Calories Burned-how determined?

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danmar Sorry for the loose use of the word "hard". I should have used difficult. Yes, I agree with your analysis. My experience is that after a week or two of difficult workouts, it gets more difficult to get my heart rate elevated. This results in fewer cals indicated as burned. Obviously, I am doing the same work and am burning the same cals but if feels easier and shows less cals. Another example: if it is particularly warm or humid during my workout, my heart rate will go higher, thus indicating more cals. Doubtful.

Danmar, I was not trying to be difficult about the words 'hard" or "difficult ". Only to admit that there is a "hard" term used in materials science (the Mohs scale). Many people here are sticklers, and I did want to leave threads hanging out to get unraveled.

I think your original question is very interesting, and although I think I can reason out the answer, I am not sure. I think it is impossible that perceived exertion, or heart rate as a proxy for that, ultimately have much to do with work done or calories burned, except when comparing two bodies of equal size and efficiency. If you could shovel 2 tons of pea gravel three feet into a hopper today with one heart rate and calorie readout from your Polar, then do the same thing 2 weeks later with a different heart rate and calorie readout, it cannot be that the calories of work done by your body are different on these two days, if work is measured by a change in the physical world. Now maybe the body actually expends more calories huffing and puffing and raising its heart rate on a humid day, or when it has a fever- I have no clue.

I think this I also why I have never known anyone who easily stayed slim and in shape who paid much attention to whatever he thought his calorie (kilocalorie) burn was- though heart rate is clearly of interest when one is pushing himself to reach a level of athletic endurance. And as Alan pointed out, it lets you know when you are overdoing.

Ha

[braumeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by F4mandolin The watch claims she loses about 800 calories running about 3.5 miles......ain't happening. An old rule that we used to use years ago......and I still think it's about as good as anything if you are on foot. You lose 100 calories a mile whether you are running or walking. Then with my adjustments.....if you are a good runner, in shape, you are likely losing less than 100 a mile. If you are heavier, out of shape....might be a little over 100. Now....if you are on a bike.....or rowing machine....that method is worth zilch.

I've always used the 100 calories per mile figure as a decent rough rule of thumb. I assume that my usual three miles at an easy running pace will allow me two good guilt-free beers that evening.

[F4mandolin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister I've always used the 100 calories per mile figure as a decent rough rule of thumb. I assume that my usual three miles at an easy running pace will allow me two good guilt-free beers that evening.

My problem is the "several more" after the first two.......but by then there isn't much guilt until the next day

[Danmar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Danmar, I was not trying to be difficult about the words 'hard" or "difficult ". Only to admit that there is a "hard" term used in materials science (the Mohs scale). Many people here are sticklers, and I did want to leave threads hanging out to get unraveled. I think your original question is very interesting, and although I think I can reason out the answer, I am not sure. I think it is impossible that perceived exertion, or heart rate as a proxy for that, ultimately have much to do with work done or calories burned, except when comparing two bodies of equal size and efficiency. If you could shovel 2 tons of pea gravel three feet into a hopper today with one heart rate and calorie readout from your Polar, then do the same thing 2 weeks later with a different heart rate and calorie readout, it cannot be that the calories of work done by your body are different on these two days, if work is measured by a change in the physical world. Now maybe the body actually expends more calories huffing and puffing and raising its heart rate on a humid day, or when it has a fever- I have no clue. I think this I also why I have never known anyone who easily stayed slim and in shape who paid much attention to whatever he thought his calorie (kilocalorie) burn was- though heart rate is clearly of interest when one is pushing himself to reach a level of athletic endurance. And as Alan pointed out, it lets you know when you are overdoing. Ha

No problem. I still agree with your thinking. This AM I did a 45 minute elliptical workout. I did the same one last Friday. I felt much stronger today, so HR not very high (avg HR=134) and indicated cals=674. Last Friday it seemed more difficult (avg HR=144) indicated cals=797. Exact same workout. Go figure.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R Once I determined that I could still lose by ignoring the calories earned and sticking with a level of food intake consistent with weight loss, it just hasn't been a concern.

^^^^ This ^^^^

[Danmar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR ^^^^ This ^^^^

Sure, but my workouts are much more than losing weight.

[Katsmeow]

As you get more fit what used to raise your heart rate doesn't do so any more. Therefore, it would seem logical to me that you aren't burning as many calories. Years ago I remember I started using an exercise video at home that left me gasping and really raised my heart rate. A few months later it didn't raise my heart rate at all so I needed to switch monitors.

I don't use the HR function on a HR monitor (I do use a couple of different HR monitors for different purposes). However, I use a Fitbit which tells me my total calories burned per day (I can also look at it per activity as well). I also input my calories eaten to come up with my calorie deficit. I weigh in weekly at WW and find that my weight loss is usually very close to what would have been predicted by my calorie deficit. Therefore, I conclude that for me that Fitbit is quite accurate in determining calories burned.

[F4mandolin]

And for me it comes down to this......if I stop drinking beer I lose weight.

[haha]

I have never paid any attention to calories, except as a rough gauge of my weekly activity level. A very clever doctor named Ralph Paffenbarger studied a group of Harvard alumni. Those who burned > 2500 kc/week lived longer. Calories were estimated by hours spent in various very roughly classified activities. I don't own a scale, or a monitor. I do have a concept2 ergometer that I have had and used about 2 years.

I am a naturally active person, if I never again recorded my workouts I would still weigh what I weighed 50 years ago, without very much obvious redistribution.


Ha

[Danmar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by F4mandolin And for me it comes down to this......if I stop drinking beer I lose weight.

Totally agree. That why I haven't lost any weight recently.

[Danmar]

Ha: I agree activity level is key. My motto in retirement is "Have fun and burn calories". Meaning, don't be afraid to have fun and keep active. I lost about 20 lbs shortly after retirement but have gained about 7-8 lbs back. Beer is a problem as I do enjoy a few on a hot day. Cheers