Heart Rate Monitor an Calories
Options
joshuakcaron
Posts: 343 Member
My bike says 98 calories burned, heart rate monitor says 221. Which is correct?
0
Replies
-
Don't quote me, but I wanna say if your heart rate monitor has your stats (weight, height, etc) programmed it would be more accurate than the monitor on the bike.0
-
joshuakcaron wrote: »My bike says 98 calories burned, heart rate monitor says 221. Which is correct?
How far & fast did you ride, and what was the terrain like? Kinda hard to say based on limited (read: no) information.0 -
I would think so too. In the past people have told me that I put too many calories burned for exercise. I read heart rate monitors are more accurate. Got one, it says I'm burning more than the equipment now.0
-
HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
Calories: the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water through 1 °C, equal to one thousand small calories and often used to measure the energy value of foods.
Faster heart rate, more energy burned. Resistance takes more effort, your heart beats faster because it's pumping oxygen to your blood so that it can bring more oxygen to your lungs.0 -
Your heart rate also increases due to things like temperature, if you're excited/scared, etc. The ability to cut and paste does not equate to an understanding of how HRMs estimate caloric burn.0
-
joshuakcaron wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
Calories: the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water through 1 °C, equal to one thousand small calories and often used to measure the energy value of foods.
Faster heart rate, more energy burned. Resistance takes more effort, your heart beats faster because it's pumping oxygen to your blood so that it can bring more oxygen to your lungs.
None of which is relevant to the clarifications we've asked in order to help answer your question.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
HRM estimates calorie count based on your heart rate and activity...given weight, height, resting heart, etc it is suppose to be more accurate .. I think that's what you should've told him unless you aren't familiar with one yourself.0 -
moniquejackson428 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
HRM estimates calorie count based on your heart rate and activity...given weight, height, resting heart, etc it is suppose to be more accurate .. I think that's what you should've told him unless you aren't familiar with one yourself.
Actually, HRMs simply plug heart rate into a formula where it is used as a proxy for effort level. They can only come close to an accurate estimation for a narrow range of steady state activities. It is marketing that they are accurate caloric estimation devices ... not science. The lower end ones that are commonly used by MFP members lack the ability to input crucial pieces of the formula such as VO2. If max HR is not accurately calculated through testing, the results are skewed.
Compare the information you said a HRM uses to what MFP uses ... weight, age, height, duration, effort level ...0 -
moniquejackson428 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
HRM estimates calorie count based on your heart rate and activity...given weight, height, resting heart, etc it is suppose to be more accurate .. I think that's what you should've told him unless you aren't familiar with one yourself.
HRMs estimate based on a formula that is very limited in its application--steady state cardio. Their accuracy is only related to that type of activity. I would say that the answer given that the accuracy cannot be determined based on the information given is correct. The HRM could be wildly inaccurate not only because of incorrect activity, but also because of incorrect personal information. That is why it would be much more useful to have specifics of that type of cycling, how long, and how fast among other things.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »moniquejackson428 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
HRM estimates calorie count based on your heart rate and activity...given weight, height, resting heart, etc it is suppose to be more accurate .. I think that's what you should've told him unless you aren't familiar with one yourself.
Actually, HRMs simply plug heart rate into a formula where it is used as a proxy for effort level. They can only come close to an accurate estimation for a narrow range of steady state activities. It is marketing that they are accurate caloric estimation devices ... not science. The lower end ones that are commonly used by MFP members lack the ability to input crucial pieces of the formula such as VO2. If max HR is not accurately calculated through testing, the results are skewed.
Compare the information you said a HRM uses to what MFP uses ... weight, age, height, duration, effort level ...
My HRM takes all of that into account0 -
HRMs are for heart rates really. They have flaws when used as calorie counters.
OP you don't provide much information and its only 100 calories, err on the side of caution and put 100, then adjust as needed. Brian is correct.0 -
moniquejackson428 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
HRM estimates calorie count based on your heart rate and activity...given weight, height, resting heart, etc it is suppose to be more accurate .. I think that's what you should've told him unless you aren't familiar with one yourself.
Yeah I guess you're right. But mine does take all of that into account. Tracks my speed, distance, heart rate, uses my age and current weight as well.0 -
joshuakcaron wrote: »moniquejackson428 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
HRM estimates calorie count based on your heart rate and activity...given weight, height, resting heart, etc it is suppose to be more accurate .. I think that's what you should've told him unless you aren't familiar with one yourself.
Yeah I guess you're right. But mine does take all of that into account. Tracks my speed, distance, heart rate, uses my age and current weight as well.
What model is it? Did you do a test to calculate your max HR or LTHR? Does it allow you to input your VO2 max? Can you select the actual activity you are doing?
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »moniquejackson428 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
HRM estimates calorie count based on your heart rate and activity...given weight, height, resting heart, etc it is suppose to be more accurate .. I think that's what you should've told him unless you aren't familiar with one yourself.
Actually, HRMs simply plug heart rate into a formula where it is used as a proxy for effort level. They can only come close to an accurate estimation for a narrow range of steady state activities. It is marketing that they are accurate caloric estimation devices ... not science. The lower end ones that are commonly used by MFP members lack the ability to input crucial pieces of the formula such as VO2. If max HR is not accurately calculated through testing, the results are skewed.
Compare the information you said a HRM uses to what MFP uses ... weight, age, height, duration, effort level ...
You are right. Because I use a polar M400 I guess I was assuming that a "higher end" model was being used. As I were...... :-)0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »joshuakcaron wrote: »My bike says 98 calories burned, heart rate monitor says 221. Which is correct?
How far & fast did you ride, and what was the terrain like?
All this HRM discussion, while interesting and potentially helpful to newbies, is immaterial to your OP. Why are you so hesitant to give the information that would actually allow people to attempt to answer your question (quoted above in case you missed it)?
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »joshuakcaron wrote: »moniquejackson428 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
HRM estimates calorie count based on your heart rate and activity...given weight, height, resting heart, etc it is suppose to be more accurate .. I think that's what you should've told him unless you aren't familiar with one yourself.
Yeah I guess you're right. But mine does take all of that into account. Tracks my speed, distance, heart rate, uses my age and current weight as well.
What model is it? Did you do a test to calculate your max HR or LTHR? Does it allow you to input your VO2 max? Can you select the actual activity you are doing?
All yes.0 -
joshuakcaron wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »joshuakcaron wrote: »moniquejackson428 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
HRM estimates calorie count based on your heart rate and activity...given weight, height, resting heart, etc it is suppose to be more accurate .. I think that's what you should've told him unless you aren't familiar with one yourself.
Yeah I guess you're right. But mine does take all of that into account. Tracks my speed, distance, heart rate, uses my age and current weight as well.
What model is it? Did you do a test to calculate your max HR or LTHR? Does it allow you to input your VO2 max? Can you select the actual activity you are doing?
All yes.
Yes is not a model. You seem to be deliberately avoiding specifics which could lead to an answer.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »joshuakcaron wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »joshuakcaron wrote: »moniquejackson428 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
HRM estimates calorie count based on your heart rate and activity...given weight, height, resting heart, etc it is suppose to be more accurate .. I think that's what you should've told him unless you aren't familiar with one yourself.
Yeah I guess you're right. But mine does take all of that into account. Tracks my speed, distance, heart rate, uses my age and current weight as well.
What model is it? Did you do a test to calculate your max HR or LTHR? Does it allow you to input your VO2 max? Can you select the actual activity you are doing?
All yes.
Yes is not a model. You seem to be deliberately avoiding specifics which could lead to an answer.
Sorry I missed the first question. It's packed away right now I'm about to start my shift. Let me get back to you in about 3 hours. I forget the name of the model.0 -
joshuakcaron wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »joshuakcaron wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »joshuakcaron wrote: »moniquejackson428 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »HRMs count heart beats, not calories.
With the information you've provided, there is no way for anyone to assess the accuracy of either. Duration, resistance, weight, stationary or moving bike, etc all factor into how much energy you expended for the activity.
HRM estimates calorie count based on your heart rate and activity...given weight, height, resting heart, etc it is suppose to be more accurate .. I think that's what you should've told him unless you aren't familiar with one yourself.
Yeah I guess you're right. But mine does take all of that into account. Tracks my speed, distance, heart rate, uses my age and current weight as well.
What model is it? Did you do a test to calculate your max HR or LTHR? Does it allow you to input your VO2 max? Can you select the actual activity you are doing?
All yes.
Yes is not a model. You seem to be deliberately avoiding specifics which could lead to an answer.
Sorry I missed the first question. It's packed away right now I'm about to start my shift. Let me get back to you in about 3 hours. I forget the name of the model.
So you don't know what model ... you haven't addressed the duration, intensity, if it was a stationary or moving ride, speed, terrain if moving .....
again ... specifics that were brought up in the first responses to you in this thread that you still haven't addressed.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 995 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions