Heart rate during exercise question
Replies
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions