Heart Rate Monitor - Is this right?

RachelSD7

Today, my friend and I compared our new heart rate monitors. We wondered why she burned less calories doing the same exercise as I did. My average recorded heart rate was higher than hers, so we thought this was the reason.
Then, us non-scientists came to the conclusion of thus:
If an unfit person's maximum heart rate is 130, and they work out at 70-80% of their maximum, they'll get the same results of a fit person who's maximum heart rate is 190 and who is working out at 70-80% of this maximum. Although the maximum heart rate is different, the level of effort (measured as a percentage) is the same.
Is that right, or complete turd?

MeanderingMammal

Difficult to extrapolate anything from an HRM calorie approximation as it's very dependent on what type of training you were doing.

To an extent a more fit individual will have greater cardiac efficiency, so that each heart beat delivers greater volume of oxygen to allow the energy to be converted, so for an equivalent level of energy expenditure a fitter person will have a lower average heart rate.

If your HRM accounts for VO2 max then the calorie approximation is likely to be less inaccurate than for a consumer level of device.

cwolfman13

A couple of years ago I contacted Polar with a similar question...basically I was told that the algorithms used assume some level of fitness and that calorie burns would be inflated for individuals who were less fit and/or who had other heart issues like a high resting HR, etc as basically these issues would artificially inflate the true level of effort.

Basically, the more fit you are and void of other heart issues, the more accurate the device will be.

It's important to realize that your HR isn't directly correlated to your calorie burn...it is simply used in an algorithm to come up with an estimate based on a perceived level of VO2 max for which you are working.