Hi there - this is probably a bit of a dumb question, but I have been wondering what is meant by the "How hard is it" question on Traineo that you see when you are entering your workouts.

Does this refer to your 'perceived effort'? Or does it refer to the actual level of exercise that you are doing?

For example I am jogging (Couch to 5k) and I am new to it so I find it 'Really Hard'!!! But obviously to other people jogging would probably be easy, and sprinting or something else might be really hard.

Thanks for the advice!!! I just want to make sure I'm not kidding myself about the amount of calories I'm burning

Hi, Rosy,

The best way to address this is via a heart rate monitor, coupled with your noting how taxed you feel during your sessions.

The more fit you get the more your performance and stamina will increase and it's fun to keep track of how the numbers change with those improvements.

Traineo's REALLY too nice to us - when I began the couch-to-5k I think traineo was telling me I was burning over 2000 calories (!), which is... well it would be NICE, but I don't think it's too accurate.

Now if I find that I'm exercising without my heart rate monitor I usually just choose "easy"- it registers that I DID something, but I'm not upping my expectations too much thinking that I burned enough to go out and eat that pizza

And hey, if it's true that I DID burn those 2000 calories, then I'll see it next time I have to weigh in - a little surprise that I don't say no to!

FWIW, if I do a session, (which usually starts with either intense calisthenics and ends with elliptical, or is an outdoor 30 minute run + walking, a HIIT run, or just an elliptical session, (intervals in all cardio), I log according to output, which is always high as I'm always covered in sweat, sometimes, (after resistance), noodley all over and if it was a HIIT session, huffin' like a mad dog.

All that said, I never mentally count what I do each day as totalling more than 500 calories, no matter what the graph here may reflect as I completely concur that it's OUT OF WHACK and increasingly so in relation to the subject's weight.

Thanks for the suggestions minu and spyke!!!

I do think that the figures may need to be taken with a pinch of salt I entered 35 mins of running (level = hard) which gave a total of 556 cals - seems a bit high? But I guess it just a rough figure... it probably doesn't really matter as I'm not planning on eating all those calories anyway - so either way I guess I will have burned more than I ate!

Minu, heart rate seems like a good idea for telling how hard it was for me - they have heart rate monitors on the treadmills in the gym so I have an idea of what mine would be - it seems to get up to 170+ which may or may not be a good thing! Also the sweat thing seems to be a good measure lol

Rosy, just a couple more cents: in my experience I've noted that the monitors on gym equipment, (depending on brand/battery levels, quality etc.), can often also be outta whack. For eg: when I hop on my elliptical machine with my heart rate monitor on, the machine can be anywhere from 10 to a whopping 40 bpm's under what the monitor says, (always under), so if you have it in the budget, buying a proper monitor and strap might be something to consider for future accurate guaging of output.

As for weight training, I almost always work hard, and I know it - so that's what I use

I used "REALLY Hard" once b/c I puked.

@Edit: fwiw, I only use this so I can see my relative progress on the graph. I think the concept of counting how many calories you've burned is total bunk and know that if I just put my time in at an intense level, I'm burning enough.

Heh, there should be a "knackered-o-meter" on these charts, as I see it the same way, Dave--if yer givin' 'er, then boom.

its all an estimate, an average;

i would say easy= a walk in the park
medium= starting to get out of breath
hard-sweating, interval training
very hard=running a marathon

i never use really hard but do whatever works for you. you will eventually find a balance b/w diet and exercise. i, like, dave , use it more for tracking purposes.

Hey guys, the scale traineo uses to rank your intensity is used as a global reference, not personal. Running a 10 minute mile is easy, even if it is really tough for you.

I'm going to call BS on this... Intensity is not global, but quite personal (especially in regards to how this metric is used).

If I run a 10 minute mile (assuming I could actually run for 10 minutes straight), and maintain a HR around 170-180 for the entire time, that is more intense than if you run a 10-min mile and maintain a HR of 130; it also burns more calories. That is why this measure of intensity is used to approximate the amount of calories burned.

You only have a heart rate of 180 because you have a much higher body mass than the same person who has a 130, body mass is incorporated into their calculation independent of intensity.

I think you're mixing two mutually exclusive equations here... (but I could be wrong)

First we have the calculation to determine how many calories you burn (actually this should be second)... This takes the amount of time you exercised * the intensity with which you exercised (easy/medium/...). I'm paraphrasing here, there are likely unit conversions and constants involved, but the correlation is a direct one. These constants/conversions may very well incorporate mass (weight) if this is not a linear relationship, but there is no guarantee that they do so.

The other equation is what you would use to actually determine the intensity (again, a somewhat qualitative measurement). The key to this is your heart rate. This is the only metric readily available to us to determine the intensity at which we are working out. A higher sustained heart rate is a more intense workout. This is also a direct correlation. If I maintain 90% MHR, I am getting a more intense workout than someone maintaining 60% MHR. While my higher body mass is a factor in why I have a higher HR, so is my level of fitness, CV health, VO2 max, etc.

Note that the only reason there are two 'equations' here is because our ranking of intensity is entirely subjective. They could import information about our HR during the exercise as well as sustained analysis of our breathing (gas concentrations, pox, etc), but that's somewhat impractical. Basically, if it doesn't feel like exercise it's 'easy' and you probably shouldn't even count it. If you puke, it's REALLY Hard. Work out your own subjective observations for everything in-between (for example, when I do the run/walk/jog thing, it's 'Hard' 'Walking'. I refuse to call it running, but I do run for a portion and I always walk at a brisk pace except for the cool down).

QED

I agree with you Dave. That's why you have to continue to work harder to earn the "hard" rating. What I did 3 months ago that qualified as "hard" would probably be "easy" or "medium" for me now. Gotta keep upping the ante.

So the only point you are trying to make is that exercise intensity as a perception is wholly subjective? I am led to believe that by your QED. If that is the case, then I 100% agree with you.

However, since I have a vague feeling you are attempting to go over my head here, I'll assume that the first few paragraphs were what you were trying to demonstrate as proof.

The overall formula I assume traineo uses to compute calories burnt is related to a single number governed by intensity which is then augmented by a coefficient that is in some way related to your body mass. Traineo has a single number to represent the calories burnt per unit of time for each particular exercise, and the slider for intensity is used to augment this number. The intensity slider represents a change in force or speed not a change in perceived effort.

For example, let us assume that they have the number of 500 calories stored as the amount of calories burnt swimming in 60 minutes. When you change the slider to differing levels of intensity, traineo interprets this as swimming faster or slower, not it being difficult to swim at that same speed.

I assume they do this because they don't have the information to provide for more complicated and accurate estimations. You are giving traineo far to much credit for their method. Intensity is the method by which they are able to account for differing levels of speed or force in your workout, and is not in any way really related to your actual level of exhaustion.

Don't you find it odd that they don't have an entry for running at 4, 5, 6, or 10 mph? They certainly are not equal.

Hmm... so maybe my question wasn't so dumb after all if there are differing opinions and no 'obvious' answer...

On the one hand I agree with Dave who is on the side of 'perceived effort'... if you think about it, how come people who are extremely obese can lose a lot of weight just by walking? Obviously because they find it 'really hard' and it gets their heart rate up...

But on the other hand I agree with Bourblaster... I DO find it odd that they don't have an entry for running at 4/5/6 mph - so then I started to think maybe when they say 'really hard' they mean 'running really fast' i.e. a global measure.

This is basically the debate I have been having with myself - I'm glad to know I'm not the only one Wish we could get an 'official answer' on this?

It's all relative; I typically don't even look at the calories burned for the exercises, I just compare it to the previous day/week so I understand how hard I worked COMPARED to another day: the graph gives me a visual indication of my workout trend (ie. the days I play an hour of basketball after lifting I got more exercise than the days I just lifted, and I can see that a glance... as far as whether or not I really burned 1200 calories on that day doesn't matter to me.). As far as intensity, or "Hard" versus "Really Hard", I'm aware of how hard I can push during a workout and if I don't push myself to the absolute limit (for whatever I'm doing that particular day), then I don't put "Really Hard". Because it's so subjective on an individual basis and there's no one to hold us accountable, you've just got to give yourself an honest assessment of how hard you worked versus how hard you know you can work.

I'm far less concerned with heart rate or calories burned. Aside from my opinion that there's way too much of a focus on calories when people start trying to be healthy, your heart rate isn't the ONLY indication of how hard you're working. If you're basing your "intensity" purely on heart rate, then there's a good chance that your focus is in the wrong place. Think about weight training, I can overload my muscles and have nothing left for the iron, but my heart rate will never get anywhere near what it gets to, in terms of BPM or duration, compared to my cardio days. Does that mean I can never put "Hard" or "Really Hard" for my weight days? Lord no, my weight days completely destroy whatever muscle group I'm lifting that day.

I pretty much ignore the actual numbers for my diet and exercise graphs, like I said, it's just a relative value for me to look at in comparison to previous days. If you're really going to be calorie-focused (which, again, I don't think adds as much value as other people do), ignore the "How hard was it?" field and enter your own calories.

Learn somethin' new everyday--I never even NOTICED that field on the page before. Cheers, Mr. Chinn.

that was simply for my benefit; it has no meaning in a largely qualitative argument...



That's unsubstantiated paranoia - I have every expectation that you not only understand but that you will provide an interesting response (or perhaps just agree)...



This, in particular, is what I am unsure of. I have noticed recurring numbers in "calories burned", even though I have lost weight so it is my assumption that they do not, in fact, augment this formula based on body mass.



This would suggest that the combo box is simply for speed and not intensity. I don't think this is the case. I think this is what makes it more personal. I'll use running for 30 minutes as an example. If we both run 3 miles in 30 minutes, we will have done so at significantly different levels of intensity; especially considering I can maintain 6mph for about 3 minutes. While we both ran the same distance in the same time, I have expended more energy to do so; thus intensity is a measure of how difficult the exercise may have been.

I'm beginning to wonder if we're arguing different points?



This is absolutely the case; they cannot have the information required to provide an accurate estimation as this is unique to the individual and requires special means to measure.

So, kind of in conclusion, and in reference to the original statement...



The scale is indeed personal, and is the only reference to measure the intensity of one's workout. While subjective, it is likely the best that can be done in this situation in order to track the relative effectiveness of exercise.



Yes, and no. While from a personal perspective, it is something I like to keep track of as a measure of my overall fitness, it has no place in this basic estimation of calories burned. This is only useful in a calories burned/overall progress perspective if we first have some means of normalizing every user's fitness level on Traineo. An interesting concept, and one I would be curious to discuss the feasibility of, but not one currently utilized.

got interrupted by multiple phone calls and work stuff, so the response was just to bour...

good points...



Yes, this is also what makes it personal and not global. This has to be percieved effort as the metrics are qualitative and not quantitative. Even if it were speed, what is fast for a marathon runner is a bit different for the casual weekend runner.



This speaks to the other means of measurement. You have to be able to monitor how your body is utilizing oxygen in order to gauge the relative effort - how much energy you are converting to do your exercise. This is not practical in this forum.

I'm sure there is some means of quantitative measurement that would be able to give me a numeric value for just how hard my leg workout today was, but once you drill down into that level of detail you seriously get diminished returns in terms of useful data versus effort required to obtain that data; I would argue that Traineo is a means to measure our relative performance/diet/weight so "eyeballing" your intensity is probably sufficient, as long as you're using a consistent means of evaluation, eg. your own personal knowledge of how hard you worked versus how hard you can work.

Either way, I think we've gone sufficiently off topic here! The bottom line for Miss (Mrs?) Hello Kitty avatar is this: because it's obviously so subjective what those words mean, judge your own workouts honestly and just try as hard as you can to be consistent so you can track your own progress.

Lol Clifford, yes 'Ms. Hello Kitty Avatar' is my official name

I agree... as it seems there is no concrete answer I will treat it as a subjective measure and just use it to track my own progress. Also I don't think the number of calories can be relied on... but surely if I burn more than I used to and eat less than I used it can only be a good thing... and then exact figures aren't that important

Thanks for the input folks