[Zombie latte]

Well dang it, now I have no clue as to how I'm suppose to calculate such things. >.< Anyone have any ideas? Or can possibly explain it to me?

[Heather]

Originally Posted by tec4cleveland

I agree: Body fat % is a valid consideration.

However. I would point out that you should figure out (via Harris-Benedict or other valid calculator) what your energy expenditure is (i.e., what you could eat if you wanted to maintain your current weight * activity factor) and then drop down 20-30%. What you exercise is weighed in (so to speak) by the activity factor (1.3 for moderately active, 1.55 for more active, etc.) So what you eat v. what you exercise should be already adjusted. (I hope that makes sense)

What's really important is to make sure your assessment of your activity level is honest. That's what I've been doing and I'm seeing a steady 2#/week drop. At the same time, I'm monitoring bf% so I know WHAT I'm losing.

Just a note: It looks like this post is advice to the original poster. This thread is over 4 years old and the poster hasn't been active since last July, so it's unlikely the advice will be received by that person.

[NoSuchUser]

That's pretty interesting. I do have faith in my polar HRM though... I had a trainer put me through this intense metabolic test where I wore this mask & a HRM & got on a treadmill & then he used the results to program it to my body. I have to have it re-done as I Increase my fitness. The final cal count is usually less than what a gym machine says, but more than what my fitness pal says.

[Heather]

Again, this thread is over 5 years old. If you want to continue the conversation, you might want to start a new thread.

[linasalvador]

What's really important is to make sure your assessment of your activity level is honest.

[Kscott]

Originally Posted by BlueToBlue

One thing that the article doesn't mention that I've thought would make a big difference in calories burned is body fat percentage. Since muscle burns more calories than fat, if two people were working out at the same intensity, both weighed the same, and achieved the same heart rate but one had a lower percentage of body fat than the other, wouldn't the one with the lower body fat percentage be burning more calories? Or does that rule only apply to your resting metabolism? I've never seen any machine or calculator that takes into account body fat percentage when computing the number of calories burned for an exercise. Is it because it doesn't matter, body fat percentages are too inaccurate, or most people don't know their body fat percentage?

Very good point. Even the doctor's office will not account for lean muscle mass in a BMI test. Weight and height is all they go by. I have friend that is 5'3" that weights 142 pounds which gives her a bad BMI. However she looks like she weighs around 120 pounds and she is in excellent shape. She works out all of the time--and continually complains about this flaw in the BMI.

So if the doctor's office does not account for lean muscle mass, how could any machine?