Question About Heart Rate and Calories Burned

wendyc2015

Scenario: You do a 1 mile walk and are burning cals cause your heart rate is up. When you are done with your walk do you immediately take down your cals burned or do you wait until your heart rate returns to normal then calculate the cals burned at that point...something I was just pondering....any insight would be appreciated cause I want to make sure that I am calculating it correctly

zipa78

You burn calories even if you are unconscious in a coma. If I walk for a mile, I'll mark down that I've walked for a mile. I don't calculate anything except a ballpark daily average burn and try to keep myself below that.

3dogsrunning

I would log just your exercise.

Keep in mind there is not a direct connection between HR and calories burned. That is a common misconception. There is a relationship between HR and VO2 max during moderate intensity steady state cardio activity that allows for an estimation of calories burned. The HRM basically assumes that any time the HR is elevated, you are doing this type of activity. So for the time you are wearing your HRM and not exercising, it still thinks you are and is estimating calories.

A good reference.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

cwolfman13

If you're using a HRM you'd want to just end it after your walking session and take that number with a grain of salt.

Your HR isn't directly correlated with your calories burned, it's just used in an algorithm to determine some estimate of potential VO2 max to which you're working...as this, this algorithm also assumes a steady state cardiovascular event...once that event is over, your HRM (which only provides a reasonable estimate anyone) isn't going to be accurate at all for calories burned.

If your HR was directly correlated to calorie burn, I'd just have someone come into my office and scare the crap out of me every 5 minutes or so...save me a lot of time and effort.

MeanderingMammal

wendyc2015 wrote: »

Scenario: You do a 1 mile walk and are burning cals cause your heart rate is up.

It's the other way round. Your requirement for energy is increased and in order to fulfil that requirement you need more oxygen in your system, to allow the energy to be converted. So your heart rate increase is a consequence of the increased consumption, not a cause of it.

The relationship between heart rate and calorie expenditure isn't linear, so going at 2 mph isn't going to consume twice as many calories as walking at 1 mph.

For walking, I'd suggest just logging it as the relationship between HR and calories in the lower ranges isn't good. That said, if you are going to use an HRM then just log the actual movement time, whilst there is a small element of post exercise energy expended, it's not significant; 2-3% of total calories expended.

Fat4Fuel2

It depends on your goals. I'm guessing if you're worried about calories, you'll looking to lose weight. In this case, use the lower calorie number. If you're trying to eat at a deficit, be honest with yourself.

Hornsby

Also, remember that HRMs give a gross calorie burn. Since you would be burning a certain number of calories per hour even if you were doing nothing, you need to subtract that number from the total of the HRM estimate.

BrianSharpe

Even easier is to just take the distance you walked (in miles) and multiply it by .30 x weight in lbs. A 150 lb person would expend (net) about 45 cal per mile walked (this would be higher for hilly terrain or walking on a treadmill at a steep incline)

There are some HRMs that use more sophisticated algorithms and will estimate the net expenditure but most give you gross which, effectively, is double dipping on your BMR if you're eating back exercise calories.

Many cardio machines are notorious for overestimating calorie burn (good example..my own, it reported 276cal burned walking 2.26 mile this morning whereas my Garmin was closer to reality at 128)

Sam_I_Am77

cwolfman13 wrote: »

If you're using a HRM you'd want to just end it after your walking session and take that number with a grain of salt.

Using a TDEE calorie method is much simpler, less to worry about tracking and tracking accurately at that.

brianpperkins

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

If you're using a HRM you'd want to just end it after your walking session and take that number with a grain of salt.

Using a TDEE calorie method is much simpler, less to worry about tracking and tracking accurately at that.

It's the same numbers if done correctly. MFP tracks exercise daily and expects users to eat back those calories to meet the deficit on that daily basis ... TDEE includes the exercise for the week and averages out intake. If a person is overestimating their exercise and/or underestimating their consumption the problem is the same with either method.

Sam_I_Am77

brianpperkins wrote: »

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

If you're using a HRM you'd want to just end it after your walking session and take that number with a grain of salt.

Using a TDEE calorie method is much simpler, less to worry about tracking and tracking accurately at that.

It's the same numbers if done correctly. MFP tracks exercise daily and expects users to eat back those calories to meet the deficit on that daily basis ... TDEE includes the exercise for the week and averages out intake. If a person is overestimating their exercise and/or underestimating their consumption the problem is the same with either method.

Yeah, it can be accurate unless you're involved in some kind of HIIT training and then it's definitely not. My biggest argument against it is that it's more things to worry about. Losing weight can be very difficult and between tracking your calories and making sure you know what you're consuming, having to worry about tracking exercise calories, and then compensating for your energy expenditure is more of a hassle. If it works for you then awesome, but I believe in keeping things simple and TDEE is far simpler to manage.