that will increase ability without a need for more muscle. In comparison, simple machines like a leg extension or bicep curl start building muscle from the start - there isn't much to learn about optimal bar path or bracing.
HR Monitors aren't even an estimate for something like HIIT. They're a decent estimate for actual steady cardio like running or biking. For HIIT there's just no real correlation between what your heart rate is over time and what your body is burning. A HIIT type activity is almost certainly going to be an overestimate because HIIT gets the heart rate elevated, and it stays elevated even as the intensity of the activity comes down.
Just consider, cardio wise, 600-700 calories represents ~6-7 miles for someone weighing ~150 lbs. A lot of people would not be able to sustainably run for an hour at a pace that would get through 6 or 7 hours. If you've ever run a 10 minute mile, does the boxing feel like that effort - for the whole time?1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »tequierosince06 wrote: »@magnusthenerd
Thank u so much for your comment but can you Simplify That last part, ur suggesting to add weight training to build more muscle? I should have mentioned I workout at home, gym isn’t really an option I know gym is ideal but its just not something I can do.
What do you mean by limit the need for learning movement pattern
Also since HRMonitors are just an estimate do u think im burning a lot less, that kinda sucks.
You can weight train at home - I've listened to a pro natural bodybuilder discuss working out on vacation with two milk jugs filled with water as his main piece of equipment.
Limiting the learning is about the kinds of lifts done. Most beginner programs will do some movements that are actually hard to do right: bench press, deadlifts, squats, overhead press, rows. All of those movements have skill components one can learn that will increase ability without a need for more muscle. In comparison, simple machines like a leg extension or bicep curl start building muscle from the start - there isn't much to learn about optimal bar path or bracing.
HR Monitors aren't even an estimate for something like HIIT. They're a decent estimate for actual steady cardio like running or biking. For HIIT there's just no real correlation between what your heart rate is over time and what your body is burning. A HIIT type activity is almost certainly going to be an overestimate because HIIT gets the heart rate elevated, and it stays elevated even as the intensity of the activity comes down.
Just consider, cardio wise, 600-700 calories represents ~6-7 miles for someone weighing ~150 lbs. A lot of people would not be able to sustainably run for an hour at a pace that would get through 6 or 7 hours. If you've ever run a 10 minute mile, does the boxing feel like that effort - for the whole time?
Thanks. I would say yes and no. Some combinations im tired like I have ran a mile, other combos no. So good to as far as the boxing aspect but when im doing my actual HIIT videos and zumba it’s definitely a yes. Im tired and winded like Ive ran a mile & I am definitely nott a runner, I hate running.0 -
With the calories your tracker says you've burnt off, this does (usually, I don't know for definite with yours) include the calories you would be burning off just being alive, that mfp have already allocated you. Please don't assume that if it says 600, you add in 600 extra calories to your allowance for the day, because you would need to mentally remove the hours normal average calories to get a clearer picture, or get them to sync and trust the mfp estimate to do it for you. There are threads that pop up all the time asking why mfp says they've burnt less than the tracker says and a common reason can be that it's taken off the part of that amount its already given you.0
-
OP, you are doing some great exercise, and some good things for yourself (yay!), but I think you're misunderstanding how some of this stuff works, and probably over-estimating your exercise calorie burn, I'm sorry to say.tequierosince06 wrote: »Yea thats true My heart rate gets up pretty high with boxing so I kinda knew its not fat being burned ^^ I didn’t mean to say burn fat in that comment now that I think of it. Thanks for confirming that my boxing is still useful & im not bulking like my friend said since im not really building Significant muscle.
Thanks for ur comment @Chieflrg
I think you're believing that working in the so-called "fat burning zone" is important for burning fat. Despite the zone's name, it's not.
What burns fat is eating fewer calories than you burn, over a period of time (we usually think of it as per day, but that's an oversimplification). When you exercise, you burn calories. For any given single type of exercise, doing that exercise more intensely generally burns more calories per minute than doing it less intensely. The more intensely you do it, though, the less time you can continue (because your body gets exhausted faster).
So, exercise burns calories, and higher intensity burns more calories per minute. Any calories that you burn, but don't eat back (from exercise or anything else), are going to be made up sooner or later by your body burning fat to "balance the books". (Note: If you try to lose too fast, your body might burn lean tissue in addition to fat, which would be bad.) The fat burning "catch up" might even happen while you sleep . . . but who cares when it happens, if weight loss is the goal?
What zone you were in when you did the exercise doesn't matter. It could be the "fat burning zone", or a lower zone, or a higher zone. Doesn't matter. Eventually, the calorie deficit - the amount by which you ate less than you burned - will be made up by burning stored fat.
All the "fat burning zone" is telling you is that the mix of fuel at the time you're doing the exercise is coming more from fat, less from glycogen. That matters to endurance athletes trying to figure out how much sugar-y stuff to eat, and when to eat it, while running a marathon, or something like that. It doesn't matter to someone who's trying to lose weight, because your body will make up the deficit from fat sooner or later. What you burn at the moment of exercise is irrelevant. How many calories you burn is what matters (and whether you eat them back).
It's fine to do HIIT, it's fine to do boxing. I have a decent idea what it takes to burn 700 calories in an hour via exercise. Your HIIT is very unlikely to be doing that, unfortunately.
Heart rate monitors can be fair (not perfect) at estimating calories from moderate intensity steady state cardio, assuming they know your actual tested maximum heart rate (which they rarely do). They're not very good at estimating interval exercise, and the more intense the intervals, the worse they're likely to be. (If you're relatively new to this kind of exercise (or are resuming energetic exercise after not having done it for some time, they're even more likely to over-estimate intervals, because your heart rate recovery isn't very rapid.) They're not good at estimating exercise with any kind of strength component (like circuits). They're less good at estimating calories from easy steady state or intense steady state than they are at estimating moderate steady state. They're still a useful tool, but it's important to understand their limitations.
BTW: I'd point out that Magnus said 700 calories would be as if you ran seven miles in an hour, not one mile. That's a mile in around 8.6 minutes, followed by 6 more of them at the same speed to get to 60 minutes, without stopping or slowing even once.
I think you're mostly doing things that are reasonably good ways to approach your goals, subject to changes suggested by chieflrg. I fear you're over-estimating your exercise calories, but your exercise will burn calories, so if you're losing weight at a sensible rate, you're doing fine.
Don't worry about exercising at too low a heart rate, or too high a heart rate, as compared with the irrelevant "fat burning zone". All of it burns calories. Usually, your best calorie burn happens by hitting the steady-state intensity you can hold onto for your whole exercise time period, without excessive fatigue afterward, while also allowing a short slower warm-up phase, and a slower cool-down phase at the end. That's sort of the sweet spot, for time efficiency. Personally, I'd just go with doing something you find fun, that isn't too exhausting, and take the calories that burns, and the fitness it brings, as a win.
Best wishes!8 -
You’ve received some good advice and insight.
Yes, lift weights to answer your question.
Bicep/triceps/shoulder/back. That will give you the “toned” look you’re looking for. I used to only do cardio then hired a coach and started lifting.1 -
OP, you are doing some great exercise, and some good things for yourself (yay!), but I think you're misunderstanding how some of this stuff works, and probably over-estimating your exercise calorie burn, I'm sorry to say.tequierosince06 wrote: »Yea thats true My heart rate gets up pretty high with boxing so I kinda knew its not fat being burned ^^ I didn’t mean to say burn fat in that comment now that I think of it. Thanks for confirming that my boxing is still useful & im not bulking like my friend said since im not really building Significant muscle.
Thanks for ur comment @Chieflrg
I think you're believing that working in the so-called "fat burning zone" is important for burning fat. Despite the zone's name, it's not.
What burns fat is eating fewer calories than you burn, over a period of time (we usually think of it as per day, but that's an oversimplification). When you exercise, you burn calories. For any given single type of exercise, doing that exercise more intensely generally burns more calories per minute than doing it less intensely. The more intensely you do it, though, the less time you can continue (because your body gets exhausted faster).
So, exercise burns calories, and higher intensity burns more calories per minute. Any calories that you burn, but don't eat back (from exercise or anything else), are going to be made up sooner or later by your body burning fat to "balance the books". (Note: If you try to lose too fast, your body might burn lean tissue in addition to fat, which would be bad.) The fat burning "catch up" might even happen while you sleep . . . but who cares when it happens, if weight loss is the goal?
What zone you were in when you did the exercise doesn't matter. It could be the "fat burning zone", or a lower zone, or a higher zone. Doesn't matter. Eventually, the calorie deficit - the amount by which you ate less than you burned - will be made up by burning stored fat.
All the "fat burning zone" is telling you is that the mix of fuel at the time you're doing the exercise is coming more from fat, less from glycogen. That matters to endurance athletes trying to figure out how much sugar-y stuff to eat, and when to eat it, while running a marathon, or something like that. It doesn't matter to someone who's trying to lose weight, because your body will make up the deficit from fat sooner or later. What you burn at the moment of exercise is irrelevant. How many calories you burn is what matters (and whether you eat them back).
It's fine to do HIIT, it's fine to do boxing. I have a decent idea what it takes to burn 700 calories in an hour via exercise. Your HIIT is very unlikely to be doing that, unfortunately.
Heart rate monitors can be fair (not perfect) at estimating calories from moderate intensity steady state cardio, assuming they know your actual tested maximum heart rate (which they rarely do). They're not very good at estimating interval exercise, and the more intense the intervals, the worse they're likely to be. (If you're relatively new to this kind of exercise (or are resuming energetic exercise after not having done it for some time, they're even more likely to over-estimate intervals, because your heart rate recovery isn't very rapid.) They're not good at estimating exercise with any kind of strength component (like circuits). They're less good at estimating calories from easy steady state or intense steady state than they are at estimating moderate steady state. They're still a useful tool, but it's important to understand their limitations.
BTW: I'd point out that Magnus said 700 calories would be as if you ran seven miles in an hour, not one mile. That's a mile in around 8.6 minutes, followed by 6 more of them at the same speed to get to 60 minutes, without stopping or slowing even once.
I think you're mostly doing things that are reasonably good ways to approach your goals, subject to changes suggested by chieflrg. I fear you're over-estimating your exercise calories, but your exercise will burn calories, so if you're losing weight at a sensible rate, you're doing fine.
Don't worry about exercising at too low a heart rate, or too high a heart rate, as compared with the irrelevant "fat burning zone". All of it burns calories. Usually, your best calorie burn happens by hitting the steady-state intensity you can hold onto for your whole exercise time period, without excessive fatigue afterward, while also allowing a short slower warm-up phase, and a slower cool-down phase at the end. That's sort of the sweet spot, for time efficiency. Personally, I'd just go with doing something you find fun, that isn't too exhausting, and take the calories that burns, and the fitness it brings, as a win.
Best wishes!
Hm so just curious do you know of any articles that talk about calories burned from HIIT (I also should have mentioned my heart rate monitor is a Polar w chest strap & Hiit is usually hiit + weight lifting in the same workout. To me I just considered Zumba Strong to be hiit because of my heart rate Gets up into high ranges just like when im actually doing HIIT. So Im definitely ignorant for grouping them together) but I get what ur saying & I get how a heart rate monitor cant necessarily completely track the changes & spikes in heart rate.
My routine:
Monday boxing
Tuesday strength training + cardio OR zumba strong instead
Wednesday strength training + cardio
Thursday boxing
Sometimes I substitute or add in zumba. Its a lot of kickboxing, squats, jump squats, lunges etc.
So far it works for me kind of. I will be adding more strength training maybe on friday or change out for boxing on thursday. I will definitely keep in mind Im burning a lot less than I thought my trusty polar watch is telling me.1 -
tequierosince06 wrote: »OP, you are doing some great exercise, and some good things for yourself (yay!), but I think you're misunderstanding how some of this stuff works, and probably over-estimating your exercise calorie burn, I'm sorry to say.tequierosince06 wrote: »Yea thats true My heart rate gets up pretty high with boxing so I kinda knew its not fat being burned ^^ I didn’t mean to say burn fat in that comment now that I think of it. Thanks for confirming that my boxing is still useful & im not bulking like my friend said since im not really building Significant muscle.
Thanks for ur comment @Chieflrg
I think you're believing that working in the so-called "fat burning zone" is important for burning fat. Despite the zone's name, it's not.
What burns fat is eating fewer calories than you burn, over a period of time (we usually think of it as per day, but that's an oversimplification). When you exercise, you burn calories. For any given single type of exercise, doing that exercise more intensely generally burns more calories per minute than doing it less intensely. The more intensely you do it, though, the less time you can continue (because your body gets exhausted faster).
So, exercise burns calories, and higher intensity burns more calories per minute. Any calories that you burn, but don't eat back (from exercise or anything else), are going to be made up sooner or later by your body burning fat to "balance the books". (Note: If you try to lose too fast, your body might burn lean tissue in addition to fat, which would be bad.) The fat burning "catch up" might even happen while you sleep . . . but who cares when it happens, if weight loss is the goal?
What zone you were in when you did the exercise doesn't matter. It could be the "fat burning zone", or a lower zone, or a higher zone. Doesn't matter. Eventually, the calorie deficit - the amount by which you ate less than you burned - will be made up by burning stored fat.
All the "fat burning zone" is telling you is that the mix of fuel at the time you're doing the exercise is coming more from fat, less from glycogen. That matters to endurance athletes trying to figure out how much sugar-y stuff to eat, and when to eat it, while running a marathon, or something like that. It doesn't matter to someone who's trying to lose weight, because your body will make up the deficit from fat sooner or later. What you burn at the moment of exercise is irrelevant. How many calories you burn is what matters (and whether you eat them back).
It's fine to do HIIT, it's fine to do boxing. I have a decent idea what it takes to burn 700 calories in an hour via exercise. Your HIIT is very unlikely to be doing that, unfortunately.
Heart rate monitors can be fair (not perfect) at estimating calories from moderate intensity steady state cardio, assuming they know your actual tested maximum heart rate (which they rarely do). They're not very good at estimating interval exercise, and the more intense the intervals, the worse they're likely to be. (If you're relatively new to this kind of exercise (or are resuming energetic exercise after not having done it for some time, they're even more likely to over-estimate intervals, because your heart rate recovery isn't very rapid.) They're not good at estimating exercise with any kind of strength component (like circuits). They're less good at estimating calories from easy steady state or intense steady state than they are at estimating moderate steady state. They're still a useful tool, but it's important to understand their limitations.
BTW: I'd point out that Magnus said 700 calories would be as if you ran seven miles in an hour, not one mile. That's a mile in around 8.6 minutes, followed by 6 more of them at the same speed to get to 60 minutes, without stopping or slowing even once.
I think you're mostly doing things that are reasonably good ways to approach your goals, subject to changes suggested by chieflrg. I fear you're over-estimating your exercise calories, but your exercise will burn calories, so if you're losing weight at a sensible rate, you're doing fine.
Don't worry about exercising at too low a heart rate, or too high a heart rate, as compared with the irrelevant "fat burning zone". All of it burns calories. Usually, your best calorie burn happens by hitting the steady-state intensity you can hold onto for your whole exercise time period, without excessive fatigue afterward, while also allowing a short slower warm-up phase, and a slower cool-down phase at the end. That's sort of the sweet spot, for time efficiency. Personally, I'd just go with doing something you find fun, that isn't too exhausting, and take the calories that burns, and the fitness it brings, as a win.
Best wishes!
Hm so just curious do you know of any articles that talk about calories burned from HIIT (I also should have mentioned my heart rate monitor is a Polar w chest strap & Hiit is usually hiit + weight lifting in the same workout. To me I just considered Zumba Strong to be hiit because of my heart rate Gets up into high ranges just like when im actually doing HIIT. So Im definitely ignorant for grouping them together) but I get what ur saying & I get how a heart rate monitor cant necessarily completely track the changes & spikes in heart rate.
My routine:
Monday boxing
Tuesday strength training + cardio OR zumba strong instead
Wednesday strength training + cardio
Thursday boxing
Sometimes I substitute or add in zumba. Its a lot of kickboxing, squats, jump squats, lunges etc.
So far it works for me kind of. I will be adding more strength training maybe on friday or change out for boxing on thursday. I will definitely keep in mind Im burning a lot less than I thought my trusty polar watch is telling me.
No, I don't of any articles, and I'm not sure how useful they would be.
Strictly speaking, HIIT isn't an exercise. HIIT is an exercise pacing strategy. You can do a HIIT version of pretty much any exercise. HIIT circuits (weights/cardio alternating, usually) are circuit training. Cycling HIIT is cycling. Rowing HIIT is rowing. Calorie estimates fundamentally vary based on the type of exercise being done, not so much the pacing strategy that's in play.
Further, your "high intensity" is different from someone else's "high intensity". If an elite athlete did your same workout at the same pace as you, and they were the same size as you, they'd burn the same number of calories as you, but their heart rate would be much, much lower: That's the effect of their fitness. For them to be doing that same activity at "high intensity", they would need to go much, much harder (and would be able to do so, but you couldn't - also because of differences in relative fitness). The definition of "high intensity" varies with the exerciser's fitness level, and heart rate doesn't really help sort that out.
If you were doing structured HIIT, such as HIIT running, you could log the workout as a combination of fast and slow running, i.e., if you were running fast for a minute, then slow for 2 minutes, for a total of an hour, you could estimate 20 minutes at the fast mph/kph, and 40 minutes at the slow mph/kph.
I have no idea what kind of exercise you're doing when you say it's HIIT. From the limited amount you say, I'd guess circuit training. Often, when people talk about HIIT as an exercise, they're talking about circuit training, calisthenics, or a combination. One option would be to compare what the MFP database estimates for you for the activity that's most similar to what your HIIT is, and reduce your calorie estimate if the MFP one is lower. (Many people say the MFP ones are over estimated . . . .).
If your strength training is normal reps/sets, you'd almost certainly be better off using the MFP "strength training" entry in the cardiovascular exercise part of the database to estimate those workouts. That will be more accurate for most people than a HRM estimate for strength training (heart rate goes up during strength training for reasons that have nearly nothing to do with calorie burn).
All you can do is get your exercise calorie estimates as reasonable as practical: It's not really perfectable, expecially for HIIT.
This next part is going to drive you crazy, but I'm going to say it anyway: It's more important to use a consistent method to estimate your exercise calories, and stick with it. The objective accuracy of the estimate is arguably less important, especially if a person has a consistent exercise schedule, as you seem to.
Here's why: Let's say you're logging your food as accurately as practical (as I hope/assume you are) and estimating/logging your regular workout schedule. You stick with the process for a months or so. If you then see that you're losing weight faster than is really healthy for you, you eat more. If you're losing weight much more slowly than expected but it's still sensible to lose faster, you eat a little less. You repeat that trial/adjust process until you're losing weight, on average over a period of weeks, at the sensible rate at which you'd like to be losing.
If you do that trial/adjust process, it will work fine with consistent but strictly inaccurate calorie estimates. If you find you need to eat a little less to lose as you target, maybe that happened because you were overestimating exercise, or maybe it was because of some other factor . . . but who cares, you figured out how much you need to eat, with your exercise schedule, to lose sensibly. That's a win, right there.
Do you understand what I'm saying? You can be successful, even though the arithmetic is a little bit fudged.
Best wishes!2 -
@AnnPT77 okay. I will use my HRmonitor for boxing & zumba strong only & not for strength training anymore & not when I do Hiit. I want to clarify that I looped in zumba as hiit (incorrect on my part) just because of my heart rate levels when zumba is not interval training So its not HIIT, its def not dancing either its like bootcamp but I guess its more considered as cardio. I only do actual hiit when my workout video for strength training tells me to & however it tells me to do it whether weights & cardio alternating or cardio 20sec on 10sec off for 20min then weights for 30min.
In general my heart rate monitor motivates me because it has a training program and its one way for me to keep myself in check. Its kinda hard hearing that the one tool I liked the most actually isnt worth using. Also I would like to note that I wasnt making crazy decisions based on the “calories burned” whether accurate or not. I Stopped counting calories for a little while. So even if I saw 600cal burned I wouldn’t have crazy big meal or compensate for that. Counting calories forever is not realistic to me because I know I wont do it. But I will make healthy changes and healthy choices. I checked my weight today and with everything Ive done in a month without counting calories I have lost 4lb which is a lot for me because my rate is usually 2lb/mo even if i do everything “right”.0 -
Use your HRM to monitor your heartrate and only your heartrate, that's what they are for and what they are good at.
Forget using it for your particular workouts for calorie estimates - my bet is it's telling you whopping great lies.
Interval training is typically not a high calorie workout due to the low intensity intervals dragging down the average.
If you really want to get a decent idea of your actual calorie burning potential cycle on a power meter equipped indoor bike for an hour. If you average 167 watts for the hour that's 600 net calories, 195 watts would be about 700 net cals and that would be very impressive. For perspective a female friend who is an elite cyclist (world champs last year) could just about manage the 600 cals in an hour pushing really hard the whole way but not the 700 cals.
1 -
tequierosince06 wrote: »@AnnPT77 okay. I will use my HRmonitor for boxing & zumba strong only & not for strength training anymore & not when I do Hiit. I want to clarify that I looped in zumba as hiit just because of my heart rate levels when zumba is not interval training So its not HIIT, its def not dancing either its like bootcamp but I guess its more considered as cardio. I only do actual hiit when my workout video for strength training tells me to & however it tells me to do it whether weights & cardio alternating or cardio 20sec on 10sec off for 20min then weights for 30min.
In general my heart rate monitor motivates me because it has a training program and its one way for me to keep myself in check. Its kinda hard hearing that the one tool I liked the most actually isnt worth using. Also I would like to note that I wasnt making crazy decisions based on the “calories burned” whether accurate or not. I went off of counting calories for a little while. So even if I saw 600cal burned I wouldn’t have crazy big meal or compensate for that. Counting calories forever is not realistic to me because I know I wont do it. But I will make healthy changes and healthy choices. I checked my weight today and with everything Ive done in a month without counting calories I have lost 4lb which is a lot for me because my rate is usually 2lb/mo even if i do everything “right”.
I know what Zumba is. It's not HIIT, as you say, but it's also not steady state cardio. Heart rate monitor might or might not give you a reasonably accurate estimate. No matter, though, as I say, because it will give you a consistent personalized estimate that varies with your intensity level and exercise duration.
It sounds like your HIIT is circuit training some of the time (alternating weights, probably low weight/high rep done rapidly, with regular cardio. You could use MFP to provide a comparative calorie estimate by checking what the "Circuit training" option says (under cardiovasculuar exercise). When it's a separate weight section, you could compare what MFP says for 20 minutes circuits or aerobics or calisthenics (whichever that part is most like) plus 30 minutes strength training.
To the bolded: Your heart rate monitor absolutely is worth using.
* As you say, it motivates you. That's useful!
* It will help you see your improving fitness, because
**** you will see a lower heart rate, over time, for the same exercise at the same intensity
**** you will see a faster heart rate recovery over time (heart rate drops faster during rest interval)
* It can help you continue to push yourself to increasing fitness, by showing you what your relative effort level is, so you push a little harder to keep heart rate up (burning more calories per minute) as you get fitter and can do so without getting exhausted
. . . among other things.
Heart rate monitors are great! I've used one regularly for probably 15 years or more now. I'd feel kind of lost without it. At the same time, I think it's important to understand their uses and limitations; otherwise, it's like using a pair of pliers to hammer a nail.
