Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
DRAGONCHILDE SparkPoints: (57,096)
Fitness Minutes: (14,252)
Posts: 9,646
5/30/13 11:54 A

You've gotten some good advice; an HRM will give you the most accurate estimate, but in the end, they are *all* estimates. Unless you're in a lab hooked up to monitors and machines, you're never going to know the exact amount you're burning,g and that's okay. You will always have some room for error, though. Your body isn't a calculator, and as long as you're giving it the best try, you'll be fine.

Don't worry about your daily calorie burn; your range here takes daily activity including housework and such into account already. Trying to count that as well is just double-counting! Don't worry about underestimating. If you are weighing and measuring, you can reasonably expect to be fairly accurate.

This isn't about perfection. With the elliptical, the burn will likely be less than running, as it's a low-impact exercise. With resistance, it gets wonky. That's where the HRM will be more helpful for you, for exercises not as frequently studied.

90% of us here go with rough estimates, and it works. :)

SIMONEKP Posts: 2,546
5/30/13 11:32 A

In the end they are all estimates but buying a HRM may make it easier for you have a good idea of what you're burning.

BAILEYHOUSE2007 SparkPoints: (2,459)
Fitness Minutes: (1,895)
Posts: 44
5/30/13 7:58 A

ok, so trust what i find for running, what about the stationery bike and the elliptical? those are the other forms of cardio that I do.

MOTIVATED@LAST Posts: 14,238
5/30/13 6:23 A

350 calories for 3.3 miles sounds pretty feasible.

Walking and running are pretty well studied and understood activities, and online estimates are likely to be fairly reasonable.

HRM's are subject to a fair bit of error as well, and do not always warrant the blind faith that is often put in them.

HRM's do have their advantages for forms of exercise where intensity is difficult to measure objectively (eg. aerobics), but for running and walking the advantage is not compelling.

M@L

ERICADURR Posts: 241
5/29/13 10:51 P

Makes sense. I prefer a heart rate monitor as well. :) Keeps me motivated and lets me know how hard I'm working.

BEEZAUR SparkPoints: (525)
Fitness Minutes: (1,740)
Posts: 74
5/29/13 9:29 P

Yes, they are guesstimates.

For my purposes the most useful numbers game is counting calories eaten (again, just an estimate), and tracking my weight.

I've come to the conclusion that my own most useful indicator is how I feel. There are particular types of "tired", "hungry", "energetic", etc. I can tell when I am losing weight - I feel a particular way. Not sure if that is the particular metabolism associated with fat burning or what, but my body sends signals about what it is doing. The real art is learning to make sense of them.

Edited by: BEEZAUR at: 5/29/2013 (21:31)
BAILEYHOUSE2007 SparkPoints: (2,459)
Fitness Minutes: (1,895)
Posts: 44
5/29/13 9:21 P

For example I ran 3.3 miles in 34 min and it says about 350 in calories burned. I am 65 inches I weight about 147. I am not sure what else you would need from me. But just ask and Ill let you know. I will buy a Heart Rate monitor if that would give me an honest answer to what I am burning. It seems like the trackers on this site and all the others plus the machines are just guesstimates.

Make sense?

BEEZAUR SparkPoints: (525)
Fitness Minutes: (1,740)
Posts: 74
5/29/13 9:20 P

For reference, I burn about 1000 calories an hour riding my bike fairly strenuously, something I can maintain for several hours if I eat every so often. On an easy ride I burn half that or less. I'm a 185 lb male, been cycling a while.

So that gives you an order of magnitude of calories burned, and should also point out that there is a lot of variability.

The accuracy with which you can estimate calories burned depends a lot on what you are doing. Walking, running, cycling, are reasonably easy to estimate, but even then there are things that can throw numbers off.

ERICADURR Posts: 241
5/29/13 9:13 P

It's going to depend on a number of factors, including your height, weight, heart rate while exercising, type of exercise you're doing, and even then, it's only an estimate. Can you give us more information?

SUSAN_FOSTER Posts: 1,228
5/29/13 9:13 P

Are you using the fitness tracker on this site? That should tell you your numbers.

BAILEYHOUSE2007 SparkPoints: (2,459)
Fitness Minutes: (1,895)
Posts: 44
5/29/13 9:09 P

I am really trying to figure out how many calories I burn during a work out. I have googled it and I am just as confused as I was before. Nothing I read helps me figure out how to get close to what I burn. I know daily I have calories burned just from walking up and down stairs, around the office, etc... what I am really interested in is the workout of the day. My Cardio more specifically. I kinda toss everything else up to the calories I miss counting during the day (like when I undercalculate a serving size). Can anyone help?

Page: 1 of (1)  




Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
How do you keep your home gym smelling nice? 10/8/2013 11:25:25 AM
stinky feet since I started exercising 11/8/2013 3:46:34 AM
What to eat before a 13K 11/2/2013 3:13:27 PM
How accurate is the fitness tracker? 8/27/2013 9:13:11 PM
What helps you focus while running? 8/15/2013 7:26:38 PM

Diet Resources: raspberry benefits | raspberry diet | raspberry health