Whats the most Burned
Replies
-
My FitBit has my best burn as 6247.0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »I think maybe I confused you all. The HRM did not give me the calorie count my Garmin did. Also wouldn't walking count as a cardio movement. We sometimes forget that cardio can be more than running, swimming. While I was doing my pushing of a mower I was able to keep my heart rate at above 142 for 2.5 hours wouldn't that be considered in the 50% .
Again I am not using it to measure Calorie loss my HRM is hooked into my Garmin it gave me those numbers. I also know that they are off for the day.
Which Garmin?
Are you talking a calorie burn for the whole day?
We are not forgetting that cardio can be other activities besides running and swimming, we were discussing it within the context of what a HRM would be useful for measuring since your OP said you used your HRM and fitness tracker. Which did you use?
Walking "counts" as cardio but as people have said numerous times it does not fall within the parameters that a HRM would be accurate for. It is a lower intensity cardio activity that a HRM is not useful for estimating calories.
It is a Garmin Vivofit 2 with the HRM that you wear around your chest while working out or doing cardio activities.
Also that is a count for the entire day (scrubbing the house and mowing the lawn) not just that one activity. I have been told as long as I am keeping my heart rate above normal movement that's what the HRM is for.
I guess I am asking why wouldn't you wear it while pushing a lawn your body is working considerably hard and is consistently moving is it not? So why wouldn't you wear it for that?
Also some people don't run but they do speed walk would you not wear it for that item either?0 -
Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.0
-
I used to do fitnessblender 1000 calorie workouts at least one of my 5 workout days. I often burned more than that though, about 1200, I used a wrist hr monitor/calorie tracker, it was on the wrist so I constantly checked my hr since it doesn't constantly track it like a chest strap. I read somewhere that you get a more accurate calculation the more you track your heart rate, so I checked it between each set.0
-
I burn around 3,000 per day on average (based upon MFP and Fitbit) I underestimate. My best day last month was 3200 burned in exercise calories alone.0
-
My fitbit doesn't have a HRM but my calorie burn for the entire day has been as high as 3500 (on a workout day, doing cardio). My normal is 2809.0
-
prettyleelee wrote: »Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.
There's nothing wrong with wearing an HRM.
At this point I'm confused about what you are trying to accomplish, to be honest. Are you asking if push-mowing a 2.5 acre lot is "cardio"? It depends on how fit someone is and what they are trying to accomplish.
If you're looking to eat more to cover the calories burned by that activity...be very careful. The less fit you are, the bigger the calorie over-estimation.
0 -
myfitnesspal told me about 3,300kcal for the marathon I ran last year. Not sure how accurate it is though.0
-
prettyleelee wrote: »Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.
There's nothing wrong with wearing an HRM.
At this point I'm confused about what you are trying to accomplish, to be honest. Are you asking if push-mowing a 2.5 acre lot is "cardio"? It depends on how fit someone is and what they are trying to accomplish.
If you're looking to eat more to cover the calories burned by that activity...be very careful. The less fit you are, the bigger the calorie over-estimation.
No I'm not trying to eat my calories back. I am still new to hrm, tracking steps, calories, and everything else.
Someone said that a Hrm is only for cardiovascular like riding a bike, swimming, running. I am wondering why you wouldn't wear it while mowing or speed walking. Because isn't your heart above its normal standing and isn't your body in a continuous motion while doing it?0 -
Hmmm reading some of the posts here makes me question if I want to spend the extra to get the fitbit with a HRM.
0 -
prettyleelee wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.
There's nothing wrong with wearing an HRM.
At this point I'm confused about what you are trying to accomplish, to be honest. Are you asking if push-mowing a 2.5 acre lot is "cardio"? It depends on how fit someone is and what they are trying to accomplish.
If you're looking to eat more to cover the calories burned by that activity...be very careful. The less fit you are, the bigger the calorie over-estimation.
No I'm not trying to eat my calories back. I am still new to hrm, tracking steps, calories, and everything else.
Someone said that a Hrm is only for cardiovascular like riding a bike, swimming, running. I am wondering why you wouldn't wear it while mowing or speed walking. Because isn't your heart above its normal standing and isn't your body in a continuous motion while doing it?
The formulas that HRMs use are based on a known relationship between heart rate and VO2 during moderate intensity steady state cardio that allows for a calorie estimation. Outside of that very narrow state, they are less to not accurate at all. Walking would be low intensity, even mowing would likely be. Speed walking would fall under moderate intensity, it is quite a bit more intense than regular walking.
It's not about your HR being above normal, it is about how much above normal. There are lots of things that raise your HR above normal that do not contribute to calories burned. HR and calories burned are not directly related.
Did you read the blog I posted earlier? He does a really good job of explaining it.
But, if you aren't eating back those calories than it doesn't really matter if you estimates are inflated.0 -
PinkDeerBoy wrote: »Hmmm reading some of the posts here makes me question if I want to spend the extra to get the fitbit with a HRM.
@PinkDeerBoy - if you haven't already, I suggest reading this to help you decide
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 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.
There's nothing wrong with wearing an HRM.
At this point I'm confused about what you are trying to accomplish, to be honest. Are you asking if push-mowing a 2.5 acre lot is "cardio"? It depends on how fit someone is and what they are trying to accomplish.
If you're looking to eat more to cover the calories burned by that activity...be very careful. The less fit you are, the bigger the calorie over-estimation.
No I'm not trying to eat my calories back. I am still new to hrm, tracking steps, calories, and everything else.
Someone said that a Hrm is only for cardiovascular like riding a bike, swimming, running. I am wondering why you wouldn't wear it while mowing or speed walking. Because isn't your heart above its normal standing and isn't your body in a continuous motion while doing it?
The formulas that HRMs use are based on a known relationship between heart rate and VO2 during moderate intensity steady state cardio that allows for a calorie estimation. Outside of that very narrow state, they are less to not accurate at all. Walking would be low intensity, even mowing would likely be. Speed walking would fall under moderate intensity, it is quite a bit more intense than regular walking.
It's not about your HR being above normal, it is about how much above normal. There are lots of things that raise your HR above normal that do not contribute to calories burned. HR and calories burned are not directly related.
Did you read the blog I posted earlier? He does a really good job of explaining it.
But, if you aren't eating back those calories than it doesn't really matter if you estimates are inflated.
Vivofit apparently does not use standard relationships for VO2 during everyday activity (See Ray Makers post on it) and, if properly calibrated, reports relatively accurately beyond moderate intensity steady state exercise.
0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »PinkDeerBoy wrote: »Hmmm reading some of the posts here makes me question if I want to spend the extra to get the fitbit with a HRM.
@PinkDeerBoy - if you haven't already, I suggest reading this to help you decide
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
He probably needs to update that - firstbeat tech is pretty much available across a much larger part of the HRM offer. And is reported to work in non-SS periods.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.
There's nothing wrong with wearing an HRM.
At this point I'm confused about what you are trying to accomplish, to be honest. Are you asking if push-mowing a 2.5 acre lot is "cardio"? It depends on how fit someone is and what they are trying to accomplish.
If you're looking to eat more to cover the calories burned by that activity...be very careful. The less fit you are, the bigger the calorie over-estimation.
No I'm not trying to eat my calories back. I am still new to hrm, tracking steps, calories, and everything else.
Someone said that a Hrm is only for cardiovascular like riding a bike, swimming, running. I am wondering why you wouldn't wear it while mowing or speed walking. Because isn't your heart above its normal standing and isn't your body in a continuous motion while doing it?
The formulas that HRMs use are based on a known relationship between heart rate and VO2 during moderate intensity steady state cardio that allows for a calorie estimation. Outside of that very narrow state, they are less to not accurate at all. Walking would be low intensity, even mowing would likely be. Speed walking would fall under moderate intensity, it is quite a bit more intense than regular walking.
It's not about your HR being above normal, it is about how much above normal. There are lots of things that raise your HR above normal that do not contribute to calories burned. HR and calories burned are not directly related.
Did you read the blog I posted earlier? He does a really good job of explaining it.
But, if you aren't eating back those calories than it doesn't really matter if you estimates are inflated.
Vivofit apparently does not use standard relationships for VO2 during everyday activity (See Ray Makers post on it) and, if properly calibrated, reports relatively accurately beyond moderate intensity steady state exercise.
I'll check that out. Thanks!
(I assume you mean Rainmaker, lol)0 -
Thank you for the read. I think for what I want, I will get one without a HRM for now.3dogsrunning wrote: »PinkDeerBoy wrote: »Hmmm reading some of the posts here makes me question if I want to spend the extra to get the fitbit with a HRM.
@PinkDeerBoy - if you haven't already, I suggest reading this to help you decide
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 -
Burned about 4300 calories running one of my marathons. I'm a bit more efficient in my running now, so I burn burn more like 3600 to 3800 during a 4 hr marathon.0
-
prettyleelee wrote: »Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.
Because it's nitpicky and tends to lean towards obsessive.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »PinkDeerBoy wrote: »Hmmm reading some of the posts here makes me question if I want to spend the extra to get the fitbit with a HRM.
@PinkDeerBoy - if you haven't already, I suggest reading this to help you decide
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
He probably needs to update that - firstbeat tech is pretty much available across a much larger part of the HRM offer. And is reported to work in non-SS periods.
@EvgeniZyntx
Or maybe you could do one up?
I'm interested in the newer information. I checked out DC Rainmaker but the one I read didn't go into much detail. I also noticed he said it could be used for weight training which is very interesting0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »PinkDeerBoy wrote: »Hmmm reading some of the posts here makes me question if I want to spend the extra to get the fitbit with a HRM.
@PinkDeerBoy - if you haven't already, I suggest reading this to help you decide
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
He probably needs to update that - firstbeat tech is pretty much available across a much larger part of the HRM offer. And is reported to work in non-SS periods.
@EvgeniZyntx
Or maybe you could do one up?
I'm interested in the newer information. I checked out DC Rainmaker but the one I read didn't go into much detail. I also noticed he said it could be used for weight training which is very interesting
I read a few of the articles from firstbeat a few months back - It should be reviewed again (@heybales is another candidate... )0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »PinkDeerBoy wrote: »Hmmm reading some of the posts here makes me question if I want to spend the extra to get the fitbit with a HRM.
@PinkDeerBoy - if you haven't already, I suggest reading this to help you decide
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
He probably needs to update that - firstbeat tech is pretty much available across a much larger part of the HRM offer. And is reported to work in non-SS periods.
@EvgeniZyntx
Or maybe you could do one up?
I'm interested in the newer information. I checked out DC Rainmaker but the one I read didn't go into much detail. I also noticed he said it could be used for weight training which is very interesting
I read a few of the articles from firstbeat a few months back - It should be reviewed again (@heybales is another candidate... )
Yes, Heybales too.0 -
prettyleelee wrote: »Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.
Heart Rate Monitors are used to determine what zone you are exercising in. There are 5 zones ranging from Recovery (50-60% of max) to Strength (85-100% of max).
In order to use the zones, you need to determine what your max HR is. You can do this by running sprints, or climbing hills on a bicycle, or going to a fitness centre which will run you through your paces to find out things like max HR and VO2.
Once you've determined your max, then you can calculate your zones ... percentages of the max. Ideally, to start to have some benefit, you should be above 60% of max.
There are, of course, formulas you can use to estimate your max, but they need to be taken with a grain of salt. One such formula that has been around for a while is 220-age. Personally, I've never found that accurate. My real max is much higher than that. But it might give you a starting point.
I don't know how old you are, so I'm just going to pick a number out of the blue ...
220-40 = 180. So let's assume in this example, that your max HR could be 180.
Therefore to start getting some benefit from exercise your HR needs to be more than 60% of that. 180 * 60% = 108. You would need to maintain a HR above 108 for the duration of your exercise.
People who are training for running or cycling events will likely have a program where they have to spend certain amounts of time in certain zones.
That is one of the main reasons to wear a HRM. To determine what zone you are training in.
Another reason to wear one is to monitor your resting HR. You'd sleep with it, or wake up in the night and put it on. Then when you wake up in the morning, before you get up, lie there quietly for 5 or 10 min and see what your HR is. Very generally speaking, the lower your HR is, the fitter you are. But your resting HR can also show if you are overtraining. If you've been recording resting HRs of, say, 55 for some time, and then all of a sudden you're up to 65 or 70, that might be a sign that you're overtraining, and that you might benefit from a couple days off.
0 -
I actually like training HR zones to be based on tested Lactate Threshold rather than HRmax.
HRmax is pretty genetic, though it appears with good fitness you can keep it from dropping nearly as much as you age. But you can't really train it higher.
But based on LT level, you can train that higher, and it appears less variable than VO2max @ HR is, meaning it's harder to lose that level of fitness where it drops, compared to say VO2max that can change in 3 months.
And much easier to get a good field test for LT level. Even if not the exact point you go anaerobic, you are still training in zones based on what is likely pretty close for mere mortals.
www.endurancefactor.com/Articles/Lacatethreshold.html
www.endurancefactor.com/Articles/article-heartintro.html
0 -
prettyleelee wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.
There's nothing wrong with wearing an HRM.
At this point I'm confused about what you are trying to accomplish, to be honest. Are you asking if push-mowing a 2.5 acre lot is "cardio"? It depends on how fit someone is and what they are trying to accomplish.
If you're looking to eat more to cover the calories burned by that activity...be very careful. The less fit you are, the bigger the calorie over-estimation.
No I'm not trying to eat my calories back. I am still new to hrm, tracking steps, calories, and everything else.
Someone said that a Hrm is only for cardiovascular like riding a bike, swimming, running. I am wondering why you wouldn't wear it while mowing or speed walking. Because isn't your heart above its normal standing and isn't your body in a continuous motion while doing it?