If it sounded like I thought you were making crazy decisions, then I apologize. I don't think that. I thought that maybe you were not fully understanding the tool (HRM) that you were using, and what it was telling you. That's not a criticism of you, either. When any of us starts using a new-to-us tool, there's a learning process for everybody. Since this is a tool I've been using for a long while, I was only trying to help you understand/use it. If I was too pushy, I'm sorry: Not my intention. :flowerforyou:
You can count calories or not count calories, and do either one short term or long term: That's an issue of personal choice and personal style. If your weight is doing what you want it to do, and your health is on a good long-term path, then what you're doing is working, and I support that! 5 -
tequierosince06 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »tequierosince06 wrote: »@magnusthenerd
Thank u so much for your comment but can you Simplify That last part, ur suggesting to add weight training to build more muscle? I should have mentioned I workout at home, gym isn’t really an option I know gym is ideal but its just not something I can do.
What do you mean by limit the need for learning movement pattern
Also since HRMonitors are just an estimate do u think im burning a lot less, that kinda sucks.
You can weight train at home - I've listened to a pro natural bodybuilder discuss working out on vacation with two milk jugs filled with water as his main piece of equipment.
Limiting the learning is about the kinds of lifts done. Most beginner programs will do some movements that are actually hard to do right: bench press, deadlifts, squats, overhead press, rows. All of those movements have skill components one can learn that will increase ability without a need for more muscle. In comparison, simple machines like a leg extension or bicep curl start building muscle from the start - there isn't much to learn about optimal bar path or bracing.
HR Monitors aren't even an estimate for something like HIIT. They're a decent estimate for actual steady cardio like running or biking. For HIIT there's just no real correlation between what your heart rate is over time and what your body is burning. A HIIT type activity is almost certainly going to be an overestimate because HIIT gets the heart rate elevated, and it stays elevated even as the intensity of the activity comes down.
Just consider, cardio wise, 600-700 calories represents ~6-7 miles for someone weighing ~150 lbs. A lot of people would not be able to sustainably run for an hour at a pace that would get through 6 or 7 hours. If you've ever run a 10 minute mile, does the boxing feel like that effort - for the whole time?
Thanks. I would say yes and no. Some combinations im tired like I have ran a mile, other combos no. So good to as far as the boxing aspect but when im doing my actual HIIT videos and zumba it’s definitely a yes. Im tired and winded like Ive ran a mile & I am definitely nott a runner, I hate running.
Have you ever tracked running a mile and done it in 10 minutes? Do you think you could that same pace for an hour? I'm asking because it is not typical. Your average woman that participates in 5K races is going to have a nearly 12 minute pace for the 5k. Thinking your calorie estimator giving you 600 to 700 calories an hour is equivalent to thinking you're doing something more intense than running a 10K at a better pace than your average woman runs a 5K.3 -
People diss the calorie counting efforts of HR monitors all the time. Perhaps rightly. But I have to say that I use a Myzone HR monitor (for motivation) and I log its calorie estimates. I also log my food intake. Over time my finding is that the HR monitor is giving me a reasonable assessment of the calories I have burned, in that my weight loss has been broadly in line with what I would expect.
I don't rely 100% on the HR monitor just as I don't rely 100% on my logging efforts. There is always room for error and it is simply not possible to work things out to one calorie or even ten calorie accuracy.
Boxing will not bulk you but as a huge devotee of it myself I say if you love it, then do it. I get so involved that I actually use the HR monitor to help me make sure I recover enough between bouts. During a PT session of 45 mins (5 mins warm up, 20 mins pad work at fairly high intensity and 20 mins calisthenics my typical calorie burn as per my HR monitor is 350 cal.
With a previous trainer a typical session would be 15 mins warm up and stretch, 30 mins crazy high intensity pad work (HR consistently at 80% of max or above for the whole time) and 15 mins calisthenics type cool down. My HR monitor would register about 500 cals.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions