Calorie Expenditure Formula

Options
ATT949
ATT949 Posts: 1,245 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I've seen some truly silly calorie counts here on MFP and I know that's impacted weight loss for folks who are "dancing on the razor's edge"*.

I just ran across this formula (pardon the pun) and thought I'd share it.

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx





*Trying to calculate calories consumed or expended is rife with inaccuracy which is one of the reasons why I chose to restrict my calorie intake to < 1 k net cals/day when I was losing weight. Trying to hit a specific calorie level is like using one of those air guns at a carnival - try, try, try as hard as you might but the odds are against you even coming near the target. My simple approach acknowledged that - run a deficit so large that it didn't matter.
It worked — http://cbeinfo.net/weight.htm

Replies

  • Drastiic
    Drastiic Posts: 322 Member
    Options
    What people fail to understand is that all the forumlas are estimations.

    Estimations don't always transfer to real world results.

    Based off your own real world results, adjust accordingly.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options

    *Trying to calculate calories consumed or expended is rife with inaccuracy which is one of the reasons why I chose to restrict my calorie intake to < 1 k net cals/day when I was losing weight. Trying to hit a specific calorie level is like using one of those air guns at a carnival - try, try, try as hard as you might but the odds are against you even coming near the target. My simple approach acknowledged that - run a deficit so large that it didn't matter.
    It worked — http://cbeinfo.net/weight.htm

    If you're only interested in losing weight, eating under 1k cals a day will work, but probably much better to set a much more moderate deficit to maintain muscle and limit metabolic slowdown
  • ATT949
    ATT949 Posts: 1,245 Member
    Options

    *Trying to calculate calories consumed or expended is rife with inaccuracy which is one of the reasons why I chose to restrict my calorie intake to < 1 k net cals/day when I was losing weight. Trying to hit a specific calorie level is like using one of those air guns at a carnival - try, try, try as hard as you might but the odds are against you even coming near the target. My simple approach acknowledged that - run a deficit so large that it didn't matter.
    It worked — http://cbeinfo.net/weight.htm

    If you're only interested in losing weight, eating under 1k cals a day will work, but probably much better to set a much more moderate deficit to maintain muscle and limit metabolic slowdown

    I do thank you for your response — it's heartening that you avoid the use of absolute statements.

    Neither of those were an issue for me.

    Many well-intentioned folks here on MFP contributed the benefit of their wisdom. Alas, all of them were wrong.
  • krisntraining
    krisntraining Posts: 226 Member
    Options
    I've seen some truly silly calorie counts here on MFP and I know that's impacted weight loss for folks who are "dancing on the razor's edge"*.

    I just ran across this formula (pardon the pun) and thought I'd share it.

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-

    Thank you so much for this site! I have a polar HRM for my bike that calculates distance, speed etc and it gives my WAY more calories burned than my Garmin 310 I recently bought for tri's does. They both have the chest strap and the HR's are the same but the cal burns are always off. It looks like the garmin is right ( bummer!). But that's what I expected.
  • pukekolive
    pukekolive Posts: 237 Member
    Options
    I check my calorie burn on my HRM with the site you mention and this one below, before deciding what I will input to MFP. Usually the figure I use will be a mid-range one, depending on the intensity of the exercise and how I felt at the end of it.

    Also, HRMs will include your BMR burn as well, for me on 1600 cals approx 1 cal per minute, which I deduct before I enter it on MFP.

    http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/
  • ktrn0312
    ktrn0312 Posts: 723 Member
    Options
    bump
  • nannabannana
    nannabannana Posts: 787
    Options
    bump....Interesting
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I've seen some truly silly calorie counts here on MFP and I know that's impacted weight loss for folks who are "dancing on the razor's edge"*.

    I just ran across this formula (pardon the pun) and thought I'd share it.

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx


    Yep, that's at least based on study formula that had much better correlation. Sadly you gotta have VO2max for better accuracy, but better than MFP and other databases.

    I'm pretty sure one main database must be public-domain now, because the descriptions are exactly the same, and calorie counts on the ones I've checked.
  • gogidget
    gogidget Posts: 70 Member
    Options
    I've seen some truly silly calorie counts here on MFP and I know that's impacted weight loss for folks who are "dancing on the razor's edge"*.

    I just ran across this formula (pardon the pun) and thought I'd share it.

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx


    Great info. I just calculated my "resting" and "Max"...good to know. Thanks!
  • imnotyourpal
    imnotyourpal Posts: 162 Member
    Options
    Interesting. Thanks. :)
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Now I remember why I don't like that use of the formula.

    I calculates my max HR, even though I know what it really is, and if the AHR level is too high compared to it's assumed max, it assumes it is not in the aerobic range the formula is valid for, so it says not valid range.

    Here is the site with the study, and easier calc to use I think.

    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    excerpt from study:
    The model (with the highest likelihood ratio) was used to estimate energy expenditure.
    The correlation coefficient (r) between the measured and estimated energy expenditure was 0.913.
    The model therefore accounted for 83.3% ([R.sup.2]) of the variance in energy expenditure in this sample.

    Because a measure of fitness, such as V[O.sub.2max], is not always available, a model without V[O.sub.2max] included was also fitted.
    The correlation coefficient between the measured energy expenditure and estimates from the mixed model without V[O.sub.2max] was 0.857.
    It follows that the model without a fitness measure accounted for 73.4% of the variance in energy expenditure in this sample.

    Based on these results, we conclude that it is possible to estimate physical activity energy expenditure from heart rate in a group of individuals with a great deal of accuracy, after adjusting for age, gender, body mass and fitness.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Thank you so much for this site! I have a polar HRM for my bike that calculates distance, speed etc and it gives my WAY more calories burned than my Garmin 310 I recently bought for tri's does. They both have the chest strap and the HR's are the same but the cal burns are always off. It looks like the garmin is right ( bummer!). But that's what I expected.

    Does the Garmin ask for as many personal stats as the Polar?

    My Garmin has gender, age, weight. Alas, it is FR305, and doesn't even use HR in calorie estimate, so moot point. That is indeed why that site was great.

    But that site is also always way over the Polar for me, which has been tweaked for correct MHR, which is pretty big factor in calorie calc.
    And I've not seen in the study where true MHR comes into play, though they tested for it, just age in the formula, so I'm suspect for those of us with MHR greatly over what any formula would give.
    In fact, when I use an age of 26, which is closer to what 220-age would call my max of 194 (at 43), then the website is closer, by 50 cal's.

    Here's a study about Polar accuracy.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
  • regmcc
    regmcc Posts: 81 Member
    Options
    Bump for tomorrow lol too late at night to absorb this :tongue:
  • Pebble321
    Pebble321 Posts: 6,554 Member
    Options
    Unfortunately this calculator gives me "silly results" (to quote the OP).
    Or, to be more accurate it doesn't give me any results at all - because my max heart rate doesn't fit with it's standard calculation. Their formula estimates that my max hr is 177, whereas it is actually more like 195 (that's not the highest number my hrm has recorded, it has been up over 204 on a number of occasions). This means that the formula is way off for me.

    So, just like everything else, this calculator is an estimate and for me, not even close.
    But, it doesn't worry me, I know that everything I enter (food and exercise) is an estimate. I will stick with estimates from my Garmin or Runkeeper or MFP.

    The good news is that the ups and downs obviously balance each other out, because if I stick to a calorie allowance with a moderate deficit I lose weight steadily and relatively easily. I certainly don't agree with the OP that this means I need to eat at a huge deficit "just in case", that sounds like a very risky strategy to me.
    While it might work out OK in the short term, I see no point in setting up something that I can't sustain for the long term.

Categories