Calories...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veronica

It's the calories you end up with after you factor in the calories you burned through physical activity. I think. :p

It's not a number that I personally would want to use since I don't think any of the numbers you get from HRM or internet calculators are very accurate. Each human is SO different and we all respond differently to different activities.

But the important thing is to find what works for you.

Veronica

---

This was how my nutritionist explained it the other day. I do pay attention to it. It isn't exact, but it gives me a ballpark figure. I have to use some kind of metric,'especially on those days when I exercise or ride for multiple hours.

Okay, so if I'm understanding this correctly:

RMR is approx 1650 calories.
80 min run + 40 min yoga = 1000 calories burned
TOTAL 2650
I ate 1800 worth of food
Net calories are: 2650-1800 = 850

So, to reach the recommended 1200 Net calorie mark I should have eaten 1450 calories instead?

That doesn't seem to make sense to me. I'm showing my poor math skills.

*I agree that HRM overestimate calories burned, so I go with approx 80% of what my garmin tells me for calories burned during a workout.

I don't think it takes RMR into account - that would affect what you want your net calorie goal to be (someone with a higher RMR would need a higher net calorie count, I think). Using your example, it would be

Eat 1800 calories
subract 1000 for yoga and running
___________
Net calories - 800

You would want to eat an addition 400 calories for the net to equal 1200.

That's how I understood it, too.

Jessmarimba described it the way my nutritionist did, and I like Limewave's approach of assuming 80% of the calories my HRM shows from any particular session. I wish I could afford a power meter, but that would be just another toy to obsess over... If I were younger and interested in racing then perhaps, but neither condition applies :)

Naw, I can't even justify a power meter for my gadget-w**** self. :rolleyes: I was just thinking that maybe your nutritionist put you on a power meter or had you do respiratory calorimetry at the office, to get a calibration that you could then apply to the numbers you get from your HRM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

Naw, I can't even justify a power meter for my gadget-w**** self. :rolleyes: I was just thinking that maybe your nutritionist put you on a power meter or had you do respiratory calorimetry at the office, to get a calibration that you could then apply to the numbers you get from your HRM.

---

Nah, that would be great to do though... we did have the respiratory calorimetry that a doctor had me do two years ago to look at - though I was 50 pounds heavier then. Even then I had a higher than average metabolic rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catrin

I am unsure how accurate my Polar HRM is where calories are concerned, but I do know that it shows I burn far less than, say, a year ago. I know it isn't exact, I use it as a rule of thumb. I use that in combination with how my body feels and what my blood sugar says. It has been a combination that works well.

---

Before I read this post, it was exactly what I was thinking in scanning your thread.

Have you re-set your HRM lately? :confused:

That's one of the things I check with my students in spin. If their weight has changed, re-set that. Plus, their fitness level. And diff types of exercise, impactive vs non-impactive, run diff heart rate efforts compared to perceived exersion.

The "stock numbers" in the HRM as usually set for 220 - ur age = Max HR... then the percentage of effort... which should match your perceived exersion... which from there gives you a total calories estimation burn.

As regular exercisers, we are generally fitter than the 220 - ur age theory. The fitter you become, the higher your threshold becomes.

Best way is to compare your perceived exersion with what that number should be for your HR percentage. You can take that number you see and work backwards to re-set Max HR.

For me, 220 - age42 = estimated Max HR 178. So, 75% max would be 178 x .75 = 133bpm. HOWEVER... say my Garmin stats when riding chatting w my partner outside... still working, but able to speak short sentence etc. (roughly endurance about 75% effort) is 155bpm. When I re-set my hrm, I took 155 divide by .75 = 206mhr.

Where my students get in trouble is that they leave the monitor settings, assume they are burning all these calories, keep eating them, and it's falsely high.

Sorry that's a long blab on:o... hope makes some sense, though:).

I reset the weight on my HRM periodically...I make certain that it is within 5 pounds of my current weight, and closer when I remember to check it. I remember when it told my I burned 700 calories for 80 minutes of spinning class, and now - for the same time period, I am lucky if it breaks 400...

Great example though, and a good illustration of why we need to be careful to reset it.

My dietitian sent her final calorie recommendations to me last night, and she actually didn't change them overly much. She raised my non-ride day calorie budget to 1,600 and to aim for 2,200 on days I ride. Outside of the really long ride days, of course, where I can burn that many calories or more on the bike. Not to concerned about that, but more importantly she helped me nail down how I need to divide my carbs throughout the day. I am going to ask her for references regarding the 50% carbss recommendation. I will post any references she provides here.

She did provide other information that will be helpful, I will give her suggestions a shot.