Depends on fast you do it. I'd say yes to both those, maybe.
I've worn it mowing the lawn - and normal speed pushing the mower equals walking about 4 mph as far as HR is involved.
And that is right at 90 bpm for me - right at the cross-over (flex-point) from below aerobic exercise zone in to aerobic exercise zone - which is where the formulas for calorie burn start having a chance of being accurate.
Of course they have worst accuracy there at the bottom, and the top where you start going anaerobic.
So for me - being at the line, it's worse accuracy. I'd get better accuracy looking at calorie burn walking 4 mph for the given time. Which is what I do. May only be 45 min total - but when that followed a 1 hr hard run or 2 hr bike ride - ya, I don't need the extra deficit and I'm counting it.
Now if my priorities were right, and I worked out first, and now I'm hustling because it's about rain and I better mow - I'm moving much faster and HR tested then has been up in recovery HR zone 130's, so much higher. Now, I actually didn't test right after exercise because it'll be elevated anyway falsely.
And you might want to think about eating back exercise calories so you can recover well - if you want the workout to really account for all the hard effort you put forth in to it.0 -
Is Vivofit using the Firstbeat algorithms too?
I guess Garmin was only paying to include it in the nicer HRM devices, because I remember seeing many that did not.
I thought it was interesting to test some of the ability of the 310XT, based on their theory and what their study found.
There is a Windows computer program called HRV Tracker that allows you to see what they are attempting to do - discern through HR the breaths in and out.
I've noticed this too when I've set a low HR alarm for a recovery run, so not breathing deep or fast, in for 3 strides, out for 3.
When right at the line, breathing in would cause over limit alarm to sound, and breath out would promptly give within limit alarm to sound - and it would keep doing that for as long as I held the line close.
I've also fooled it I think by testing 5 min periods where I breathed on steady pattern no matter the need, just making it deeper or shallower breaths as needed.
And indeed, despite the HR and pace being the same, the faster breathing gave higher calorie burn, more than just breathing would cause.
So it's a true response that you'll need to breath more with increased HR if you are really needing the oxygen because of increased energy expend rate - but some assumptions are then being made about O2 capacity.
Considering they don't even start out with the same estimate of VO2max based on BMI, resting HR, and self-selected exercise level that the study did - I think they miss something using their current method.
I noticed when I used to use it lifting - it was an actual low estimate of calorie burn compared to equal cardio at same avgHR.
Looking at the stats in detail in SportTracks and data file, it gave lower calorie counts after a set than HR would normally indicate - likely because the breathing already recovered enough to show this was no longer aerobic, same as during the lift when HR is high and there is just the breath to lock in.
I really wish Garmin, and it appears Fitbit now, would allow you to see the calculated stats they came up with based on the info they do gather that calorie burn is based on - would be interesting probably to see the VO2max.
Garmin for a bit showed it on their website - but then it was removed. I wondered if that was extra payment to Firstbeat for using formula on web too, besides the actual HRM.0 -
Firstbeat cal estimates are all over the place, even the more recent "good" versions. It's not because Firstbeat (or Garmin or Polar or etc) suck, it's because heart rate is just a terrible way to guess at calorie burn.
Someone recently posted in-race biometric data for a Tour de France cyclist. The dude accelerated up a hill, increasing his power output (ie, his calorie burn) by 50%, while his breathing stayed steady and his heart rate went up....4 beats per minute. There isn't an HRM on the planet that will ever be able to figure that out.
The right way to do it is to measure power output. That's how serious cyclists do it, and similar tech is coming soon to runners. Lifters also have it pretty easy, because they know how much power they are exerting because they know their lift distance and the weight they're moving - from there it's just basic math.
Everybody else, go run for 30 minutes and figure out your max possible burn using the distance you cover. Then scale downwards from there for other activities, because very few things burn calories faster than running. If you can't run for 30 minutes, then don't even worry about burns, because you're not fit enough to burn enough to make a difference anyway.
0 -
From what I can tell from FitBit, my best total burn (i.e. the whole day, not from a specific exercise) was 3,528. I was on vacation in Tokyo that day, spent nearly the whole day walking and sightseeing (14.63 miles / just shy of 34,000 steps) so seems about right to me. Maybe. I've always found my Fitbit to be fairly accurate *shrugs*0
-
I've got a Sunnto Ambit with HRM that measured 22 400 calories on a 24 hour run (204km). To be fair, I also consumed about 10 000 calories during the race. My problem is that since I've had an injury, I've continued eating like an ultra athlete...not so good when you're not burning it off!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions