Which Do You Go By?
vintageprop
Posts: 62 Member
When it comes to tracking calories by activity, I'm pretty sure everyone gets different results when consulting with various websites and heart rate monitors.
I've been testing my heart rate monitor and its always so much higher than the websites say but sometimes its close. I am so frustrated because I don't know what to trust.
I've been thinking I should just add up all the activity calculator and heart rate monitor results and then just average them out and go by that. Is this a good idea?
Example: My hrm (not a polar) says I burned 200 calories during 30 mins of basic aerobic exercise. Websites say 150-170.
When I took a 15 min brisk walk, my hrm said I burned 73 calories and the websites say 40-70.
I think this particular hrm is seriously over calculating calories... when I do my 20 minute lower body pilates toning workout it says I burned 73 calories.
Does any of this sound right?
I've been testing my heart rate monitor and its always so much higher than the websites say but sometimes its close. I am so frustrated because I don't know what to trust.
I've been thinking I should just add up all the activity calculator and heart rate monitor results and then just average them out and go by that. Is this a good idea?
Example: My hrm (not a polar) says I burned 200 calories during 30 mins of basic aerobic exercise. Websites say 150-170.
When I took a 15 min brisk walk, my hrm said I burned 73 calories and the websites say 40-70.
I think this particular hrm is seriously over calculating calories... when I do my 20 minute lower body pilates toning workout it says I burned 73 calories.
Does any of this sound right?
0
Replies
-
When it comes to tracking calories by activity, I'm pretty sure everyone gets different results when consulting with various websites and heart rate monitors.
I've been testing my heart rate monitor and its always so much higher than the websites say but sometimes its close. I am so frustrated because I don't know what to trust.
I've been thinking I should just add up all the activity calculator and heart rate monitor results and then just average them out and go by that. Is this a good idea?
Example: My hrm (not a polar) says I burned 200 calories during 30 mins of basic aerobic exercise. Websites say 150-170.
When I took a 15 min brisk walk, my hrm said I burned 73 calories and the websites say 40-70.
I think this particular hrm is seriously over calculating calories... when I do my 20 minute lower body pilates toning workout it says I burned 73 calories.
Does any of this sound right?0 -
Why not go by what this website calculates. It seems to be pretty close for me. There are lots of options to choose from when putting in an exercise, so search for the one that most fits the exercise you did & use it. Example, under running you choose the pace that you ran and it will adjust it accordingly. (I think it take into account your weight etc., but I'm not positive.) Hope this helps.0
-
It's a no brainer??? Obviously your heart rate monitor is correct or at very least, the most correct. Numbers on sites dont mean anything, how can they? They dont take into account your height, age, weight, or heart rate while doing the excercise. Think about it and Im sure you'll see what Im talking about.0
-
Why not go by what this website calculates. It seems to be pretty close for me. There are lots of options to choose from when putting in an exercise, so search for the one that most fits the exercise you did & use it. Example, under running you choose the pace that you ran and it will adjust it accordingly. (I think it take into account your weight etc., but I'm not positive.) Hope this helps.
If you go by the numbers on this site then you're not putting in the right numbers plain and simple.0 -
Why not go by what this website calculates. It seems to be pretty close for me. There are lots of options to choose from when putting in an exercise, so search for the one that most fits the exercise you did & use it. Example, under running you choose the pace that you ran and it will adjust it accordingly. (I think it take into account your weight etc., but I'm not positive.) Hope this helps.
If you go by the numbers on this site then you're not putting in the right numbers plain and simple.
it isnt that plain and simple
I have found most of the numbers to be close enough to give a good idea of the calories I am burning0 -
No need for frustration -- if you have a HRM, use it. It's far more accurate than what any website will say.0
-
My opinion, your hrm is probably more accurate than the website BUT I always go with whichever is lower just to air on the side of caution.0
-
Your numbers seem fairly reasonable to me. Go by what your hrm says. Although the cals listed for various exercises on mfp are close for some people, they are way off for others (both too high and too low).0
-
Why not go by what this website calculates. It seems to be pretty close for me. There are lots of options to choose from when putting in an exercise, so search for the one that most fits the exercise you did & use it. Example, under running you choose the pace that you ran and it will adjust it accordingly. (I think it take into account your weight etc., but I'm not positive.) Hope this helps.
If you go by the numbers on this site then you're not putting in the right numbers plain and simple.
it isnt that plain and simple
I have found most of the numbers to be close enough to give a good idea of the calories I am burning
Yes it is that plain and simple Dave, tell me what the numbers on this site are based on?0 -
Why not go by what this website calculates. It seems to be pretty close for me. There are lots of options to choose from when putting in an exercise, so search for the one that most fits the exercise you did & use it. Example, under running you choose the pace that you ran and it will adjust it accordingly. (I think it take into account your weight etc., but I'm not positive.) Hope this helps.
If you go by the numbers on this site then you're not putting in the right numbers plain and simple.
it isnt that plain and simple
I have found most of the numbers to be close enough to give a good idea of the calories I am burning
Yes it is that plain and simple Dave, tell me what the numbers on this site are based on?
if you dont know...it isnt right for you to tell people the numbers are wrong0 -
whatever you say Dave. You know and I know that a ficticious number on a website that isn't based on ANY personal information from a user is merely a stab in the dark. I believe the topic at hand is which do you go by? And when you read further they ask about hrm vs mfp's numbers. So yes, when it comes down to it, the numbers on this site mean nothing to the individual.0
-
we are not talking about highly trained atheletes here with optimal body fat percentages
the numbers are most likely generic to a wide range of folks and are more than adequate to give a good idea of calories expended
getting to within a small reange of the exact calories burned is not required0 -
Any website, including this one, is going to list a best estimate for the general population -- there's no way for a website to know your individual calorie-burning power, even when you enter your demographics. If you have the technology at your fingertips, rely on that.
But I do find that the MFP data is a pretty good estimate when I forget my HRM . . .0 -
Dave - WHO CARES if we're not talking about athletes! The person asked which is more accurate. Drop it.0
-
Dave - WHO CARES if we're not talking about athletes! The person asked which is more accurate. Drop it.
easy pal
dont be barking at me
you made a statement and I gave a civil response0 -
When it comes to tracking calories by activity, I'm pretty sure everyone gets different results when consulting with various websites and heart rate monitors.
I've been testing my heart rate monitor and its always so much higher than the websites say but sometimes its close. I am so frustrated because I don't know what to trust.
I've been thinking I should just add up all the activity calculator and heart rate monitor results and then just average them out and go by that. Is this a good idea?
Example: My hrm (not a polar) says I burned 200 calories during 30 mins of basic aerobic exercise. Websites say 150-170.
When I took a 15 min brisk walk, my hrm said I burned 73 calories and the websites say 40-70.
I think this particular hrm is seriously over calculating calories... when I do my 20 minute lower body pilates toning workout it says I burned 73 calories.
Does any of this sound right?
I use my HRM which has my age, height, weight and is with the the entire workout. it tracks my HR up and down. I believe this to be the most accurate number.
I also do not eat every exercise calorie. I eat approx 50%, this way I have a cushion.
Dont sweat the small stuff. Eat healthy foods, exercise more, and you are bound to lose weight!
Good luck!!:flowerforyou:0 -
Thank you everyone for your input! I really appreciate it.
I guess I just don't understand calories as much as I thought I did since I think burning 73 calories during 20 minutes toning exercises sounds off..0 -
Thank you everyone for your input! I really appreciate it.
I guess I just don't understand calories as much as I thought I did since I think burning 73 calories in 20 minutes sounds off..
You have to increase you heartrate to burn more. I did 45 min on elliptical and burned 350. When I first started I burned 600 calories in the same amount of time, doing less work. Why? Because I am more fit now.
You are young and dont have a lot you need to lose. Do you have any classes you can take near by? That is a great way to get challenged.
:flowerforyou:0 -
Dave - WHO CARES if we're not talking about athletes! The person asked which is more accurate. Drop it.
easy pal
dont be barking at me
you made a statement and I gave a civil response
nah man, Im actually getting sick of this crap, this is an ongoing issue I've noticed. You didn't just make a response, it's like you're trying to be the moderator of this entire site. You're entitled to your opinions just like everyone else, but I cant help but get the feeling that you're always trying to correct people. You may not agree with what I say but in this case you really didn't need to make a comment about mine. Said person asked a question, I made an educated response and low and behold, in comes Dave to correct me or whatever. Are you just going to keep arguing your case? I dont even know what you're getting at here. Im talking about one thing and you're trying to take it in a totally different direction. It doesn't matter if we're talking about highly athletic people or morbidly obese people. The fact is these numbers dont really mean much. Ill agree with you on the fact that 100% accuracy isn't of utmost importance. HOWEVER, the question was which one is more accurate and I said if they are using the numbers on here (as opposed to the hrm) they are using the wrong ones.0 -
Are you removing the BMR calories from your HRM calories? You almost always need to. For example, my BMR is 1572, so that means I burn 1.09 calories every minute by doing nothing. So if in 20 minutes your HRM says 73 calories, you then need to remove the BMR calories for that 20 minutes to get a more accurate number. So 20 * 1.09 (BMR calories / minute) = 22. So your actual calories burned are 51.
So just work out your BMR and you can do the numbers for yourself. This might make the HRM numbers closer to the website numbers
I personally would use your HRM numbers over the website numbers as your HRM knows how hard you worked. For some people Moderate effort might mean something very different to another, which makes it hard to select the correct excercise level from a generic database. However, I've actually always found the website values a bit higher than my HRM numbers.
Good luck.0 -
Are you removing the BMR calories from your HRM calories? You almost always need to. For example, my BMR is 1572, so that means I burn 1.09 calories every minute by doing nothing. So if in 20 minutes your HRM says 73 calories, you then need to remove the BMR calories for that 20 minutes to get a more accurate number. So 20 * 1.09 (BMR calories / minute) = 22. So your actual calories burned are 51.
So just work out your BMR and you can do the numbers for yourself. This might make the HRM numbers closer to the website numbers
I personally would use your HRM numbers over the website numbers as your HRM knows how hard you worked. For some people Moderate effort might mean something very different to another, which makes it hard to select the correct excercise level from a generic database. However, I've actually always found the website values a bit higher than my HRM numbers.
Good luck.
Yes I was wondering whether to take this BMR subtracting into account as well. Thank you so much for clearing that up! I feel much better about the HRM now 0 -
Are you removing the BMR calories from your HRM calories? You almost always need to. For example, my BMR is 1572, so that means I burn 1.09 calories every minute by doing nothing. So if in 20 minutes your HRM says 73 calories, you then need to remove the BMR calories for that 20 minutes to get a more accurate number. So 20 * 1.09 (BMR calories / minute) = 22. So your actual calories burned are 51.
So just work out your BMR and you can do the numbers for yourself. This might make the HRM numbers closer to the website numbers
I personally would use your HRM numbers over the website numbers as your HRM knows how hard you worked. For some people Moderate effort might mean something very different to another, which makes it hard to select the correct excercise level from a generic database. However, I've actually always found the website values a bit higher than my HRM numbers.
Good luck.
Yes I was wondering whether to take this BMR subtracting into account as well. Thank you so much for clearing that up! I feel much better about the HRM now
I wouldn't worry about subtracting these "doing nothing" type calories, that's reading a little bit too much into this whole thing I think.0 -
if you are going for an accurate number
follow the manufacturers advice0 -
Thank you everyone for your input! I really appreciate it.
I guess I just don't understand calories as much as I thought I did since I think burning 73 calories during 20 minutes toning exercises sounds off..
Actually....pilates is a tough work out so I think that sounds about right.0 -
Are you removing the BMR calories from your HRM calories? You almost always need to. For example, my BMR is 1572, so that means I burn 1.09 calories every minute by doing nothing. So if in 20 minutes your HRM says 73 calories, you then need to remove the BMR calories for that 20 minutes to get a more accurate number. So 20 * 1.09 (BMR calories / minute) = 22. So your actual calories burned are 51.
So just work out your BMR and you can do the numbers for yourself. This might make the HRM numbers closer to the website numbers
I personally would use your HRM numbers over the website numbers as your HRM knows how hard you worked. For some people Moderate effort might mean something very different to another, which makes it hard to select the correct excercise level from a generic database. However, I've actually always found the website values a bit higher than my HRM numbers.
Good luck.
Yes I was wondering whether to take this BMR subtracting into account as well. Thank you so much for clearing that up! I feel much better about the HRM now
I wouldn't worry about subtracting these "doing nothing" type calories, that's reading a little bit too much into this whole thing I think.
Yeah actually, I was starting to think that I'm thinking too much on this stuff too but I do want to get to my goal so I'll just try and not worry so much anymore and just do what I can 0 -
Thank you everyone for your input! I really appreciate it.
I guess I just don't understand calories as much as I thought I did since I think burning 73 calories during 20 minutes toning exercises sounds off..
Actually....pilates is a tough work out so I think that sounds about right.
You're right. since the ones I'm doing in particular make me work pretty hard in that 20 mins. Thanks for your input!0 -
There are problems with both HRM calorie numbers and listed numbers on a website or numbers shown on a piece of equipment.
Basically, in order to assess any validity, you have to know how the numbers are calculated.
Calories expended during an activity are based on : intensity x weight.
For certain activities such as walking, walking on an incline, running, a cycling ergometer, or stairclimbing, the energy costs have been researched extensively and there are established formulae for calculating calories expended. The formulae are pretty simple, so I would expect that any treadmill, stepper, or bike made by a major manufacturer (e.g. Life Fitness, Precor, Technogym, Cybex, Stairmaster--will give you pretty accurate numbers.
For other machines/activities, oxygen uptake must be measured directly on a group of subjects, and then algorithms are derived from those testing results. I know that Life Fitness has its own biomechanical testing lab and they do actual studies on every new piece of equipment they introduce. I think other manufacturers use the traditional method of farming the research out to graduate schools--or they just reuse old data.
Even a company like Life Fitness, which does the most careful testing, only uses 50-100 subjects to derive its algorithms, so there is still a noticeable standard of error.
I am still trying to find out more details from Polar, but from what I know of exercise physiology, I have trouble trusting the HRM numbers at all. Polar is assuming a constant and consistent HR response to exercise, and that just doesn't happen. The energy cost of an activity is constant--HR response is not.
For example, running 6.0 mph (10 min/mile) has and energy cost of about 38 mi/kg/min or roughly 11.0 METS. The energy cost is the same from step one forward. Yet it might take 3-5 minutes for HR to reach steady state. So, for the first couple of minutes, the HRM will underestimate actual calories burned.
Plus it doesn't seem like the HRM can take into account increases in ability. Once again, the whole point of training is that you increase your aerobic capacity. That means that, after training, a previous workload will now be easier--i.e. it will represent a lower percentage of maximum than before. From the standpoint of the HRM, the training workload now represents say 65% of max rather than 75% of max, so it will count fewer calories, even though the actual energy cost of the activity is the same.
Polar has some built in methods for estimating VO2 max, but these also contain numerous variations which can affect accuracy.
If you are doing unstructured activities, such as spinning or group classes, then the Polar calorie numbers probably represent a reasonable way to keep track of calories--even if the numbers aren't totally accurate, they are consistent relative to the individual, ie. the numbers will represent actual differences in your routine.
Another caveat is with strength training. The HRM calorie numbers for strength training are pretty useless, because HR response during weight training (by that I mean "traditional" weight training) is not the same as HR response to cardio exercise and the calorie calculations do not apply.
I know it is extremely important for people on a weight-loss program to track calories, and exercise accounts for a substantial amount of calories. It's unfortunate that we can't be more precise in calculating exercise calories. For that reason, I would definitely agree with those who say that you should be extremely cautious about "counting" exercise calories in your daily planning. Obviously, if you are doing a fairly intense 30-60 minute workout, it is significant. AND you have to be careful not to restrict calories too severely or else you may not have the fuel to work out effectively, I would just be very conservative about "adding any of those calories back in"--maybe 20%-30% of what you think you burned.0 -
There are problems with both HRM calorie numbers and listed numbers on a website or numbers shown on a piece of equipment.
Basically, in order to assess any validity, you have to know how the numbers are calculated.
Calories expended during an activity are based on : intensity x weight.
For certain activities such as walking, walking on an incline, running, a cycling ergometer, or stairclimbing, the energy costs have been researched extensively and there are established formulae for calculating calories expended. The formulae are pretty simple, so I would expect that any treadmill, stepper, or bike made by a major manufacturer (e.g. Life Fitness, Precor, Technogym, Cybex, Stairmaster--will give you pretty accurate numbers.
I am still trying to find out more details from Polar, but from what I know of exercise physiology, I have trouble trusting the HRM numbers at all. Polar is assuming a constant and consistent HR response to exercise, and that just doesn't happen. The energy cost of an activity is constant--HR response is not.
Plus it doesn't seem like the HRM can take into account increases in ability. Once again, the whole point of training is that you increase your aerobic capacity. That means that, after training, a previous workload will now be easier--i.e. it will represent a lower percentage of maximum than before. From the standpoint of the HRM, the training workload now represents say 65% of max rather than 75% of max, so it will count fewer calories, even though the actual energy cost of the activity is the same.
Another caveat is with strength training. The HRM calorie numbers for strength training are pretty useless, because HR response during weight training (by that I mean "traditional" weight training) is not the same as HR response to cardio exercise and the calorie calculations do not apply.
While I agree with your initial statement, I think some of your comments might be a bit mis-informed.
First, the estimated calories burned shown on most exercise machines are estimates only, no matter what their method or research. My treadmill over-estimates my calories burned by 30-50%!!!!!:noway:
The HRM are more accurate, but still an estimate, because they take into account your real-time heart rate, which is indicative of how hard you're working. Therefore, I consider the numbers I get during strength training to be fairly accurate. Your heart rate response to ANY effort is the same- it goes up. BUT, during strength training your heart rate goes up and down, as opposed to cardio where you tend to get up to a level and stay close to it.
Finally, your HRM DOES take into account an increase in fitness- it records your LOWER heart rate for the same activity at the same intensity. Thus, as you become more fit, you will burn fewer calories for the same activity. This is why we need to keep pushing ourselves! If it seems too easy, it probably is!!!
But I think the bottom line is- calorie burn estimates are just that- estimates. You need to experiment with what works best for you-- trust your exercise calories and eat them all, eat 20% less, 50% less, whatever. If you're losing at a healthy rate- or seeing positive changes in your body (sometimes results are not on the scale!), continue your current method. If you're not losing and are seriously under-eating your calories, try to bump up you cals and maybe change your routine!!!
Good luck to all!! If it were easy, none of us would be here!:flowerforyou:0 -
Thanks, April...finally a voice of reason!0
-
Thanks, April...finally a voice of reason!
Thanks!:blushing:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions