Pretty sure I'm about to be shredded...
SoCalSwimmerDude
Posts: 507 Member
(good lawd, I'm long-winded. sry about that.)
I'm making this post to share some of the things that have helped me recently.
42M, 6ft, started at 252lbs 90 days ago, now down to 219. Goal weight is around 200.
For the entire 90 days, I've done the below. Not at all perfect, but committed.
- Avg 8k-10k steps per day (I calculate the average daily steps each wk)
- No guessing at food amounts or cals. Everything measured, weighed etc.
- A walk most mornings.
- Avg 7+ hrs a slp a night.
- Workout 3-6 times a week.
- No pasta (ok, once
)
- No fast food (ok, once
)
- Protein supplements every day.
- No alcohol for 45 days.
Outside of the healthy life choices above, the 5 points below will get you great results.
1. Be at a calorie deficit. We all know this.
2. Go for a walk every morning or find a way to enjoy getting steps in.
3. Lift weights HARD. You might use cardio at the beginning to get your fitness up, but transition to mostly weights asap. This part most don't get and it took me awhile.
4. Eat protein. .7-1 grams per pound of GOAL, not current, body weight. The protein amount recommendations on many platforms is typically "1 gram per pound of weight" which is misleading. Its not bad, but its also not necessary to go overboard.
5. Eat healthy and normal. If you're doing the above, you can absolutely eat 'fun' things.
Here's whats crazy: When I first started lifting, I'd likely burn about 400-500 cals in a 45-60 minute workout. That was with 15 minutes of cardio prior to lifting. Now that I have ~2 months of hard lifting and muscle growth under my belt, I'm burning 600-800 cals during the same amount of time and with only 5-10 minutes of cardio. Muscle growth has fueled metabolism and fat loss and more healthy foods have fueled more muscle growth. If you want to get the most of your hard work, also add creatine. Its studied, its safe, and its effective.
There is NOTHING wrong with steady state cardio or HIIT or some other variations, but if you want the most direct path to fat loss and lean muscle, then you need to lift hard. Hard means taking many of your set to or close to failure. Its hard work, but I think its more fun than strapping into an elliptical for 30 minutes a day. You can youtube all sorts of advice, but I've found Athlean X and Jeff Nippard to be no-nonsense and very helpful.
Soooo.... eat healthy at a deficit, go for walks, lift HARD, eat protein, and dont starve yourself.
After another 15-20 lbs, I'll start posting some before and after photos.
-SwimmerDude
P.S. About 20 yrs and 20 pounds ago, I was an Olympic Trial level, D1 (big university that provides everything for their athletes) distance swimmer. I've sincerely had some of the best education and have trained at the highest level. However, I have never had a weight program focused on muscle growth nor focused on healthy foods that fuel performance. This has been enlightening and fun.
I'm making this post to share some of the things that have helped me recently.
42M, 6ft, started at 252lbs 90 days ago, now down to 219. Goal weight is around 200.
For the entire 90 days, I've done the below. Not at all perfect, but committed.
- Avg 8k-10k steps per day (I calculate the average daily steps each wk)
- No guessing at food amounts or cals. Everything measured, weighed etc.
- A walk most mornings.
- Avg 7+ hrs a slp a night.
- Workout 3-6 times a week.
- No pasta (ok, once
)- No fast food (ok, once
)- Protein supplements every day.
- No alcohol for 45 days.
Outside of the healthy life choices above, the 5 points below will get you great results.
1. Be at a calorie deficit. We all know this.
2. Go for a walk every morning or find a way to enjoy getting steps in.
3. Lift weights HARD. You might use cardio at the beginning to get your fitness up, but transition to mostly weights asap. This part most don't get and it took me awhile.
4. Eat protein. .7-1 grams per pound of GOAL, not current, body weight. The protein amount recommendations on many platforms is typically "1 gram per pound of weight" which is misleading. Its not bad, but its also not necessary to go overboard.
5. Eat healthy and normal. If you're doing the above, you can absolutely eat 'fun' things.
Here's whats crazy: When I first started lifting, I'd likely burn about 400-500 cals in a 45-60 minute workout. That was with 15 minutes of cardio prior to lifting. Now that I have ~2 months of hard lifting and muscle growth under my belt, I'm burning 600-800 cals during the same amount of time and with only 5-10 minutes of cardio. Muscle growth has fueled metabolism and fat loss and more healthy foods have fueled more muscle growth. If you want to get the most of your hard work, also add creatine. Its studied, its safe, and its effective.
There is NOTHING wrong with steady state cardio or HIIT or some other variations, but if you want the most direct path to fat loss and lean muscle, then you need to lift hard. Hard means taking many of your set to or close to failure. Its hard work, but I think its more fun than strapping into an elliptical for 30 minutes a day. You can youtube all sorts of advice, but I've found Athlean X and Jeff Nippard to be no-nonsense and very helpful.
Soooo.... eat healthy at a deficit, go for walks, lift HARD, eat protein, and dont starve yourself.
After another 15-20 lbs, I'll start posting some before and after photos.
-SwimmerDude
P.S. About 20 yrs and 20 pounds ago, I was an Olympic Trial level, D1 (big university that provides everything for their athletes) distance swimmer. I've sincerely had some of the best education and have trained at the highest level. However, I have never had a weight program focused on muscle growth nor focused on healthy foods that fuel performance. This has been enlightening and fun.
8
Replies
-
SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »(good lawd, I'm long-winded. sry about that.)
I'm making this post to share some of the things that have helped me recently.
42M, 6ft, started at 252lbs 90 days ago, now down to 219. Goal weight is around 200.
For the entire 90 days, I've done the below. Not at all perfect, but committed.
- Avg 8k-10k steps per day (I calculate the average daily steps each wk)
- No guessing at food amounts or cals. Everything measured, weighed etc.
- A walk most mornings.
- Avg 7+ hrs a slp a night.
- Workout 3-6 times a week.
- No pasta (ok, once )
- No fast food (ok, once )
- Protein supplements every day.
- No alcohol for 45 days.
Outside of the healthy life choices above, the 5 points below will get you great results.
1. Be at a calorie deficit. We all know this.
2. Go for a walk every morning or find a way to enjoy getting steps in.
3. Lift weights HARD. You might use cardio at the beginning to get your fitness up, but transition to mostly weights asap. This part most don't get and it took me awhile.
4. Eat protein. .7-1 grams per pound of GOAL, not current, body weight. The protein amount recommendations on many platforms is typically "1 gram per pound of weight" which is misleading. Its not bad, but its also not necessary to go overboard.
5. Eat healthy and normal. If you're doing the above, you can absolutely eat 'fun' things.
Here's whats crazy: When I first started lifting, I'd likely burn about 400-500 cals in a 45-60 minute workout. That was with 15 minutes of cardio prior to lifting. Now that I have ~2 months of hard lifting and muscle growth under my belt, I'm burning 600-800 cals during the same amount of time and with only 5-10 minutes of cardio. Muscle growth has fueled metabolism and fat loss and more healthy foods have fueled more muscle growth. If you want to get the most of your hard work, also add creatine. Its studied, its safe, and its effective.
There is NOTHING wrong with steady state cardio or HIIT or some other variations, but if you want the most direct path to fat loss and lean muscle, then you need to lift hard. Hard means taking many of your set to or close to failure. Its hard work, but I think its more fun than strapping into an elliptical for 30 minutes a day. You can youtube all sorts of advice, but I've found Athlean X and Jeff Nippard to be no-nonsense and very helpful.
Soooo.... eat healthy at a deficit, go for walks, lift HARD, eat protein, and dont starve yourself.
After another 15-20 lbs, I'll start posting some before and after photos.
-SwimmerDude
P.S. About 20 yrs and 20 pounds ago, I was an Olympic Trial level, D1 (big university that provides everything for their athletes) distance swimmer. I've sincerely had some of the best education and have trained at the highest level. However, I have never had a weight program focused on muscle growth nor focused on healthy foods that fuel performance. This has been enlightening and fun.
I'll bite. Like almost all of this, congratulations on your weight loss. Only thing will question is the paragraph I bolded Doubt if you have actually impacted your metabolism that much in 90 days. What are you using to measure this.4 -
SoCal, excellent advice all around. I'd add a couple more YT recs to your mentions of Athlean and Nippard, and that's Jonni Shreve and Renaissance Periodization. Shreve is excellent for form guides, and RP is excellent for hypertrophy and science chat, as well as some killer workouts.
I have serious doubts about this though:
"I'm burning 600-800 cals during the same amount of time [an hour] and with only 5-10 minutes of cardio."
At 219 pounds, you're assuming up to 700 cals burned from lifting weights in an hour, and that seems extremely high to me. I'm your weight too, and MFP assumes 302 additional cals for an hour. I enter 250 to be conservative. That's additional cals ofc, so total would be closer to 400, which is still a long way from 700.7 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »(good lawd, I'm long-winded. sry about that.)
I'm making this post to share some of the things that have helped me recently.
42M, 6ft, started at 252lbs 90 days ago, now down to 219. Goal weight is around 200.
For the entire 90 days, I've done the below. Not at all perfect, but committed.
- Avg 8k-10k steps per day (I calculate the average daily steps each wk)
- No guessing at food amounts or cals. Everything measured, weighed etc.
- A walk most mornings.
- Avg 7+ hrs a slp a night.
- Workout 3-6 times a week.
- No pasta (ok, once )
- No fast food (ok, once )
- Protein supplements every day.
- No alcohol for 45 days.
Outside of the healthy life choices above, the 5 points below will get you great results.
1. Be at a calorie deficit. We all know this.
2. Go for a walk every morning or find a way to enjoy getting steps in.
3. Lift weights HARD. You might use cardio at the beginning to get your fitness up, but transition to mostly weights asap. This part most don't get and it took me awhile.
4. Eat protein. .7-1 grams per pound of GOAL, not current, body weight. The protein amount recommendations on many platforms is typically "1 gram per pound of weight" which is misleading. Its not bad, but its also not necessary to go overboard.
5. Eat healthy and normal. If you're doing the above, you can absolutely eat 'fun' things.
Here's whats crazy: When I first started lifting, I'd likely burn about 400-500 cals in a 45-60 minute workout. That was with 15 minutes of cardio prior to lifting. Now that I have ~2 months of hard lifting and muscle growth under my belt, I'm burning 600-800 cals during the same amount of time and with only 5-10 minutes of cardio. Muscle growth has fueled metabolism and fat loss and more healthy foods have fueled more muscle growth. If you want to get the most of your hard work, also add creatine. Its studied, its safe, and its effective.
There is NOTHING wrong with steady state cardio or HIIT or some other variations, but if you want the most direct path to fat loss and lean muscle, then you need to lift hard. Hard means taking many of your set to or close to failure. Its hard work, but I think its more fun than strapping into an elliptical for 30 minutes a day. You can youtube all sorts of advice, but I've found Athlean X and Jeff Nippard to be no-nonsense and very helpful.
Soooo.... eat healthy at a deficit, go for walks, lift HARD, eat protein, and dont starve yourself.
After another 15-20 lbs, I'll start posting some before and after photos.
-SwimmerDude
P.S. About 20 yrs and 20 pounds ago, I was an Olympic Trial level, D1 (big university that provides everything for their athletes) distance swimmer. I've sincerely had some of the best education and have trained at the highest level. However, I have never had a weight program focused on muscle growth nor focused on healthy foods that fuel performance. This has been enlightening and fun.
I'll bite. Like almost all of this, congratulations on your weight loss. Only thing will question is the paragraph I bolded Doubt if you have actually impacted your metabolism that much in 90 days. What are you using to measure this.
My BMR and RMR have increased. I suppose I could've included that, but it was already a novel. I've followed the same BMR w/ predictable results for years (not bad or good... just predictable).
Imagine my surprise when around a month ago, I was losing 2-3 lbs in a week when I was eating at the same predictable BMR levels I had for yrs.
Having said that, there were a few set-backs in terms of training including a fractured finger, a family member in the hospital, and a new job. In the weeks when I wasn't going as hard, I was still melting. I'm not on Keto, have started getting plenty of carbs to fuel lifting, etc.
But I do generally agree w/ you. This is very new to me... hence the post.
0 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »SoCal, excellent advice all around. I'd add a couple more YT recs to your mentions of Athlean and Nippard, and that's Jonni Shreve and Renaissance Periodization. Shreve is excellent for form guides, and RP is excellent for hypertrophy and science chat, as well as some killer workouts.
I have serious doubts about this though:
"I'm burning 600-800 cals during the same amount of time [an hour] and with only 5-10 minutes of cardio."
At 219 pounds, you're assuming up to 700 cals burned from lifting weights in an hour, and that seems extremely high to me. I'm your weight too, and MFP assumes 302 additional cals for an hour. I enter 250 to be conservative. That's additional cals ofc, so total would be closer to 400, which is still a long way from 700.
I wear a heart rate monitor and have for yrs. Its been dead on for all of those years. Now that its telling me that I'm burning over 600 cals in an hour, its still dead on in predicting overall weightloss with the exception of me upping my cals like mentioned above. I also do cardio until my heart rate is over 150 before lifting.
I hadn't really thought about the impossibility of it, but remember I did grow up an elite distance swimmer. When I'm fit, I can get my heart rate up and keep it up for a long time. Maybe this is the lifting version of that? Its literally my only good quality (except for my fly hair).
While I'm not trying to be an expert and just sharing what has worked for me, I also have very long arms, very wide shoulders, hands that wrap 5 times around any bar... so that should be taken into account when considering BMR and not just based on height.
But ya... initially I thought, "that can't be right". I'm lifting my butt on.
2 -
1 -
SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »SoCal, excellent advice all around. I'd add a couple more YT recs to your mentions of Athlean and Nippard, and that's Jonni Shreve and Renaissance Periodization. Shreve is excellent for form guides, and RP is excellent for hypertrophy and science chat, as well as some killer workouts.
I have serious doubts about this though:
"I'm burning 600-800 cals during the same amount of time [an hour] and with only 5-10 minutes of cardio."
At 219 pounds, you're assuming up to 700 cals burned from lifting weights in an hour, and that seems extremely high to me. I'm your weight too, and MFP assumes 302 additional cals for an hour. I enter 250 to be conservative. That's additional cals ofc, so total would be closer to 400, which is still a long way from 700.
I wear a heart rate monitor and have for yrs. Its been dead on for all of those years. Now that its telling me that I'm burning over 600 cals in an hour, its still dead on in predicting overall weightloss with the exception of me upping my cals like mentioned above. I also do cardio until my heart rate is over 150 before lifting.
I hadn't really thought about the impossibility of it, but remember I did grow up an elite distance swimmer. When I'm fit, I can get my heart rate up and keep it up for a long time. Maybe this is the lifting version of that? Its literally my only good quality (except for my fly hair).
While I'm not trying to be an expert and just sharing what has worked for me, I also have very long arms, very wide shoulders, hands that wrap 5 times around any bar... so that should be taken into account when considering BMR and not just based on height.
But ya... initially I thought, "that can't be right". I'm lifting my butt on.
Ehhh . . . dunno.
Strength training increases heart rate partly for reasons that have nothing to do with oxygen consumption. It's oxygen consumption that correlates reasonably well with calorie expenditure. Heart rate is just a proxy, and it can be a very iffy proxy. Strength training is one of the cases where that tends to be true. (Lifting very heavy is likely to make that estimate even more iffy.)
Strength training can increase heart rate for reasons like intra-body pressure (Valsalva kind of stuff, but not just that), and physical strain (that doesn't require extra oxygen).
Some of the better fitness trackers IMU now use METS (not heart rate) to estimate strength training calories. MFP uses METS in exercise database (but in a way that tends to inflate the calories a bit).
If your Polar is using heart rate to estimate calories, and you've really amped up strength training intensity pretty quickly as you say . . . I wouldn't trust that number, personally.
Heart rate is pretty good, not perfect, for estimating calories for moderate steady-state aerobic activity. Strength training, intervals, very high intensity steady state . . . less accurate, maybe not very accurate at all. (Some of the better devices may use other - non-HR - data in calorie estimates, but they're not usually very public about details of their algorithms.)
Depending on how long you've been using your Polar (maybe), and in part because of your intense aerobic athletic background, a heart rate monitor might not be a great estimator for you in general . . . unless you have a tested max heart rate you've told the device about. (I'm guessing your device is using 220 minus age in your case, since you say you're 42 and the max on your chart is 178. That 220-age is off for a pretty large minority of people.)
I have a higher HRmax than the usual age estimates. If I trained with my device thinking the age-estimate HRmax was right, it would severely overestimate how hard I was working. It thinks I'm maxed when I'm not quite at 85% HRmax, not even 80% of HR reserve. At what it thinks is age-estimated HRmax (152 bpm) , I'm just starting to breathe a little hard. Actual max is around 180, per testing.
HRmax is mostly genetic, but an aerobically active history can IMU slow the HRmax decline that usually is expected as we age. I'm not sure whether your swimming history would have that kind of effect or not. (I'm guessing it'd be individual.)
These devices aren't oracles of calorie needs. They're estimates. They can be pretty good, or not, depending on a lot of factors.
It's great that you've found a routine that's working for you, and yes, absolutely, a lot of those things would help others. However, the fact that your weight-change results match your expectations is not a sure endorsement of your tracker's exercise estimates.
Every single thing we're working with in calorie counting is an estimate.
For most of us, the BMR estimate - the amount we'd burn in a coma - is the biggest fraction of our total daily calorie burn. (It's a population-average estimate for similar demographics, unless you've had a sports lab test that measures exhalates, in which case RMR can be a quite good estimate.)
For most of us, daily life calories are the second biggest fraction of our total daily calorie burn. (That's also known as NEAT - Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis.) The calorie calculators estimate this by using a simple multiplier of BMR/RMR based on activity level setting. The trackers mostly do something a little more nuanced, looking at movement and other things they can measure. Either case, it's still estimates based on similar populations' averages.
For most of us, exercise is at best the 3rd biggest fraction of our total calorie burn. That alone makes it arithmetically questionable to assume that achieving expected weight changes (e.g., loss) confirms the accuracy of our exercise calorie estimates.
Even our most meticulous food tracking is an estimate, besides.
It's a win that you've dialed in your desired weight trajectory, sincerely. I think your explanation of the physiology and causal factors is a little more questionable, though. Not necessarily wrong, mind . . . but questionable.
Just my opinion, though.
To repeat: Good post, good advice, great results. Wishing you continuing positive returns on your hard work . . . pretty sure you'll get them.
Best wishes!
6 -
SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »SoCal, excellent advice all around. I'd add a couple more YT recs to your mentions of Athlean and Nippard, and that's Jonni Shreve and Renaissance Periodization. Shreve is excellent for form guides, and RP is excellent for hypertrophy and science chat, as well as some killer workouts.
I have serious doubts about this though:
"I'm burning 600-800 cals during the same amount of time [an hour] and with only 5-10 minutes of cardio."
At 219 pounds, you're assuming up to 700 cals burned from lifting weights in an hour, and that seems extremely high to me. I'm your weight too, and MFP assumes 302 additional cals for an hour. I enter 250 to be conservative. That's additional cals ofc, so total would be closer to 400, which is still a long way from 700.
I wear a heart rate monitor and have for yrs. Its been dead on for all of those years. Now that its telling me that I'm burning over 600 cals in an hour, its still dead on in predicting overall weightloss with the exception of me upping my cals like mentioned above. I also do cardio until my heart rate is over 150 before lifting.
I hadn't really thought about the impossibility of it, but remember I did grow up an elite distance swimmer. When I'm fit, I can get my heart rate up and keep it up for a long time. Maybe this is the lifting version of that? Its literally my only good quality (except for my fly hair).
While I'm not trying to be an expert and just sharing what has worked for me, I also have very long arms, very wide shoulders, hands that wrap 5 times around any bar... so that should be taken into account when considering BMR and not just based on height.
But ya... initially I thought, "that can't be right". I'm lifting my butt on.
Ehhh . . . dunno.
Strength training increases heart rate partly for reasons that have nothing to do with oxygen consumption. It's oxygen consumption that correlates reasonably well with calorie expenditure. Heart rate is just a proxy, and it can be a very iffy proxy. Strength training is one of the cases where that tends to be true. (Lifting very heavy is likely to make that estimate even more iffy.)
Strength training can increase heart rate for reasons like intra-body pressure (Valsalva kind of stuff, but not just that), and physical strain (that doesn't require extra oxygen).
Some of the better fitness trackers IMU now use METS (not heart rate) to estimate strength training calories. MFP uses METS in exercise database (but in a way that tends to inflate the calories a bit).
If your Polar is using heart rate to estimate calories, and you've really amped up strength training intensity pretty quickly as you say . . . I wouldn't trust that number, personally.
Heart rate is pretty good, not perfect, for estimating calories for moderate steady-state aerobic activity. Strength training, intervals, very high intensity steady state . . . less accurate, maybe not very accurate at all. (Some of the better devices may use other - non-HR - data in calorie estimates, but they're not usually very public about details of their algorithms.)
Depending on how long you've been using your Polar (maybe), and in part because of your intense aerobic athletic background, a heart rate monitor might not be a great estimator for you in general . . . unless you have a tested max heart rate you've told the device about. (I'm guessing your device is using 220 minus age in your case, since you say you're 42 and the max on your chart is 178. That 220-age is off for a pretty large minority of people.)
I have a higher HRmax than the usual age estimates. If I trained with my device thinking the age-estimate HRmax was right, it would severely overestimate how hard I was working. It thinks I'm maxed when I'm not quite at 85% HRmax, not even 80% of HR reserve. At what it thinks is age-estimated HRmax (152 bpm) , I'm just starting to breathe a little hard. Actual max is around 180, per testing.
HRmax is mostly genetic, but an aerobically active history can IMU slow the HRmax decline that usually is expected as we age. I'm not sure whether your swimming history would have that kind of effect or not. (I'm guessing it'd be individual.)
These devices aren't oracles of calorie needs. They're estimates. They can be pretty good, or not, depending on a lot of factors.
It's great that you've found a routine that's working for you, and yes, absolutely, a lot of those things would help others. However, the fact that your weight-change results match your expectations is not a sure endorsement of your tracker's exercise estimates.
Every single thing we're working with in calorie counting is an estimate.
For most of us, the BMR estimate - the amount we'd burn in a coma - is the biggest fraction of our total daily calorie burn. (It's a population-average estimate for similar demographics, unless you've had a sports lab test that measures exhalates, in which case RMR can be a quite good estimate.)
For most of us, daily life calories are the second biggest fraction of our total daily calorie burn. (That's also known as NEAT - Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis.) The calorie calculators estimate this by using a simple multiplier of BMR/RMR based on activity level setting. The trackers mostly do something a little more nuanced, looking at movement and other things they can measure. Either case, it's still estimates based on similar populations' averages.
For most of us, exercise is at best the 3rd biggest fraction of our total calorie burn. That alone makes it arithmetically questionable to assume that achieving expected weight changes (e.g., loss) confirms the accuracy of our exercise calorie estimates.
Even our most meticulous food tracking is an estimate, besides.
It's a win that you've dialed in your desired weight trajectory, sincerely. I think your explanation of the physiology and causal factors is a little more questionable, though. Not necessarily wrong, mind . . . but questionable.
Just my opinion, though.
To repeat: Good post, good advice, great results. Wishing you continuing positive returns on your hard work . . . pretty sure you'll get them.
Best wishes!
Hmmmm… I appreciate the kind words, but what exactly is your point? . Not trying to be rude.
Im not sure what I’m responding to?
——————
But I’m so much fun so let’s play…. 😎
Been using polar for over a decade. During the more athletic yrs, We’d take HR at each interval of each difficult set to ensure we were staying in the target range… so 6-8 miles a day and a HR check at least 10 times during each workout. During my training at the Olympic training center (a loooong time ago) we got hooked up to an oxygen mask in a swimming flume and measure more than we can imagine.
—————
Overall, eating healthy at a deficit, lifting HARD, ensuring general activity (walking for most), eating lots of protein, and getting rest is the most simple way to help people meet their fitness goals. Lifting isn’t for everyone but it does work.
Further, muscle growth and maintenance requires significantly more caloric burn than if you weren’t focusing on muscle growth…. Probably something I should’ve included in my OP and its advice that is sorely missing on MFP.
Pls reply dude or dudette. I’m honestly trying to help some folks with the most simple advice and not confuse things.
0 -
The point she was making is that your calorie estimate for an hour of weights seems high, and the methodology for getting that estimate is flawed.
Your estimate is double the typical MET based estimate.5 -
The point is, success in predicting weight changes does not imply accuracy of exercise calorie estimates. Lifting doesn't typically burn massive calories, and heart rate is a fairly bad way to estimate strength training calories.
Various people are doubting your exercise calorie estimates for lifting. I'm being specific about why I might question them. You're giving generalized advice about what will work for others. I'm being specific about one aspect of that advice that might - might - be misleading.
Any of the estimates - BMR/RMR, NEAT, exercise - has an error bar. The potential errors in the larger-magnitude components have more arithmetic impact than the errors in smaller ones. If your total calorie estimate is borne out by your weight-change rate, it doesn't validate your exercise calorie estimate.
To the extent you are giving advice to others, I'm quibbling about some of the details, not questioning your overall routine or advice. For sure, I'm not questioning your personal results.
As an aside: Do you have a measured HRmax from your intensely measured past? Did it match your age-estimate HRmax? If it didn't then, it probably doesn't now. Does your subjective RPE align with your estimated HRmax? (Ideally, that would be the subjective RPE from steady-state moderate cardio.) If you have a better estimate of your HRmax than 220 minus age, and your Polar will let you specify a custom HRmax, your exercise calorie estimates from Polar are likely to improve.
Dude or dudette? Are people named "Ann" usually a dude? I'm a li'l ol' lady. I don't think we're usually dudettes.
I disagree with you that the value of lifting (heavy) isn't much mentioned on MFP. We can quibble about whether the reason to lift heavy is "significantly" more calorie burn. You're convinced, I'm skeptical. Muscle burns more calories at rest than fat, but research suggests it's only around 4-6 calories per pound per day. The process of building muscles does burn some extra calories, but building muscle is a slow thing. The stats about EPOC from strength training tend to overstate the case, because they're usually expressed in percentage terms, and it's a percentage of the activity calories.
This is a more nuanced than average bit of information about calorie expenditure during strength training: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-expenditure-resistance/
I frankly don't have your athletic background, though my relevant background is non-zero. If you have specific knowledge I and others can learn from, please bring those details.
According to any relevant research I've seen, and modest personal experience, strength training calories are typically not super high, relatively speaking. That doesn't mean strength training isn't worth doing, doesn't have value, etc. Your overall advice is good. I have doubts about the exercise calorie estimation details, that's all.
I do think that more muscular people burn significantly more calories than less muscular people overall, but I suspect the reason is more that increased muscularity makes movement more fun, easy and automatic, rather than because BMR/RMR increases dramatically or because the actual strength training burns a bunch of calories. Increased daily life movement has a pretty big impact on all-day calorie burn, and it's a factor that many of us barely notice subjectively
Yup, I could be wrong about any or all of this.
Best wishes, sincerely!4 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »The point she was making is that your calorie estimate for an hour of weights seems high, and the methodology for getting that estimate is flawed.
Your estimate is double the typical MET based estimate.
Brevity is the soul of wit (shakespeare.. and no, I dont read). Thank you for keeping it simple. A trait I'm working on.
I'd like to know if you've tried the app that Renaissance Periodization puts out? I'm tempted to try it and enjoy watching him debunk people who try to come off as smart but dont show actual results. I wasn't going to recommend to MFP someone who has an interesting take on supplements to build muscle.... know what I mean?
MET/RMR/BMR and the thousands of opinions on it confuse people - the opposite of the point of my post.
Ultimately, you have an issue with how many cals I likely burn in an hour of high intensity lifting. A simple google shows (brevity):
So with my ability to get to and maintain a very high intensity over long periods of time, I dont think what I've outlined is far fetched. At all.
All the mess aside, if you're lifting to get fit, send me a friend request. I'd love to see what others are doing on a daily basis. My diary is open and i attempt to count everything, including the beers and ice cream.
0 -
The point is, success in predicting weight changes does not imply accuracy of exercise calorie estimates. Lifting doesn't typically burn massive calories, and heart rate is a fairly bad way to estimate strength training calories.
Various people are doubting your exercise calorie estimates for lifting. I'm being specific about why I might question them. You're giving generalized advice about what will work for others. I'm being specific about one aspect of that advice that might - might - be misleading.
Any of the estimates - BMR/RMR, NEAT, exercise - has an error bar. The potential errors in the larger-magnitude components have more arithmetic impact than the errors in smaller ones. If your total calorie estimate is borne out by your weight-change rate, it doesn't validate your exercise calorie estimate.
To the extent you are giving advice to others, I'm quibbling about some of the details, not questioning your overall routine or advice. For sure, I'm not questioning your personal results.
As an aside: Do you have a measured HRmax from your intensely measured past? Did it match your age-estimate HRmax? If it didn't then, it probably doesn't now. Does your subjective RPE align with your estimated HRmax? (Ideally, that would be the subjective RPE from steady-state moderate cardio.) If you have a better estimate of your HRmax than 220 minus age, and your Polar will let you specify a custom HRmax, your exercise calorie estimates from Polar are likely to improve.
Dude or dudette? Are people named "Ann" usually a dude? I'm a li'l ol' lady. I don't think we're usually dudettes.
I disagree with you that the value of lifting (heavy) isn't much mentioned on MFP. We can quibble about whether the reason to lift heavy is "significantly" more calorie burn. You're convinced, I'm skeptical. Muscle burns more calories at rest than fat, but research suggests it's only around 4-6 calories per pound per day. The process of building muscles does burn some extra calories, but building muscle is a slow thing. The stats about EPOC from strength training tend to overstate the case, because they're usually expressed in percentage terms, and it's a percentage of the activity calories.
This is a more nuanced than average bit of information about calorie expenditure during strength training: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-expenditure-resistance/
I frankly don't have your athletic background, though my relevant background is non-zero. If you have specific knowledge I and others can learn from, please bring those details.
According to any relevant research I've seen, and modest personal experience, strength training calories are typically not super high, relatively speaking. That doesn't mean strength training isn't worth doing, doesn't have value, etc. Your overall advice is good. I have doubts about the exercise calorie estimation details, that's all.
I do think that more muscular people burn significantly more calories than less muscular people overall, but I suspect the reason is more that increased muscularity makes movement more fun, easy and automatic, rather than because BMR/RMR increases dramatically or because the actual strength training burns a bunch of calories. Increased daily life movement has a pretty big impact on all-day calorie burn, and it's a factor that many of us barely notice subjectively
Yup, I could be wrong about any or all of this.
Best wishes, sincerely!
I didn't see your name when I responded and only saw the impressive bicep in your photo... not too shabby for a 'lil 'ol lady' as you put it. Apologies for any confusion.
I posted the MET above, so I wont repeat that obvious point.
But there are a few other areas I have to speak to:
Predicting weight change is dependent upon accuracy of exercise calorie estimates.success in predicting weight changes does not imply accuracy of exercise calorie estimates
According to the cleveland clinic, someone can achieve 2-4 lbs of muscle gain over a 4-12 wk period while lifting and taking creatine - assuming other areas, including protein intake, are 'good'. There are many more 'systematic reviews' that outline the conclusions of a multitude of studies that show similar results. Additionally, and this is important, 'newbie' gains are a real thing and I wont explain it here. Newbie's make up for much of MFP.The process of building muscles does burn some extra calories, but building muscle is a slow thing.Do you have a measured HRmax from your intensely measured past? Did it match your age-estimate HRmax? If it didn't then, it probably doesn't now. Does your subjective RPE align with your estimated HRmax? (Ideally, that would be the subjective RPE from steady-state moderate cardio.) If you have a better estimate of your HRmax than 220 minus age, and your Polar will let you specify a custom HRmax, your exercise calorie estimates from Polar are likely to improve.
>210:<40 were my HR ranges in the day. More importantly, ability to process lactate during VO2Max performance is critical as it allows someone to continue a very high intensity workout with limited rest moreso than an average lifter who will typically take longer resting periods during a session. Longer rest periods is a recommendation to attain best muscle gain and I actually don't follow it as much because I understand my body. As you're aware, this would increase a prolonged heart rate and significantly increase calorie burn. Athletes with some of the highest lactate processing capability are rowers and... swimmers.I do think that more muscular people burn significantly more calories than less muscular people overall, but I suspect the reason is more that increased muscularity makes movement more fun, easy and automatic
More muscles means more caloric burn because life is more fun and easy if you lift? ok
0 -
A simple Google also shows MET for lifting is approximated at 3-6. Your example there is at the absolute top of that range and it's still only 75% of the 800 level you quoted (with 5-10 mins of that being cardio which would burn more for those minutes, but not enough to make up that gap).SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »Ultimately, you have an issue with how many cals I likely burn in an hour of high intensity lifting. A simple google shows (brevity):
Did you see at the site you showed there were three examples for resistance training? For 219 pounds they give results of 347, 496 and 596 calories, basically depending on how vigorous the session was estimated to be.
The core issue here is that estimation and application of workout calories to add to MFP's diary for daily calorie goals is a frequent topic here. It's why some people don't add any workout calories (a mistake IMO), and some add half of their estimated workout, and I add conservative estimates. I don't use a monitor, I use an MET estimate. AFAIK, some monitors "adjust" based on how you report certain activities to them, which shows how inaccurate they can be for calorie estimates.
The bottom line is someone looking to manage their weight should be wary of thinking they "earned" X calories to eat, when that X may be too aggressive. You may think this doesn't apply to you, and that's fine, but we're also having this conversation for the benefit of other readers.
There's also the issue of compensation, where vigorous effort results in less NEAT during the rest of the day than normal while you recover. So if someone burned X during a vigorous workout and then reduced NEAT during the day resulted in X/2 fewer calories burned than normal, adding X to their daily calories could put them in an unwanted surplus.
This is the core reason we've questioned your estimate. I hope you can appreciate that. Even if somehow in your case the estimate is accurate, and your NEAT doesn't drop off during the rest of the day after all that extremely vigorous effort, there are other readers here. It's not a good idea to have them thinking they can do an hour of weights and then add 800 calories of food to their diary and still be in a deficit for the day, when that may put them into a surplus.
I just want to reiterate too, you've given excellent advice here. It's just that number for the workout calories seemed really high to me, and generally here we don't want to encourage people using high estimates for such things as it can lead to unwanted calorie intake surpluses.5 -
SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »The point is, success in predicting weight changes does not imply accuracy of exercise calorie estimates. Lifting doesn't typically burn massive calories, and heart rate is a fairly bad way to estimate strength training calories.
Various people are doubting your exercise calorie estimates for lifting. I'm being specific about why I might question them. You're giving generalized advice about what will work for others. I'm being specific about one aspect of that advice that might - might - be misleading.
Any of the estimates - BMR/RMR, NEAT, exercise - has an error bar. The potential errors in the larger-magnitude components have more arithmetic impact than the errors in smaller ones. If your total calorie estimate is borne out by your weight-change rate, it doesn't validate your exercise calorie estimate.
To the extent you are giving advice to others, I'm quibbling about some of the details, not questioning your overall routine or advice. For sure, I'm not questioning your personal results.
As an aside: Do you have a measured HRmax from your intensely measured past? Did it match your age-estimate HRmax? If it didn't then, it probably doesn't now. Does your subjective RPE align with your estimated HRmax? (Ideally, that would be the subjective RPE from steady-state moderate cardio.) If you have a better estimate of your HRmax than 220 minus age, and your Polar will let you specify a custom HRmax, your exercise calorie estimates from Polar are likely to improve.
Dude or dudette? Are people named "Ann" usually a dude? I'm a li'l ol' lady. I don't think we're usually dudettes.
I disagree with you that the value of lifting (heavy) isn't much mentioned on MFP. We can quibble about whether the reason to lift heavy is "significantly" more calorie burn. You're convinced, I'm skeptical. Muscle burns more calories at rest than fat, but research suggests it's only around 4-6 calories per pound per day. The process of building muscles does burn some extra calories, but building muscle is a slow thing. The stats about EPOC from strength training tend to overstate the case, because they're usually expressed in percentage terms, and it's a percentage of the activity calories.
This is a more nuanced than average bit of information about calorie expenditure during strength training: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-expenditure-resistance/
I frankly don't have your athletic background, though my relevant background is non-zero. If you have specific knowledge I and others can learn from, please bring those details.
According to any relevant research I've seen, and modest personal experience, strength training calories are typically not super high, relatively speaking. That doesn't mean strength training isn't worth doing, doesn't have value, etc. Your overall advice is good. I have doubts about the exercise calorie estimation details, that's all.
I do think that more muscular people burn significantly more calories than less muscular people overall, but I suspect the reason is more that increased muscularity makes movement more fun, easy and automatic, rather than because BMR/RMR increases dramatically or because the actual strength training burns a bunch of calories. Increased daily life movement has a pretty big impact on all-day calorie burn, and it's a factor that many of us barely notice subjectively
Yup, I could be wrong about any or all of this.
Best wishes, sincerely!
I didn't see your name when I responded and only saw the impressive bicep in your photo... not too shabby for a 'lil 'ol lady' as you put it. Apologies for any confusion.
Thank you for the kind compliment, sincerely! :flowerforyou:
I just turned 68 . . . I think that's somewhat old.
(In my world, "old" is no insult.)
I posted the MET above, so I wont repeat that obvious point.
But there are a few other areas I have to speak to:
Predicting weight change is dependent upon accuracy of exercise calorie estimates.success in predicting weight changes does not imply accuracy of exercise calorie estimates
Predicting weight change is dependent on reasonably close exercise calorie estimates. Not too low, not too high.
"Reasonably close" is all we're going to get, if we're meticulous and thoughtful about estimating, when it comes to exercise calories, outside of a sports lab. It's good enough. Yeah, strive for accuracy, definitely.
Because everything is estimates, overages and underages will compensate for each other across the whole calorie needs/deficit estimate, to some extent.
This whole side discussion is about "watch out for too high", and what estimating techniques might lead to too-high exercise calorie estimates in which scenarios.
One of the ways we see people crash and burn around here is too-high calorie estimates.
According to the cleveland clinic, someone can achieve 2-4 lbs of muscle gain over a 4-12 wk period while lifting and taking creatine - assuming other areas, including protein intake, are 'good'. There are many more 'systematic reviews' that outline the conclusions of a multitude of studies that show similar results. Additionally, and this is important, 'newbie' gains are a real thing and I wont explain it here. Newbie's make up for much of MFP.The process of building muscles does burn some extra calories, but building muscle is a slow thing.
I would have said 2 pounds a month, so we're close in assumptions. That would be a rate under really good (maybe optimal) conditions. Calorie deficit would slow the gains to some extent. (Some would say "prevent gains"; I wouldn't.)
Many people here are trying to lose weight and gain muscle simultaneously. Often, they're quite over-optimistic about the rate at which it can happen. Newbie gains is one factor in a helpful direction, degree of overweight can maybe make some difference (on the fuel side). A calorie deficit will push in the other direction, slow gains down (on average). Other factors matter, too - age, genetics, program, nutrition, etc. 2 pounds is possible, but assumes most or all of the positive factors are present, few or none of the limiters.
From what I've read, the numbers of calories to build a pound of muscle are in the 2500-2800ish range (though I can't claim I've dug through the research). Two pounds a month - which is unlikely in a calorie deficit - implies maybe 5600 calories extra fuel needed over that month. That'd be around 186 calories/day. That's not nothing, it's useful, but it doesn't really compare with even fairly moderate cardio. If the key goal is weight loss, then cardio makes a better contribution.
That is not me saying "don't lift, just do cardio if you want to lose weight". I don't say that, and - much as I dislike doing strength training - it's not what I did myself during loss.Do you have a measured HRmax from your intensely measured past? Did it match your age-estimate HRmax? If it didn't then, it probably doesn't now. Does your subjective RPE align with your estimated HRmax? (Ideally, that would be the subjective RPE from steady-state moderate cardio.) If you have a better estimate of your HRmax than 220 minus age, and your Polar will let you specify a custom HRmax, your exercise calorie estimates from Polar are likely to improve.
>210:<40 were my HR ranges in the day. More importantly, ability to process lactate during VO2Max performance is critical as it allows someone to continue a very high intensity workout with limited rest moreso than an average lifter who will typically take longer resting periods during a session. Longer rest periods is a recommendation to attain best muscle gain and I actually don't follow it as much because I understand my body. As you're aware, this would increase a prolonged heart rate and significantly increase calorie burn. Athletes with some of the highest lactate processing capability are rowers and... swimmers.
Welllllll, lactate tolerance/threshold IMU is more about endurance performance, as contrasted with sprint-type work. But sure, if you're talking about doing higher intensity work for longer time periods, then it's important. I honestly don't know much about the role of lactate threshold in lifting. I assume the LT demands of swimming vary with the distance, but that LT improvement would be trained. Most rowing competition is short endurance, and LT is explicitly trained.
If you see numbers like 210 on the regular while feeling OK (just intense), and your Polar lets you set a custom HR range, might I suggest you consider setting HRmax to something around that 210 (maybe higher depending on your RPE if you stay near 210 for a bit)?
I don't know much about Polar's features or algorithms - used their devices for 10 years or so, but that was quite a while ago when they were less sophisticated (as was the whole market). I've been using Garmins in evolving forms since. Certainly, you'd get better CV training guidance with a more accurate HR range. Depending on what Polar's algorithms do, it might affect calorie estimates, too.
(I'd undertrain by a huge extent if I used 220 minus age as HRmax. But that's more of a cardio thing. Lifting's performance metrics of course differ, and I'm not sure how Polar does the calorie estimates for it.)I do think that more muscular people burn significantly more calories than less muscular people overall, but I suspect the reason is more that increased muscularity makes movement more fun, easy and automatic
More muscles means more caloric burn because life is more fun and easy if you lift? ok
Common sense, right? But really, anything that builds or sustains a good muscularity level should have that kind of effect, not just lifting. (Not dissing lifting. Everyone should do some, ideally.)
I do hear what you're saying about keeping things simple, and I think your OP generally does a very good job. It's a quibble that there are some sub-points in there that I think are possibly misleading, but they happen to be things that I've seen people trip over here. That's why I'm typing about them. If someone isn't wanting details and background, they'll skip the reading, I'm sure.
Best wishes!2 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »
A simple Google also shows MET for lifting is approximated at 3-6. Your example there is at the absolute top of that range and it's still only 75% of the 800 level you quoted (with 5-10 mins of that being cardio which would burn more for those minutes, but not enough to make up that gap).SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »Ultimately, you have an issue with how many cals I likely burn in an hour of high intensity lifting. A simple google shows (brevity):
Did you see at the site you showed there were three examples for resistance training? For 219 pounds they give results of 347, 496 and 596 calories, basically depending on how vigorous the session was estimated to be.
The core issue here is that estimation and application of workout calories to add to MFP's diary for daily calorie goals is a frequent topic here. It's why some people don't add any workout calories (a mistake IMO), and some add half of their estimated workout, and I add conservative estimates. I don't use a monitor, I use an MET estimate. AFAIK, some monitors "adjust" based on how you report certain activities to them, which shows how inaccurate they can be for calorie estimates.
The bottom line is someone looking to manage their weight should be wary of thinking they "earned" X calories to eat, when that X may be too aggressive. You may think this doesn't apply to you, and that's fine, but we're also having this conversation for the benefit of other readers.
There's also the issue of compensation, where vigorous effort results in less NEAT during the rest of the day than normal while you recover. So if someone burned X during a vigorous workout and then reduced NEAT during the day resulted in X/2 fewer calories burned than normal, adding X to their daily calories could put them in an unwanted surplus.
This is the core reason we've questioned your estimate. I hope you can appreciate that. Even if somehow in your case the estimate is accurate, and your NEAT doesn't drop off during the rest of the day after all that extremely vigorous effort, there are other readers here. It's not a good idea to have them thinking they can do an hour of weights and then add 800 calories of food to their diary and still be in a deficit for the day, when that may put them into a surplus.
I just want to reiterate too, you've given excellent advice here. It's just that number for the workout calories seemed really high to me, and generally here we don't want to encourage people using high estimates for such things as it can lead to unwanted calorie intake surpluses.
Telling people to use an online estimate and questioning a chest strapped HRM measurement is very odd to me.
People are adults. Results vary, as do applications. I don’t know who the “we” police are, but it seems I may have met at least 2 of them. 😂
No need to discuss further.
-Swimmerdude
2 -
Apparently, since you've intentionally or accidentally missed the entire point of the conversation, despite it being made crystal clear I thought, and then you've moved on to insulting people.SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »Telling people to use an online estimate and questioning a chest strapped HRM measurement is very odd to me.
People are adults. Results vary, as do applications. I don’t know who the “we” police are, but it seems I may have met at least 2 of them. 😂
No need to discuss further.
-Swimmerdude
Speaking of simple Google searches, here's some I found for "is heart rate accurate for calories lifting weights":
"A HRM won't give you an accurate idea of how many calories you burn during strength training because the relationship between heart rate and calorie expenditure is not the same during strength training as during cardio exercise, which is what the HRM's estimate is based on."
"Heart rate monitors not are accurate for lifting."
"Fitness trackers accurately measure heart rate but not calories burned" - That one was a Stanford study.
P.S. I didn't "tell people to use an online estimate".4 -
TL;dr: define appropriate goals; strive for consistency; correct based on actual results.
HR by most trackers is used to estimate mets for a time period based on either detected by the tracker via accelerometer and location tracking and smart algorithm or via explicitly defined by the user activity.
The mets (with some sort of averaging, possibly 5 minute average values) are used to extract Caloric expenditure during the time period.
The HR is used in place and as an approximation of the unknown consumption of oxygen that is taking place. Based on the vo2max vs heart rate assumptions being made. Which in some devices can be explicitly defined for the user and in others cannot.
Can't currently find but my recall going 10 years back of a polar funded/ scientist study was giving correlations in the 70% range
Good but not perfect.
It doesn't mean that the numbers don't work for someone and quite accurately at that.
It does mean that the numbers may be working even if the reason they're working is not what the people think!
Not sure in general what the issue is though.
For one thing net additional calories from activity during time slot are hard to estimate especially when using both MFP and a tracker.
And ultimately, they're irrelevant as to their accuracy as long as the total calories for the day are captured more or less correctly given the logging of calories in and levels of attempted deficit and starting points!
Lots of moving targets! Aren't we all glad that non-biased errors tend to cancel one another 2 -
Lift weights HARD. You might use cardio at the beginning to get your fitness up, but transition to mostly weights asap. This part most don't get and it took me awhile.
I disagree with this.
Nothing wrong with it if you want to do it but I disagree with it as universal neccesary advice.
Plenty of people lose weight and are healthy without doing so.4 -
TL;dr: define appropriate goals; strive for consistency; correct based on actual results.
HR by most trackers is used to estimate mets for a time period based on either detected by the tracker via accelerometer and location tracking and smart algorithm or via explicitly defined by the user activity.
The mets (with some sort of averaging, possibly 5 minute average values) are used to extract Caloric expenditure during the time period.
The HR is used in place and as an approximation of the unknown consumption of oxygen that is taking place. Based on the vo2max vs heart rate assumptions being made. Which in some devices can be explicitly defined for the user and in others cannot.
Can't currently find but my recall going 10 years back of a polar funded/ scientist study was giving correlations in the 70% range
Good but not perfect.
It doesn't mean that the numbers don't work for someone and quite accurately at that.
It does mean that the numbers may be working even if the reason they're working is not what the people think!
Not sure in general what the issue is though.
For one thing net additional calories from activity during time slot are hard to estimate especially when using both MFP and a tracker.
And ultimately, they're irrelevant as to their accuracy as long as the total calories for the day are captured more or less correctly given the logging of calories in and levels of attempted deficit and starting points!
Lots of moving targets! Aren't we all glad that non-biased errors tend to cancel one another
Fair post!0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Lift weights HARD. You might use cardio at the beginning to get your fitness up, but transition to mostly weights asap. This part most don't get and it took me awhile.
I disagree with this.
Nothing wrong with it if you want to do it but I disagree with it as universal neccesary advice.
Plenty of people lose weight and are healthy without doing so.
It’s not universally necessary at all. I agree with that and stated in the OP.
But I do believe it’s the fastest method to achieve the lean look that many desire, especially amongst men.2 -
Outside of the healthy life choices above, the 5 points below will get you great results.
Okay.
^ sentence made it read to me as though it were advice for everyone.
I guess what you meant by " great results" wasn't specified so I assumed you meant for weight loss and health since we are in weight loss and health section.3 -
I agree with your post, it is fun! As for whether the strap is accurate, not so much. Question- when you researched the strap accuracy for calories burned what did it say? If it’s a more recent study, can you link? The Stanford study is from 2017 so it would be nice to see more current developments and if they’ve improved. It would certainly make it *even more fun* if they were accurate.0
-
I agree with your post, it is fun! As for whether the strap is accurate, not so much. Question- when you researched the strap accuracy for calories burned what did it say? If it’s a more recent study, can you link? The Stanford study is from 2017 so it would be nice to see more current developments and if they’ve improved. It would certainly make it *even more fun* if they were accurate.
Welcome to the thread, my friend. Its been fun. lol
1-
The Stanford study is not comparable. It measured wrist worn HRM's accuracy in HR and calorie burn... in 2017. They were answering the question, "Hey, are these new-fangled HRM watches even accurate?" The answer was obviously not. Its a good study for what it was trying to show. When measuring heart rate in that study, the baseline they measured all of the watch HR accuracy off of was the Polar chest strap... its used as the baseline in just about any research I've seen. So if the closest HR accuracy was 5% off, then the Polar was 0% off. And if the closest EE (calorie burn) accuracy was 27% off, then I wonder what the Polar would have calculated? Well, we actually do know that! Read on!
2-
There are 2 published studies that are specific to Polar, likely more.
One was done w/ a Polar AW200 way back in 2010 and found it within 10% accuracy for calorie burn. It was published in the little known British Journal of Sports Medicine (https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/4/245). Unfortunately, it was only for hiking (I forgot to mention that I hike weekly and calorie burn dramatically increased in that exercise as well). Side Note: I used that same product back in the day... likely over 1,000 sessions over the years where I've used Polar chest straps with nearly perfect predictive results. Including when those results showed higher calorie burn.
The 2nd is hot off the press and performed by US Navy Research and published in the Journal of Sports Science Medicine. They wanted to find out if the new Polar military grade watches produced valid calorie burn results and the conclusion was that they did. You can see that here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10690511/. I'd imagine strapping into a Polar H10 would produce much better results.
Given both of these accounts and the fact that the Polar H10 (H9) is the gold standard (the actual term used in research papers to explain the baseline used), I'm starting to think that I'm very correct whereas before, I just assumed I was.
There I go again....
- SwimmerDude
2 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »Ultimately, you have an issue with how many cals I likely burn in an hour of high intensity lifting. A simple google shows (brevity):
The bottom line is someone looking to manage their weight should be wary of thinking they "earned" X calories to eat, when that X may be too aggressive. You may think this doesn't apply to you, and that's fine, but we're also having this conversation for the benefit of other readers.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I think the point being made here is that not everyone who comes here is as knowledgeable as you, has access to your equipment or reams of historical data or has your stellar background.
You, sir, in the world of MFP, are a unicorn. Hat (horn?) off to you.
Most users are like me, a frumpy old chick who desperately wanted to lose 100 pounds and came here with no clue how to start, seeking advice, inspiration, whatever it takes.
People in my original shoes are particularly “suggestible” to people reporting quick results.
Long-time users recognize that, and tend to ”pile on” to “this is the only/best way” type posts.
Speaking for myself, after the first few pounds lost, I was wildly enthusiastic and ready to do anything it took to shed the rest, fast, regardless of potential harm to myself. I would have glommed on to posts like this. “Heavy lifting to lose weight? Yeah baby!!!!”
It was the awesome posters here on your thread, as well as a caring and excellent trainer, who brought me back from the precipice of sheer stupidity and put me on the path to reasonable, sustainable loss.
For example, I had no idea that severely undereating was a straight up hazard to my health, or that too much exercise (something I still struggle with) can be likewise.
I hope you’ll stick around, first for the loss and health benefits to yourself, but also because I think you’ve got a lot to contribute here, and those kinds of folks are always welcome.
~sign me yet another older dudette who lifts, consistently, but not particularly heavy, and who still gets great results.
7 -
SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »I agree with your post, it is fun! As for whether the strap is accurate, not so much. Question- when you researched the strap accuracy for calories burned what did it say? If it’s a more recent study, can you link? The Stanford study is from 2017 so it would be nice to see more current developments and if they’ve improved. It would certainly make it *even more fun* if they were accurate.
Welcome to the thread, my friend. Its been fun. lol
1-
The Stanford study is not comparable. It measured wrist worn HRM's accuracy in HR and calorie burn... in 2017. They were answering the question, "Hey, are these new-fangled HRM watches even accurate?" The answer was obviously not. Its a good study for what it was trying to show. When measuring heart rate in that study, the baseline they measured all of the watch HR accuracy off of was the Polar chest strap... its used as the baseline in just about any research I've seen. So if the closest HR accuracy was 5% off, then the Polar was 0% off. And if the closest EE (calorie burn) accuracy was 27% off, then I wonder what the Polar would have calculated? Well, we actually do know that! Read on!
2-
There are 2 published studies that are specific to Polar, likely more.
One was done w/ a Polar AW200 way back in 2010 and found it within 10% accuracy for calorie burn. It was published in the little known British Journal of Sports Medicine (https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/4/245). Unfortunately, it was only for hiking (I forgot to mention that I hike weekly and calorie burn dramatically increased in that exercise as well). Side Note: I used that same product back in the day... likely over 1,000 sessions over the years where I've used Polar chest straps with nearly perfect predictive results. Including when those results showed higher calorie burn.
The 2nd is hot off the press and performed by US Navy Research and published in the Journal of Sports Science Medicine. They wanted to find out if the new Polar military grade watches produced valid calorie burn results and the conclusion was that they did. You can see that here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10690511/. I'd imagine strapping into a Polar H10 would produce much better results.
Given both of these accounts and the fact that the Polar H10 (H9) is the gold standard (the actual term used in research papers to explain the baseline used), I'm starting to think that I'm very correct whereas before, I just assumed I was.
There I go again....
- SwimmerDude
Thanks.
1- I didn’t link the Stanford study, as you can see. I read the link and noticed it was 2017 so asked you if what you read was more recent, what it said, and to link it so we are on the same page. I would love to see advancements in this field personally. And I’m not trying to prove you or anyone wrong, I’m actually trying to learn what is and isn’t working 🤓.
2- Your first link doesn’t work. That being said, using your second link, most watches are still not accurate (unfortunately), “the most popular wearables [Garmin, Fitbit, and Apple] have demonstrated significant error in estimating total energy expenditure (TEE)”.
The military research link you posted for Polar Grit X said “ metabolic cart for energy expenditure in HR zone 2 (60-69% HR max), while zones 1, 3, 4, and 5 (50-59%, 70-79%, 80-89%, and 90-100% HR max, respectively) had poor reliability. ”
“There are several limitations to this study that need to be addressed. The primary limitation is that the population was male active-duty elite military members, no female personnel were included. Second, the time in each HR zone was 10 minutes, which is in line with other validations studies that tested each HR zone for 5-10 minutes (Düking et al., 2020; Kinnunen et al., 2019) but is likely not long enough to fully evaluate substrate partitioning during exercise. Lastly, only the running activity was evaluated in this study.”.
So, it sounds like, if you’re a male, running for 10 min, and in the military, this might be the best option for you. Half joking half not lol 😆.
Thanks for posting the link about the Polar Grit X though (no snark). Glad there’s one option out there that is advancing in some capacity for some people. Hopefully the rest of the monitors get where the Polar H10 (H9) is “the gold standard”. I’ll have to find and read about it.
UPDATE: “ The Polar S810i heart rate monitor was shown to significantly overestimate energy expenditure during low-intensity exercise. However, there was no significant difference between the Polar results and the indirect calorimetry results at moderate exertion levels, and the overall results still correlated well at low intensities. Ultimately, Polar heart monitors aren't as accurate for measuring calorie expenditure as they are at tracking your heart rate. Overall, the researchers decided that despite the variability at low intensities, results correlated well enough for the Polar heart rate monitor to provide accurate calories burned estimates. But they went on to note that for that to be true, the heart rate monitor had to be programmed with the exerciser's measured VO2max (a measurement of your body's ability to uptake oxygen) and maximum heart rate, as opposed to the estimated values you typically have access to outside a clinical setting.“
https://www.livestrong.com/article/490909-the-accuracy-of-calories-burned-in-polar-heart-rate-monitors/
I would love to buy one when they’re more affordable and are more accurate for the everyday person (female or male) doing everyday things. I mean, I wanna get shredded too, and it’s highly motivating to see your progress. But for now, most of them way over inflate calories burned and I can’t trust my small calorie range with that.
2 -
SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »I agree with your post, it is fun! As for whether the strap is accurate, not so much. Question- when you researched the strap accuracy for calories burned what did it say? If it’s a more recent study, can you link? The Stanford study is from 2017 so it would be nice to see more current developments and if they’ve improved. It would certainly make it *even more fun* if they were accurate.
Welcome to the thread, my friend. Its been fun. lol
1-
The Stanford study is not comparable. It measured wrist worn HRM's accuracy in HR and calorie burn... in 2017. They were answering the question, "Hey, are these new-fangled HRM watches even accurate?" The answer was obviously not. Its a good study for what it was trying to show. When measuring heart rate in that study, the baseline they measured all of the watch HR accuracy off of was the Polar chest strap... its used as the baseline in just about any research I've seen. So if the closest HR accuracy was 5% off, then the Polar was 0% off. And if the closest EE (calorie burn) accuracy was 27% off, then I wonder what the Polar would have calculated? Well, we actually do know that! Read on!
2-
There are 2 published studies that are specific to Polar, likely more.
One was done w/ a Polar AW200 way back in 2010 and found it within 10% accuracy for calorie burn. It was published in the little known British Journal of Sports Medicine (https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/4/245). Unfortunately, it was only for hiking (I forgot to mention that I hike weekly and calorie burn dramatically increased in that exercise as well). Side Note: I used that same product back in the day... likely over 1,000 sessions over the years where I've used Polar chest straps with nearly perfect predictive results. Including when those results showed higher calorie burn.
The 2nd is hot off the press and performed by US Navy Research and published in the Journal of Sports Science Medicine. They wanted to find out if the new Polar military grade watches produced valid calorie burn results and the conclusion was that they did. You can see that here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10690511/. I'd imagine strapping into a Polar H10 would produce much better results.
Given both of these accounts and the fact that the Polar H10 (H9) is the gold standard (the actual term used in research papers to explain the baseline used), I'm starting to think that I'm very correct whereas before, I just assumed I was.
There I go again....
- SwimmerDude
Thanks.
1- I didn’t link the Stanford study, as you can see. I read the link and noticed it was 2017 so asked you if what you read was more recent, what it said, and to link it so we are on the same page. I would love to see advancements in this field personally. And I’m not trying to prove you or anyone wrong, I’m actually trying to learn what is and isn’t working 🤓.
2- Your first link doesn’t work. That being said, using your second link, most watches are still not accurate (unfortunately), “the most popular wearables [Garmin, Fitbit, and Apple] have demonstrated significant error in estimating total energy expenditure (TEE)”.
The military research link you posted for Polar Grit X said “ metabolic cart for energy expenditure in HR zone 2 (60-69% HR max), while zones 1, 3, 4, and 5 (50-59%, 70-79%, 80-89%, and 90-100% HR max, respectively) had poor reliability. ”
“There are several limitations to this study that need to be addressed. The primary limitation is that the population was male active-duty elite military members, no female personnel were included. Second, the time in each HR zone was 10 minutes, which is in line with other validations studies that tested each HR zone for 5-10 minutes (Düking et al., 2020; Kinnunen et al., 2019) but is likely not long enough to fully evaluate substrate partitioning during exercise. Lastly, only the running activity was evaluated in this study.”.
So, it sounds like, if you’re a male, running for 10 min, and in the military, this might be the best option for you. Half joking half not lol 😆.
Thanks for posting the link about the Polar Grit X though (no snark). Glad there’s one option out there that is advancing in some capacity for some people. Hopefully the rest of the monitors get where the Polar H10 (H9) is “the gold standard”. I’ll have to find and read about it.
UPDATE: “ The Polar S810i heart rate monitor was shown to significantly overestimate energy expenditure during low-intensity exercise. However, there was no significant difference between the Polar results and the indirect calorimetry results at moderate exertion levels, and the overall results still correlated well at low intensities. Ultimately, Polar heart monitors aren't as accurate for measuring calorie expenditure as they are at tracking your heart rate. Overall, the researchers decided that despite the variability at low intensities, results correlated well enough for the Polar heart rate monitor to provide accurate calories burned estimates. But they went on to note that for that to be true, the heart rate monitor had to be programmed with the exerciser's measured VO2max (a measurement of your body's ability to uptake oxygen) and maximum heart rate, as opposed to the estimated values you typically have access to outside a clinical setting.“
https://www.livestrong.com/article/490909-the-accuracy-of-calories-burned-in-polar-heart-rate-monitors/
I would love to buy one when they’re more affordable and are more accurate for the everyday person (female or male) doing everyday things. I mean, I wanna get shredded too, and it’s highly motivating to see your progress. But for now, most of them way over inflate calories burned and I can’t trust my small calorie range with that.
The Stanford study in this thread was has nothing to do w/ this discussion (at best) and was entirely misleading in this context. Anyone who used it as 'evidence' clearly didn't read it with any level of criticality.
Previously, there was a study posted that included 15 men between the ages of 20 and 24 who were "accustomed to training". Of course, based on those 15 gym bros, the poster claimed a specific amount of calories burned when training a muscle. Laughable, I know, but I didn't respond because these back and forths only serve to reinforce ones already held opinion.
Similarly, the livestrong article you posted boasts about the HR accuracy of a Polar chest strap, but then questions the accuracy of calories burned using, you guessed it, the 2017 stanford study that (1) Didn't even test a polar device and (2) didn't test a chest strap - which is an ECG. So you can imagine my surprise after having read and disregarded this article yesterday, only to see someone use it as evidence the next day.
Unfortunately, because people decided to make a point about calorie burn, others (as evidenced by the poster above), think the specific advice regarding the significance of strength training was being challenged. They confused everyone with RMR/BMR/EE/NEAT, etc. I called that out at the time.
I’m not challenging the intentions of those in this thread but I am challenging the foreseen outcome. Something very simple was made confusing.
I think I'm done w/ the back and forth regarding calorie burn and chest straps because no one is even reading these studies. They're just seeing their point and moving on. My brain can't handle that level of ostrich.
Anyhow, if you want to get shredded too, then start a strength training program. Start slow to learn good technique and what exercises work well for you. Then start lifting close to failure or at failure (obviously depends on age, fitness level, etc). Take protein, creatine recommended, go on long walks, and generally eat healthy at a deficit. If you do those things, I'm willing to bet $$ that you would see the best outcome you've seen. I'll buy you a darn strap so you can be on team SwimmerDude next time.
But what the hell do I know... (EVERYTHING! Cant get me down, girlfriend!)
- SwimmerDude 1 -
SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »SoCalSwimmerDude wrote: »I agree with your post, it is fun! As for whether the strap is accurate, not so much. Question- when you researched the strap accuracy for calories burned what did it say? If it’s a more recent study, can you link? The Stanford study is from 2017 so it would be nice to see more current developments and if they’ve improved. It would certainly make it *even more fun* if they were accurate.
Welcome to the thread, my friend. Its been fun. lol
1-
The Stanford study is not comparable. It measured wrist worn HRM's accuracy in HR and calorie burn... in 2017. They were answering the question, "Hey, are these new-fangled HRM watches even accurate?" The answer was obviously not. Its a good study for what it was trying to show. When measuring heart rate in that study, the baseline they measured all of the watch HR accuracy off of was the Polar chest strap... its used as the baseline in just about any research I've seen. So if the closest HR accuracy was 5% off, then the Polar was 0% off. And if the closest EE (calorie burn) accuracy was 27% off, then I wonder what the Polar would have calculated? Well, we actually do know that! Read on!
2-
There are 2 published studies that are specific to Polar, likely more.
One was done w/ a Polar AW200 way back in 2010 and found it within 10% accuracy for calorie burn. It was published in the little known British Journal of Sports Medicine (https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/4/245). Unfortunately, it was only for hiking (I forgot to mention that I hike weekly and calorie burn dramatically increased in that exercise as well). Side Note: I used that same product back in the day... likely over 1,000 sessions over the years where I've used Polar chest straps with nearly perfect predictive results. Including when those results showed higher calorie burn.
The 2nd is hot off the press and performed by US Navy Research and published in the Journal of Sports Science Medicine. They wanted to find out if the new Polar military grade watches produced valid calorie burn results and the conclusion was that they did. You can see that here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10690511/. I'd imagine strapping into a Polar H10 would produce much better results.
Given both of these accounts and the fact that the Polar H10 (H9) is the gold standard (the actual term used in research papers to explain the baseline used), I'm starting to think that I'm very correct whereas before, I just assumed I was.
There I go again....
- SwimmerDude
Thanks.
1- I didn’t link the Stanford study, as you can see. I read the link and noticed it was 2017 so asked you if what you read was more recent, what it said, and to link it so we are on the same page. I would love to see advancements in this field personally. And I’m not trying to prove you or anyone wrong, I’m actually trying to learn what is and isn’t working 🤓.
2- Your first link doesn’t work. That being said, using your second link, most watches are still not accurate (unfortunately), “the most popular wearables [Garmin, Fitbit, and Apple] have demonstrated significant error in estimating total energy expenditure (TEE)”.
The military research link you posted for Polar Grit X said “ metabolic cart for energy expenditure in HR zone 2 (60-69% HR max), while zones 1, 3, 4, and 5 (50-59%, 70-79%, 80-89%, and 90-100% HR max, respectively) had poor reliability. ”
“There are several limitations to this study that need to be addressed. The primary limitation is that the population was male active-duty elite military members, no female personnel were included. Second, the time in each HR zone was 10 minutes, which is in line with other validations studies that tested each HR zone for 5-10 minutes (Düking et al., 2020; Kinnunen et al., 2019) but is likely not long enough to fully evaluate substrate partitioning during exercise. Lastly, only the running activity was evaluated in this study.”.
So, it sounds like, if you’re a male, running for 10 min, and in the military, this might be the best option for you. Half joking half not lol 😆.
Thanks for posting the link about the Polar Grit X though (no snark). Glad there’s one option out there that is advancing in some capacity for some people. Hopefully the rest of the monitors get where the Polar H10 (H9) is “the gold standard”. I’ll have to find and read about it.
UPDATE: “ The Polar S810i heart rate monitor was shown to significantly overestimate energy expenditure during low-intensity exercise. However, there was no significant difference between the Polar results and the indirect calorimetry results at moderate exertion levels, and the overall results still correlated well at low intensities. Ultimately, Polar heart monitors aren't as accurate for measuring calorie expenditure as they are at tracking your heart rate. Overall, the researchers decided that despite the variability at low intensities, results correlated well enough for the Polar heart rate monitor to provide accurate calories burned estimates. But they went on to note that for that to be true, the heart rate monitor had to be programmed with the exerciser's measured VO2max (a measurement of your body's ability to uptake oxygen) and maximum heart rate, as opposed to the estimated values you typically have access to outside a clinical setting.“
https://www.livestrong.com/article/490909-the-accuracy-of-calories-burned-in-polar-heart-rate-monitors/
I would love to buy one when they’re more affordable and are more accurate for the everyday person (female or male) doing everyday things. I mean, I wanna get shredded too, and it’s highly motivating to see your progress. But for now, most of them way over inflate calories burned and I can’t trust my small calorie range with that.
The Stanford study in this thread was has nothing to do w/ this discussion (at best) and was entirely misleading in this context. Anyone who used it as 'evidence' clearly didn't read it with any level of criticality.
Previously, there was a study posted that included 15 men between the ages of 20 and 24 who were "accustomed to training". Of course, based on those 15 gym bros, the poster claimed a specific amount of calories burned when training a muscle. Laughable, I know, but I didn't respond because these back and forths only serve to reinforce ones already held opinion.
Similarly, the livestrong article you posted boasts about the HR accuracy of a Polar chest strap, but then questions the accuracy of calories burned using, you guessed it, the 2017 stanford study that (1) Didn't even test a polar device and (2) didn't test a chest strap - which is an ECG. So you can imagine my surprise after having read and disregarded this article yesterday, only to see someone use it as evidence the next day.
Unfortunately, because people decided to make a point about calorie burn, others (as evidenced by the poster above), think the specific advice regarding the significance of strength training was being challenged. They confused everyone with RMR/BMR/EE/NEAT, etc. I called that out at the time.
I’m not challenging the intentions of those in this thread but I am challenging the foreseen outcome. Something very simple was made confusing.
I think I'm done w/ the back and forth regarding calorie burn and chest straps because no one is even reading these studies. They're just seeing their point and moving on. My brain can't handle that level of ostrich.
Anyhow, if you want to get shredded too, then start a strength training program. Start slow to learn good technique and what exercises work well for you. Then start lifting close to failure or at failure (obviously depends on age, fitness level, etc). Take protein, creatine recommended, go on long walks, and generally eat healthy at a deficit. If you do those things, I'm willing to bet $$ that you would see the best outcome you've seen. I'll buy you a darn strap so you can be on team SwimmerDude next time.
But what the hell do I know... (EVERYTHING! Cant get me down, girlfriend!)
- SwimmerDude
Well it looks like no one has a link that’s helpful lol. I’m glad you love your chest strap and you’re making gains. As for getting shredded, I’m working on it 😊 My weight is fine but need to work on that bf %. Learning to fall in love with fitness again is my goal this coming year. That being said, hope you keep us posted on how you’re doing and on your gains. The fitness board is great for pic updates. Happy Holidays!3
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