Working out calories burned for a workout

MeanderingMammal

esjones12 wrote: »

For those who are against a HRM, what method to you suggest?

Broadly, pick a consistent method and stick with it, then test and adjust according to progress.

I cycled through London this afternoon, did about 5 miles averaging about 10mph. My heart rate was high throughout, largely as a result of having to be alert to someone in a cage intentionally trying to kill me. An HRM would massively overestimate calorie expenditure as a result of that. The stress level wouldn't have burned anything extra over and above moving me and the bike around.

As long as you stick with a consistent method then you can account for it. If you're using a method that won't give consistent error then you're shooting at a moving target, from a moving platform.

CA_Underdog

HRMs are only semi-accurate for steady state cardio.

Garmin (firsbeat) HRMs scores within 7-10% accuracy. Whatever we call that level of accuracy, it's better than that offered by online calculators (within 20-60%), and slightly better than the accuracy promised by US food labels (within 10%). Until new technology comes along in a few years, it's probably the best widely-available tool for determining how much to eat back.

At the very least, it's been working well enough for me! For hiking, mine also measures elevation gain, further improving its accuracy vs. MFP's calculator.

http://www.firstbeat.com/userData/firstbeat/Energy_Expenditure_Estimation.pdf

brianpperkins

CA_Underdog wrote: »

HRMs are only semi-accurate for steady state cardio.

Garmin (firsbeat) HRMs scores within 7-10% accuracy. Whatever we call that level of accuracy, it's better than that offered by online calculators (within 20-60%), and slightly better than the accuracy promised by US food labels (within 10%). Until new technology comes along in a few years, it's probably the best widely-available tool for determining how much to eat back.

At the very least, it's been working well enough for me! For hiking, mine also measures elevation gain, further improving its accuracy vs. MFP's calculator.

http://www.firstbeat.com/userData/firstbeat/Energy_Expenditure_Estimation.pdf

One of the first things required by firstbeat is VO2 max data.

Reading the references there shows how limited of scope the testing was. It isn't Zumba or some workout DVD ... it's controlled stationary bike testing in the Pulkkinen tests ... "well trained" test subjects in the Montgomery. The commonly used, low end HRMs don't offer VO2 estimation tests or direct input from lab testing. The activities conducted don't match the controlled environments. For the most part, MFP members are not the "well trained" lab subjects.

Under ideal circumstances and controlled exercises, well trained athletes measure similarly between HR only estimates and lab cart measured data.

MeanderingMammal

CA_Underdog wrote: »

HRMs are only semi-accurate for steady state cardio.

Garmin (firsbeat) HRMs scores within 7-10% accuracy.

I'd observe that from that white paper, five of the six tests conducted were similar to those used to develop the algorithms used in the Polar range of devices and low end consumer grade devices. As you observe, this is the kind of algorithm that's used in higher end devices, that also use pace and elevation data to corroborate the HR estimation.

That said they've jumped from the description of the method, noting that the sample size is both small and already conditioned, to a claim of 7-10% error cf 15-20%, without articulating how that applies to each of the five use cases assessed. I'd suggest that the five non interval cases probably skew that quite a lot.

Notwithstanding all of that, picking a method and sticking with it is the important thing here, the issue with HRMs, particularly low end consumer devices, is that the error is neither known, nor consistent. Of course self reporting of exertion isn't a known error either, but at least it's more likely to be consistent over time, hence allowing the individual to test and adjust their intake according to their progress.