| Author | Post |
|---|
trueblueyes
New Member
| Joined: | 18 April 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
|
Posted: 25 April 2007 09:32 pm |
|
I need numbers, I am just that kinda girl.
How many calories burned during a workout qualifies as a medium intensity...and how much for high?
I think I am doing more than medium but I am not sure.
Thanks for the help!
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 26 April 2007 12:16 am |
|
Hi. I am assuming that you are using the RMR Calculator and you want to figure out whether you are "Lightly Active", "Moderately Active", "Very Active" etc.
How to work it out. For example, to discover how many calories are required to count yourself as "Moderately Active":
1. Take the number from the RMR column on the Sedentary line and subtract it from the number on the RMR column on the Moderately Active line
2. Multiply the result by 7
3. Divide the result by the number of days you work out per week.
(Moderately-Active-RMR - Sedentary-RMR) x 7 / Workouts-Per-Week
That's your answer, the number of calories per workout to justify 'Moderately Active'. Repeat for any other classification.
Hope that helped
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 26 April 2007 12:42 pm |
|
That's really helpful, I'd often wondered how to work it out properly. :)
Last edited on 26 April 2007 12:45 pm by Aimless
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 28 April 2007 04:58 am |
|
Hi. I am assuming that you are using the RMR Calculator and you want to figure out whether you are "Lightly Active", "Moderately Active", "Very Active" etc.
How to work it out. For example, to discover how many calories are required to count yourself as "Moderately Active":
1. Take the number from the RMR column on the Sedentary line and subtract it from the number on the RMR column on the Moderately Active line
2. Multiply the result by 7
3. Divide the result by the number of days you work out per week.
(Moderately-Active-RMR - Sedentary-RMR) x 7 / Workouts-Per-Week
That's your answer, the number of calories per workout to justify 'Moderately Active'. Repeat for any other classification.
Hope that helped
Hi Nir,
well now I am confused again, when I did it the calculations I ended up with 564.4 so does that mean I have to burn off that many calories each day I work out to be in the moderately active group? here are numbers I was working with sendentary- 1661, moderatly active-2145 I came up with 484 then multiply by 7 and I got 3388 and then divide by 6 and I got 564.4. and some days I just exercise at home and I dont know how many calories I am burning.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 29 April 2007 02:50 am |
|
junetwin2 wrote: I ended up with 564.4 so does that mean I have to burn off that many calories each day I work out to be in the moderately active group?
Yes (and you've done the maths correctly). If you want to know how many calories you burn when you're working out at home, try using the activity calculator on this website to figure it out.
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 29 April 2007 03:04 am |
|
| Thanks for the info nir!
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 1 May 2007 02:43 am |
|
hi nir, I have a question , well I did the calculations for my sister and she weighs less then me (152 ) but yet the results I got for the lightly active was less then what I would eat , would you mind doing the math for me so then I can tell her the correct amount.Cause I always thought that the less you weigh the less calories you would consume. Thankyou!
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 1 May 2007 02:46 am |
|
| can I have the rest of her stats: height, age
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 1 May 2007 02:58 am |
|
| oh Yes I am sorry , she is 42 and she is 5ft 2 inches
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 1 May 2007 03:47 am |
|
| one more bit of info, she exercises 5 days a week
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 1 May 2007 05:19 am |
|
| (Female, 42, 5'2", 152lb): her unadjusted RMR is 1303 so she shouldn't eat less than this. Her maintenance level as lightly active is 1792 so she should aim at 1523 for fat loss.
|
trueblueyes
New Member
| Joined: | 18 April 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
|
Posted: 1 May 2007 06:27 pm |
|
That is fantastic!
Can you tell me the same info?
I am 155lbs, 5'7" and 31. I exercise 4-5 days a week.
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 1 May 2007 06:58 pm |
|
Hi Nir, same for me, cause I forgot what mine should be , I am 42 and 5ft 2inchs and I exercise 6 days week 30-60 minutes and 2 days out of those 6 I do resistance machines anywhere from 20-30 minutes at a time. I am lightly active since I dont burn 545 calories each time I do exercise , Thanks so much! 
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 2 May 2007 12:48 am |
|
junetwin2 wrote: here are numbers I was working with sendentary- 1661, moderatly active-2145
junetwin2,
unadjusted RMR 1384, maintenance for lightly active is 1903. with a 15% deficit that's 1618 - the amount of a calories to aim for.
trueblueyes,
(Female, 31, 5'7", 155lb): unadjusted RMR is 1451, maintenance if lightly active is 1995, 15% deficit gives 1696. So aim to eat that much every day.
[Incidentally, as you admit to being a numbers-person, you might like to try the following 4-day zig-zag scheme: 1950 1800 1450 1600. On the 5th day you start again i.e. 1950. Note that the calorie average works out at 1700, but having low days and high days will confuse your body and keep your metabolism revved up.]
|
trueblueyes
New Member
| Joined: | 18 April 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
|
Posted: 2 May 2007 12:59 am |
|
You rock!
Thanks for all your help!
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 2 May 2007 02:24 am |
|
| Thanks Nir, your help is grately appreciated! if on some days when I do burn more then 500 calories would it be alright if I ate more than the 1618 amount?
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 2 May 2007 04:14 am |
|
| Sure. ps on a 6-workouts-per-week basis, your figures presume 282.3 calories burnt per workout, to give you an idea.
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 2 May 2007 03:07 pm |
|
| Thanks so much Nir! now I understand that I can adjust my calorie intake to how much I burn off during exercise.
|
trueblueyes
New Member
| Joined: | 18 April 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
|
Posted: 2 May 2007 06:52 pm |
|
| So how much does a 15% deficit amount to in pound loss a week? 1?
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4179 |
|
Posted: 3 May 2007 07:18 am |
|
Daily Calorie Deficit x 7 / 3500 = Loss per Week in Pounds
Of course it's all theory and you need to learn how your body reacts.
Peter
P.S.
Yes, Nir rocks!
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 3 May 2007 12:58 pm |
|
I find the calculations confusing, it makes me doubt my progress I've been keeping track of my calories for 34 days now, and my average deficit is 350. Putting that into the calculator gives me a loss of 3lbs! I've lost 10lbs, and I find it hard to put that down to water weight as I've been losing steady since the beginning. Hmm!
The only explanation I can think of is my activity level actually being higher than I have it set [at sedentary] - but with the calculations in this thread that's impossible. [Yes I do compute that it's only theory and a rough guide, I'm just surprised by how much quicker I'm losing the weight].
Eheh. Maybe my metabolism is far better than I thought 
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4179 |
|
Posted: 7 May 2007 08:19 am |
|
Aimless,
I've received e-mails from people who have used the calculators for over six months and said they were right on. I wrote back... amazing! It's very rare... just to many variables.
Peter
P.S.
I've always pronounced your name Morbidle Mom! Now I see it's an "n" on the end and it might be Morbid Lemon!?!
Maybe you could post in What does your username say about you?
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 7 May 2007 01:59 pm |
|
Yeah, maybe a longer term estimate might be more accurate for me then. I'll keep checking! It wasn't a criticism, either, this website is the best resource out there - and the calculator gives you a realistic idea of what to expect, which lots of people seem to lack.
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 7 May 2007 07:57 pm |
|
Hi Nir, I have a question concerning heart rate. When I do cardio my target rate is 142 although at times during my 30 minute workout it will go above the 142 mark, is this safe?
I also started to do more jogging/running on the tredmil, I do intervals of walking then a minute of the jog/run . Since I just started that today for right now I will do that 2 x a week. 
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 7 May 2007 09:28 pm |
|
Hi. You're 19 so your age-predicted Maximum Heart Rate is 220-19=201, and you have decided to aim for 70% of MHR, so 0.7 x 201 = 142.
You probably are aiming for that rate because somebody suggested that there is a "fat burning" zone of 65-75%, and a "cardio" zone at 85% and as you are primarily interested in fat loss, you are keen to be "in the zone".
Well, the short answer is: there is absolutely nothing wrong with working harder, as long as you're enjoying yourself and the extra intensity isn't going to make you give up your workout after 5 minutes.
The long answer has two parts - one is about how misleading this whole "fat burning zone" stuff is, and also about how there is a much better non-linear formula for working out what your target heart-rate should be, called Karvonen ( ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate ).
[side-note: I usually mis-spell the name as 'Kravonen'. Hilariously, of the 50 matches for this misspelling, Google places this topic from around 4 months ago at the top  ]
I don't know what your resting heart rate (ideally measured in the morning) is, but for the sake of argument let's assume it is 70 bpm (beats per minute). So your 70% target then becomes:
0.7 x (201 - 70 ) + 70 = 162.
0.55 x (201 - 70) + 70 = 142
Which means that, whilst you were hoping to hit 70%, with 142 bpm you're actually only hitting 55%, which is why it seems easy.
Until I learnt this I was kidding myself that the exercise I was doing (walking on a treadmill, not sweating, reading a bunch of printouts) was optimal exercise
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 7 May 2007 10:20 pm |
|
Hi. You're 19 so your age-predicted Maximum Heart Rate is 220-19=201, and you have decided to aim for 70% of MHR, so 0.7 x 201 = 142.
Umm nir if this post was intended for me ( junetwin2) thankyou for thinking that I am 19 , but I am 42 and the cardio machine I work out on say that 142 is my cardio target heart rate.
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 7 May 2007 11:16 pm |
|
*grin* Must have got confused with me, although I feel closer to 42 than 19!
This stuff about heart rate has got me thinking... I get my blood pressure checked at least every three months because I'm on the contraceptive jab, and I always notice how high my heart rate is, even though I'm not doing anything. [It's usually about 100, if not more]. I'm not particularly unfit, and they never really notice how high it is... but could that be why I'm losing quicker than expected, or why I'm so tired all the time? Or even, why I wake up countless times each night. 
I briefly had a heart rate monitor [it broke pretty soon after buying it, but I *did* get it from Argos - serves me right] and my average was really high - and this was over Christmas where my stress levels were pretty low. Hmm. I might mention it to the doctor.
Just thinking via the keyboard here, don't mind me
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 12:10 am |
|
junetwin2 wrote: Hi. You're 19 so your age-predicted Maximum Heart Rate is 220-19=201, and you have decided to aim for 70% of MHR, so 0.7 x 201 = 142.
Umm nir if this post was intended for me ( junetwin2) thankyou for thinking that I am 19 , but I am 42 and the cardio machine I work out on say that 142 is my cardio target heart rate.
blush [what, no emoticon?]. Let me rework those numbers:
220-42 = 178 (MHR)
142/178 = 80% (quite a respectable target)
0.8 x ( 178 - 70 ) + 70 = 157 (Karvonen to reach the desired 80% target)
0.67 x ( 178 - 70 ) + 70 = 142 => so actualy 142 only represents 67% of MHR
So different numbers, same conclusion: you are trying to go for a nice 'cardio' HR, but in fact the linear formula misleads and you're only aiming for 67%, so when you get up it is no big deal, because 80% is actually 157 bpm.
mobidlemon, first of all I assume you are not confusing your heart-rate with the large number in the blood pressure result. Secondly, some people get nervous in hospital or doctor setting and their blood pressure and heart rate will be elevated. A couple of weeks ago I was in hospital for a procedure and was strapped for blood pressure and they also put a little thing on my finger to take pulse-rate. I had fun slowing my breath and relaxing and getting the number on the screen to go as low as 40 .
100 is above-average for a resting heart rate (60-80 is average for the population), it'll be interesting to see if it goes down as fitness level increases. My teacher in a recent course used himself as an interesting example of a person who was quite fit yet had a higher-than-predicted heart-rate. [there are exceptions to the normal rules, basically - that's why PRE - perceived rates of exertion - can ultimately tell us more about whether exercise intensity is appropriate - sweating, heavy breathing etc.]
As for whether increased heart rate correlates with an elevated metabolic rate or relates to burning more calories: I don't know.
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 01:03 am |
|
Nir wrote:mobidlemon, first of all I assume you are not confusing your heart-rate with the large number in the blood pressure result. Secondly, some people get nervous in hospital or doctor setting and their blood pressure and heart rate will be elevated. A couple of weeks ago I was in hospital for a procedure and was strapped for blood pressure and they also put a little thing on my finger to take pulse-rate. I had fun slowing my breath and relaxing and getting the number on the screen to go as low as 40 .
Haha yes, I'm definitely not confusing the numbers! I don't get particularly nervous about being there either, and my concern was more with the readings I was getting at home over Christmas [my overnight average especially]. At the time I had a bit of fun trying to get my heart rate down with breathing and relaxing too, but the lowest I could get it was just above 80. 
If I'm honest though, when I had my blood pressure checked on Friday [where I was reminded of my high heart rate] I had just had blood taken and was on the verge of passing out [hey, it was hot!  ], and I was extremely anxious about it because each time I go they find it harder and harder to get it out of me! This time they had to take it out of the back of my hand *gulp*. Anyway, basically it could have improved since Christmas and more consistant exercise so I should hush up for now.
Maybe in the summer when I don't have the expense of food shopping I'll invest in a decent heart rate monitor so I'll be able to see any progress. Any recommendations on that front? [And is the only option for them to have a chest band? So inconvenient ;)]
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 01:37 am |
|
| I believe the chest-strap ones are the only ones accurate enough to bother with. My next one might have been from Argos so clearly I don't have a useful opinion on the front [all the ones I've had so far have been second-hand via eBay]. So you've had this experience too - my last blood test had the vampire at my GP surgery prick me in 4 places before she found a co-operative vein.
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 01:49 am |
|
hey nir, speaking of needles, last year I went to give plasma and the lady who inserted the needle I swear didnt know what she was doing cause as soon as she inserted the needle into my arm , the place where the needle was started to get all puffy and yes it hurt.. alot! and she looks at me and says "hmmmm that doesnt look right!" I almost told her "no really, whatever gave you that idea!" and the next day my arm from the elbow to wrist was completly black and blue.
ok now for my question , I had stated that I started jogging/running in intervals on the tredmil 2 times a week , when should I increase the days I do this?
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 02:11 am |
|
a good guideline for cardio is 3 times a week.
BFFM takes a 2-way look at cardio: on the one hand, Tom suggests you do "as little as possible, so long as you're still losing", elsewhere in the book he suggests doing cardio every day, and when getting ultra-lean for competitions, even double-cardio (mornings and evenings) is an option.
How does this fit in with any other exercise you're undertaking? Is it fun? Are you primarily doing it to accelerate fat loss or to improve fitness?
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 05:53 am |
|
Hi Nir, I had posted this question earlier but now I cant find it , so I am posting it again, yes I do exercises for fat loss and weight loss. My week this week will be today I started the jog/run intervals on the tredmil for 30 minutes , the epiletical for 15 minutes and the recumnant bike for 10 minutes then I did the resistance machines for 20 minutes. Tuesday will be 30 minutes of hill walking on tredmil then 20 minutes on the bike or epiletical , Wednesday will be interval fast walking on the tredmil for 30 minutes, 10 minutes on the stair stepper, 10 minutes on the bike and 10 minutes on the eplitical, Thursday will be 30 minutes cardio on the tredmil and 30 minutes cardio on the eplitcal , and Friday will be a repeat of Monday. When I do the resistant machines I do upper body one day and then lower body the next time I do the machines. If you have any suggestions for better fat loseand weight loss please let me know.
Thankyou!
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 03:07 pm |
|
Looks good, you've got a bit of weight training, you're doing some sort of cardio 5 times a week, you're keeping it mixed up. I wouldn't prescribe any more unless you actually wanted to do it - keep the extra for reserve as an option to break a pleato.
(my problem is that I'm already doing practically all the classes offered at my gym - probably more than I need but I wouldn't want to miss any of them - if I had to give them up it will be a hardship. On the other hand any other exercise seems like a chore so I don't think I'll bother.)
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 03:16 pm |
|
| Thank you Nir!
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 03:17 pm |
|
Nir wrote: I believe the chest-strap ones are the only ones accurate enough to bother with. My next one might have been from Argos so clearly I don't have a useful opinion on the front [all the ones I've had so far have been second-hand via eBay]. So you've had this experience too - my last blood test had the vampire at my GP surgery prick me in 4 places before she found a co-operative vein.
Mmm, I did get the cheapest one from Argos though. I think as long as you buy a decent brand from there, not some cheap name that you've never heard of, the quality of stuff is okay. [The number of times I've had to return stuff is distressing ;)] What make have the ones you've had been?
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 03:56 pm |
|
| off eBay: I forget the name of the first one (but no-one has ever heard of it, going by Google). 2nd one was a Polar. If I get one from Argos it will be a basic model that has the calories-burnt-counting functionality (I think it'll be £25) but my Polar one still works - it is just a somewhat basic model.
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 04:01 pm |
|
Ah cool. I got the impression Polar were the main brand. Although I'm looking at an Oregon Scientific one off Amazon. Hmm. I'll either have to dig into my savings or starve for a few weeks, not sure which yet ;)
|
Jon Miller
New Member
| Joined: | 18 April 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 258 |
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 04:07 pm |
|
I thought that the increased metabolism from the exercise would play a large role also. That is why most people find some muscle building to assist in their weight loss (despite it burning a lot less calories).
Jon Miller
|
junetwin2
Member
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 04:34 pm |
|
| I have another question , what is best for losing inches? as far as resistance machines go, should a person who wants to lose inches and be toned, use lower weights and higher reps, or should the person "feel the burn" to achieve these results?
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 8 May 2007 10:41 pm |
|
From a first-hand experience point of view, the majority (say 90%+) of the weight-training I've done has been Body Pump (lower weights, higher reps) and this has certainly proved to result in smaller compact muscles (i.e. "lost inches").
However, in BFFM, Tom suggests that we should strength-train with the aim of building muscle (which can then burn fat) and therefore advocates a rep-range of 8-12, which is ideal for hypertrophy (=muscle growth).
So, probably neither approach can hurt with your objective.
[on my course, I learnt that high-reps equate "endurance", low-reps equate "strength and size"]
I've probably gotten all I can out of Body Pump style exercise. Though to be honest it will be interesting what effect it will have on me once I'm done "cutting" and start eating above my maintenance level.
|
Current time is 11:14 pm | |
|
