Am I really burning less calories?

jacksonpt

Not to be argumentative, and hopefully this doesn't completely derail the thread... but HRMs are inherently inaccurate. To make blanket statements like they give bad data or they are inaccurate isn't completely true, is it?

They calculate calorie burns based on a number of assumptions, and the closer you are to those assumptions (both as a person and in the workout you are doing), the more accurate the data will be, right? And even if you are very different from the assumptions, the number the HRM gives you could, by sheer luck, be accurate, right? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

More specifically... say you workout for an hour. An HRM says you burn 539 calories. You can't/shouldn't say unequivocally that 539 calories is wrong, can you? Assuming it's not a completely absurd number, you can't really say with any degree of certainty that it's correct or incorrect, can you?

vixtris

I think this is common. When I started out on the elliptical, I would regularly keep my heart rate in the 170s, sometimes 180s. Now, 2 months later (almost) it is usually in the 150s-160s, and if I'm really pushing it with HIIT it will get to low 170s. And as a result of your heart rate being lower, your HRM will calculate less calories burned.

leggup

Based on what I've seen on these sorts of threads, most people burn 200-600 calories per hour doing insanity. Heart rate monitors are not designed for interval training like insanity.

3dogsrunning

vixtris wrote: »

I think this is common. When I started out on the elliptical, I would regularly keep my heart rate in the 170s, sometimes 180s. Now, 2 months later (almost) it is usually in the 150s-160s, and if I'm really pushing it with HIIT it will get to low 170s. And as a result of your heart rate being lower, your HRM will calculate less calories burned.

@vixtris - that is actually not true. See Azdak's response to my post the page before this.

Mr_Knight

jacksonpt wrote: »

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Even if that's true, it's not useful because you don't know at which two parts of the day it happens to be correct.

jacksonpt

Mr_Knight wrote: »

jacksonpt wrote: »

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Even if that's true, it's not useful because you don't know at which two parts of the day it happens to be correct.

But it gives you a concrete (less arbitrary appearing) number to work with. Ultimately, regardless of how you choose to estimate calorie burns, you have to start somewhere then compare your progress (actual vs estimated) over time. And HRMs offer a degree of consistency in that regard, no?

I guess I'm arguing on principle at this point, which doesn't have much real world use, so I'll stop. Sorry for the unnecessary tangent.

carmenrosab

LOL @jacksonpt I get it though. Which is, in essence, what I really wanted anyway.

Mr_Knight

jacksonpt wrote: »

And HRMs offer a degree of consistency in that regard, no?

No.