Heart rate during exercise question
cb2bslim
Posts: 153 Member
I don't have the modern equipment at home with all the bells and whistles. I jump on and it tells me: time, speed, distance and calories. I know the calories are just an estimate so I figure out my calories burned by entering my age, weight, heart rate, and duration into a formula I got off the website. If I'm on the treadmill for 45 minutes to an hour. How often should I check my heart rate during that time?
What I've been doing so far is checking it at: 0min., 2min. to 5min, 15min, 30min, and so on in 15min increments. And I get the average off of that.
What I've been doing so far is checking it at: 0min., 2min. to 5min, 15min, 30min, and so on in 15min increments. And I get the average off of that.
0
Replies
-
thats probably good enough, do you notice that your heart rate generally gets higher towards the end?0
-
Question - why do you want to know your HR?
0 -
Question - why do you want to know your HR?
I think she needs it for the formula she wants to use to figure her calories burned.
OP - I don't think it is really necessary. Walking is fairly well established in terms of energy requirements. With distance and time alone you should be able to get a fairly reliable estimate.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »Question - why do you want to know your HR?
I think she needs it for the formula she wants to use to figure her calories burned.
OP - I don't think it is really necessary. Walking is fairly well established in terms of energy requirements. With distance and time alone you should be able to get a fairly reliable estimate.
That's why I was asking. It could be for zone training or for tracking progress as other options.
If just for calorie estimates then agree it's a waste of effort.0 -
someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?0
-
wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
Yes!
There will be enormous differences in HR between individuals. You can't measure energy (calories) in heart beats.0 -
wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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-214720 -
This is for calories burned. I cannot do a lot of exercises such as jogging. It jars my spine after a few strides. I don't know what zone training is nor will I ever. I'm trying to get healthy by exercising and eating well. I never exercised I was 1 BMI point away from being obese. I've lost 11 pounds in 25 days obviously it is not a waste of effort! There are a lot of health websites with this HR formula to find out calories burned. Thank you Wesleepuntilthesungoesdown for your helpful information
. For the rest of you, now I know to stay away from this message board. I didn't think was it was a ridiculous question. 0 -
This is for calories burned. I cannot do a lot of exercises such as jogging. It jars my spine after a few strides. I don't know what zone training is nor will I ever. I'm trying to get healthy by exercising and eating well. I never exercised I was 1 BMI point away from being obese. I've lost 11 pounds in 25 days obviously it is not a waste of effort! There are a lot of health websites with this HR formula to find out calories burned. Thank you Wesleepuntilthesungoesdown for your helpful information . For the rest of you, now I know to stay away from this message board. I didn't think was it was a ridiculous question.
Woah. That wasn't necessary. No one said it was a ridiculous question. I was answering you genuinely and trying to be helpful.
Perhaps staying away is a good idea if nice answers upset you.0 -
Sigh, but you did feel the need to add one final zinger to cb, so in the end you wern't so nice.
0 -
This is for calories burned. I cannot do a lot of exercises such as jogging. It jars my spine after a few strides. I don't know what zone training is nor will I ever. I'm trying to get healthy by exercising and eating well. I never exercised I was 1 BMI point away from being obese. I've lost 11 pounds in 25 days obviously it is not a waste of effort! There are a lot of health websites with this HR formula to find out calories burned. Thank you Wesleepuntilthesungoesdown for your helpful information . For the rest of you, now I know to stay away from this message board. I didn't think was it was a ridiculous question.
Bye Felicia! Best wishes in all your health and fitness goals0 -
Sounds like somebody's hangry.0
-
Go eat jing OP, you sound hangry......0
-
This is for calories burned. I cannot do a lot of exercises such as jogging. It jars my spine after a few strides. I don't know what zone training is nor will I ever. I'm trying to get healthy by exercising and eating well. I never exercised I was 1 BMI point away from being obese. I've lost 11 pounds in 25 days obviously it is not a waste of effort! There are a lot of health websites with this HR formula to find out calories burned. Thank you Wesleepuntilthesungoesdown for your helpful information . For the rest of you, now I know to stay away from this message board. I didn't think was it was a ridiculous question.
No-one said it was ridiculous! Suggest you go back and read the responses again.
No-one said exercise you are doing is a waste of time or effort. What was said is that monitoring your HR to estimate calorie burn for walking is a waste of your time. So both me and @3dogsrunning are trying to help you!
Enter your time and speed into the MFP database (or another online calculator with time, distance, weight) and you will get a reasonable calorie estimate. Simple as that. And likely more accurate than going with HR as base for your estimates.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ColoradoMadManLpTp wrote: »Sigh, but you did feel the need to add one final zinger to cb, so in the end you wern't so nice.
@ColoradoMadManLpTp
No, it wasn't a zinger. It was genuine advice. A lot of posts get a variety of responses, some nice, some not so nice. Not everyone is going to agree with you, not everyone holds back. This post got nothing but nice answers. If this upset her that bad she would probably get even more upset by other threads. It really is a good idea to stay away if she isn't prepared for the negative as well.0 -
wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
HR is an indicator of the effort going on to burn the calories, it's not what's driving it.
The oxygen used to burn the calories is moved around by the heart, and the volume of oxygen required is predicated on fitness.
So someone someone who is fit can burn the same volume of calories with less oxygen, therefore a lower heart rate.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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
Hi 3dogs, my statement was based on time - no distance, pace, course or other mentioned.
0 -
wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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
Hi 3dogs, my statement was based on time - no distance, pace, course or other mentioned.
Yes, but I answered you in relation to the question asked.
It would be misleading and confusing to say yes, someone with a higher heartrate over a period of time will burn more calories because there are other factors to consider. The rest of the data is relevent.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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
Hi 3dogs, my statement was based on time - no distance, pace, course or other mentioned.
Yes, but I answered you in relation to the question asked.
It would be misleading and confusing to say yes, someone with a higher heartrate over a period of time will burn more calories because there are other factors to consider. The rest of the data is relevent.
me too, she said 45 minutes to 1 hour (not 1 mile or 5 miles?)
0 -
wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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
Hi 3dogs, my statement was based on time - no distance, pace, course or other mentioned.
Yes, but I answered you in relation to the question asked.
It would be misleading and confusing to say yes, someone with a higher heartrate over a period of time will burn more calories because there are other factors to consider. The rest of the data is relevent.
me too, she said 45 minutes to 1 hour (not 1 mile or 5 miles?)
the key point is that the heart rate is irrelevant. the energy required to travel a certain distance, measured by actual distance or time traveled to reach the distance, will be virtually the same, regardless of heart rate. the OP does not need to pause frequently to check her pulse in order to figure out her calories burned.0 -
wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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
Hi 3dogs, my statement was based on time - no distance, pace, course or other mentioned.
Yes, but I answered you in relation to the question asked.
It would be misleading and confusing to say yes, someone with a higher heartrate over a period of time will burn more calories because there are other factors to consider. The rest of the data is relevent.
me too, she said 45 minutes to 1 hour (not 1 mile or 5 miles?)
I'm not sure I'm following you.
She did state how long she is was walking. She also stated that her treadmill provided distance. She does not know her heart rate without having to check it. She can easily get a calorie estimate without having to take her HR numerous times.
Or what DavPul said.0 -
wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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
Hi 3dogs, my statement was based on time - no distance, pace, course or other mentioned.
Yes, but I answered you in relation to the question asked.
It would be misleading and confusing to say yes, someone with a higher heartrate over a period of time will burn more calories because there are other factors to consider. The rest of the data is relevent.
me too, she said 45 minutes to 1 hour (not 1 mile or 5 miles?)
the key point is that the heart rate is irrelevant. the energy required to travel a certain distance, measured by actual distance or time traveled to reach the distance, will be virtually the same, regardless of heart rate. the OP does not need to pause frequently to check her pulse in order to figure out her calories burned.
to travel a certain distance - I agree.. but we do not know the distance?
she could run the 1st 15 minutes at HR 90, the next 15 at HR 100 and the next 15 at 110 - for an average of 100... or she could run the whole lot at 180 for an average of 180. She will therefore burn a different amount of calories - that is what i believe she wanted to know.
0 -
wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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
Hi 3dogs, my statement was based on time - no distance, pace, course or other mentioned.
Yes, but I answered you in relation to the question asked.
It would be misleading and confusing to say yes, someone with a higher heartrate over a period of time will burn more calories because there are other factors to consider. The rest of the data is relevent.
me too, she said 45 minutes to 1 hour (not 1 mile or 5 miles?)
the key point is that the heart rate is irrelevant. the energy required to travel a certain distance, measured by actual distance or time traveled to reach the distance, will be virtually the same, regardless of heart rate. the OP does not need to pause frequently to check her pulse in order to figure out her calories burned.
to travel a certain distance - I agree.. but we do not know the distance?
she could run the 1st 15 minutes at HR 90, the next 15 at HR 100 and the next 15 at 110 - for an average of 100... or she could run the whole lot at 180 for an average of 180. She will therefore burn a different amount of calories - that is what i believe she wanted to know.
Op was looking for her average hr over the entire period so she could enter it in a formula along with time, weight, and age to get a calorie estimate.
Since she doesn't have the HR info easily available we suggested using a simpler formula that will provide a good estimate.0 -
wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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
Hi 3dogs, my statement was based on time - no distance, pace, course or other mentioned.
Yes, but I answered you in relation to the question asked.
It would be misleading and confusing to say yes, someone with a higher heartrate over a period of time will burn more calories because there are other factors to consider. The rest of the data is relevent.
me too, she said 45 minutes to 1 hour (not 1 mile or 5 miles?)
the key point is that the heart rate is irrelevant. the energy required to travel a certain distance, measured by actual distance or time traveled to reach the distance, will be virtually the same, regardless of heart rate. the OP does not need to pause frequently to check her pulse in order to figure out her calories burned.
to travel a certain distance - I agree.. but we do not know the distance?
she could run the 1st 15 minutes at HR 90, the next 15 at HR 100 and the next 15 at 110 - for an average of 100... or she could run the whole lot at 180 for an average of 180. She will therefore burn a different amount of calories - that is what i believe she wanted to know.
The first post states the machine tells her time, distance, speed. Number of calories, too, but that she doesn't trust. Nor should she based on the results I've gotten on some exercise machine.
An additional factor she would need other than her weight would be incline. She does not need her heart rate.
0 -
ColoradoMadManLpTp wrote: »Sigh, but you did feel the need to add one final zinger to cb, so in the end you wern't so nice. 0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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
Hi 3dogs, my statement was based on time - no distance, pace, course or other mentioned.
Yes, but I answered you in relation to the question asked.
It would be misleading and confusing to say yes, someone with a higher heartrate over a period of time will burn more calories because there are other factors to consider. The rest of the data is relevent.
me too, she said 45 minutes to 1 hour (not 1 mile or 5 miles?)
the key point is that the heart rate is irrelevant. the energy required to travel a certain distance, measured by actual distance or time traveled to reach the distance, will be virtually the same, regardless of heart rate. the OP does not need to pause frequently to check her pulse in order to figure out her calories burned.
to travel a certain distance - I agree.. but we do not know the distance?
she could run the 1st 15 minutes at HR 90, the next 15 at HR 100 and the next 15 at 110 - for an average of 100... or she could run the whole lot at 180 for an average of 180. She will therefore burn a different amount of calories - that is what i believe she wanted to know.
Op was looking for her average hr over the entire period so she could enter it in a formula along with time, weight, and age to get a calorie estimate.
Since she doesn't have the HR info easily available we suggested using a simpler formula that will provide a good estimate.
ok. well sounds like we're interpreting her question differently.
I thought she wanted something a bit more accurate than the "machine" that didn't know her age/weight/height/sex/HR (wheras she knows the 1st 4 and wanted a bit of help with HR)0 -
wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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
Hi 3dogs, my statement was based on time - no distance, pace, course or other mentioned.
Yes, but I answered you in relation to the question asked.
It would be misleading and confusing to say yes, someone with a higher heartrate over a period of time will burn more calories because there are other factors to consider. The rest of the data is relevent.
me too, she said 45 minutes to 1 hour (not 1 mile or 5 miles?)
the key point is that the heart rate is irrelevant. the energy required to travel a certain distance, measured by actual distance or time traveled to reach the distance, will be virtually the same, regardless of heart rate. the OP does not need to pause frequently to check her pulse in order to figure out her calories burned.
to travel a certain distance - I agree.. but we do not know the distance?
she could run the 1st 15 minutes at HR 90, the next 15 at HR 100 and the next 15 at 110 - for an average of 100... or she could run the whole lot at 180 for an average of 180. She will therefore burn a different amount of calories - that is what i believe she wanted to know.
Op was looking for her average hr over the entire period so she could enter it in a formula along with time, weight, and age to get a calorie estimate.
Since she doesn't have the HR info easily available we suggested using a simpler formula that will provide a good estimate.
ok. well sounds like we're interpreting her question differently.
I thought she wanted something a bit more accurate than the "machine" that didn't know her age/weight/height/sex/HR (wheras she knows the 1st 4 and wanted a bit of help with HR)
"I know the calories are just an estimate so I figure out my calories burned by entering my age, weight, heart rate, and duration into a formula I got off the web. If I'm on the treadmill for 45 minutes to an hour. How often should I check my heart rate during that time?"0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »wesleepuntilthesungoesdown wrote: »someone running for a hour with a HR of 100 will burn a significantly less than someone with a HR of 180 - and will depend on their weight, why is it waste of effort? or am I missing something?
No. That is not necessarily correct.
Assuming both weigh the same and run at the same pace, distance, course, they will burn the same calories. The fitter individual will have a lower HR and the perceived effort will be easier but the energy requirement will be virtually the same.
The fitter individual has a higher VO2 max. Ideally you want a HRM that will allow you to adjust for VO2 max
HR is not directly related to calorie burn. There is a known correlation between HR and VO2 mad during steady state cardio that allows for and estimation to be made regarding calories.
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
Hi 3dogs, my statement was based on time - no distance, pace, course or other mentioned.
Yes, but I answered you in relation to the question asked.
It would be misleading and confusing to say yes, someone with a higher heartrate over a period of time will burn more calories because there are other factors to consider. The rest of the data is relevent.
me too, she said 45 minutes to 1 hour (not 1 mile or 5 miles?)
the key point is that the heart rate is irrelevant. the energy required to travel a certain distance, measured by actual distance or time traveled to reach the distance, will be virtually the same, regardless of heart rate. the OP does not need to pause frequently to check her pulse in order to figure out her calories burned.
to travel a certain distance - I agree.. but we do not know the distance?
she could run the 1st 15 minutes at HR 90, the next 15 at HR 100 and the next 15 at 110 - for an average of 100... or she could run the whole lot at 180 for an average of 180. She will therefore burn a different amount of calories - that is what i believe she wanted to know.
Op was looking for her average hr over the entire period so she could enter it in a formula along with time, weight, and age to get a calorie estimate.
Since she doesn't have the HR info easily available we suggested using a simpler formula that will provide a good estimate.
ok. well sounds like we're interpreting her question differently.
I thought she wanted something a bit more accurate than the "machine" that didn't know her age/weight/height/sex/HR (wheras she knows the 1st 4 and wanted a bit of help with HR)
"I know the calories are just an estimate so I figure out my calories burned by entering my age, weight, heart rate, and duration into a formula I got off the web. If I'm on the treadmill for 45 minutes to an hour. How often should I check my heart rate during that time?" 0 -
ColoradoMadManLpTp wrote: »Sigh, but you did feel the need to add one final zinger to cb, so in the end you wern't so nice.
Saw the advice, but guess I missed the zinger...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions