eliptical trainers calories burned?
Replies
-
20yearsyounger wrote: »
The point of heart rate estimate isn't to figure out the work being done onto the exercise equipment.robertw486 wrote: »Either device is subject to the flaws of the algorithms used to calculate the relationship between measures of power and heart rate. Power cannot be denied and is absolute. Heart rate is a measure of the efficiency of the bodys systems in relationship to power output. Though the measure of HR is absolute, it really means little without a measure of power, even in steady state cardio. The absolute measure of power means little without the relationship of heart rate. Both stated speaking in terms of calorie burn.
Really without direct testing to match either type of device to a unique person, they are both using estimations and averages somewhere in the various formulas that determine what calorie burn they spit out. And in both cases, if the algorithm is flawed, even proper setup and "cheating" the devices with weight inputs and such might only fool the device in a specific window of exercise level.
Work is work. Without the relationship to HR in a human, it's a useless measure.
HR is HR. Without the relationship to work in a human, it's a useless measure.
Both combined, properly, are useful measures.
HR estimating calorie burns works because it correlates to a certain amount of blood moving through the body that correlates with a certain amount of oxygen use, which by chemistry correlates with amount of glucose or fatty acids oxidized. Load on the machine doesn't really come into it.
I like what you said. The focus isn't necessarily with regard to the work/load on the machine, but the work/load of the heart which HR is measuring. I would like to hear more about how work load on the heart correlates with the oxidation/calorie burning process.
Tag me when you get an answer. I'll bring popcorn. Load always comes into the equation, and watching someone skew science to remove it should be entertaining at a minimum.0 -
Some people get sooo technical. wow! Is it necessary to go through all that? I guess to some it is and some are more easy going.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
GuitarJerry wrote: »To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.
Sorry to tell you but heart rates zones were debunked years ago
Still up in gyms and on machines but higher intensity = higher calorie burn and HRMs translate to calories in steady state only
That's funny. Orange Theory has an entire gym built on fat burning zones. http://www.orangetheoryfitness.com
Anyone can have a business and claim what they want. But, if it's been debunked as a matter of fact, I wonder if it's really been debunked or if that's just haterade?
Can you provide studies? Not blogs, or opinion, but actual scientific studies that have debunked the various zones. Because, I will actually sue these guys if it's fact and not just conjecture. So, I really want to know.
Thanks.
I know 3 zones are still being taught in the ACE certification programs. The focus is less on exact numbers but more on VT1 and VT20 -
This content has been removed.
-
Some people get sooo technical. wow! Is it necessary to go through all that? I guess to some it is and some are more easy going.
If knowledge on a subject implies technical, which in turn implies less easy going, I think you've misled yourself. I dig more into the issues that impact my goals, and find that a greater understanding of calorie burns is one of those things. I exercise a lot when I have time, and doing the research is worth the time for me, as well as something that gives interesting insights to human physiology in general.
I don't weigh foods at all to log, as it's not something I want to do every time I eat. And for me, my natural body cues for hunger guide me towards healthy weight zones. I actually only track food to make sure I get enough proper recovery nutrition back into me.GuitarJerry wrote: »To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.
Sorry to tell you but heart rates zones were debunked years ago
Still up in gyms and on machines but higher intensity = higher calorie burn and HRMs translate to calories in steady state only
That's funny. Orange Theory has an entire gym built on fat burning zones. http://www.orangetheoryfitness.com
Anyone can have a business and claim what they want. But, if it's been debunked as a matter of fact, I wonder if it's really been debunked or if that's just haterade?
Can you provide studies? Not blogs, or opinion, but actual scientific studies that have debunked the various zones. Because, I will actually sue these guys if it's fact and not just conjecture. So, I really want to know.
Thanks.
In for the lawsuit. If it pays by the pound give me plenty of time to fatten up.
I'd say it's been busted as nothing more than myth, but it depends on the myth any certain entity promoted. Fat reduction relies primarily on calorie deficit. Fuel during workouts can be swayed towards fat or carbs (glycogen) but that isn't what gets rid of the fat. The deficit gets rid of fat.
The fuel used during the workout might change the very short term use to sway towards fat or carbs, but overall doesn't change the big picture.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Some people get sooo technical. wow! Is it necessary to go through all that? I guess to some it is and some are more easy going.
If knowledge on a subject implies technical, which in turn implies less easy going, I think you've misled yourself. I dig more into the issues that impact my goals, and find that a greater understanding of calorie burns is one of those things. I exercise a lot when I have time, and doing the research is worth the time for me, as well as something that gives interesting insights to human physiology in general.
I don't weigh foods at all to log, as it's not something I want to do every time I eat. And for me, my natural body cues for hunger guide me towards healthy weight zones. I actually only track food to make sure I get enough proper recovery nutrition back into me.GuitarJerry wrote: »To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.
Sorry to tell you but heart rates zones were debunked years ago
Still up in gyms and on machines but higher intensity = higher calorie burn and HRMs translate to calories in steady state only
That's funny. Orange Theory has an entire gym built on fat burning zones. http://www.orangetheoryfitness.com
Anyone can have a business and claim what they want. But, if it's been debunked as a matter of fact, I wonder if it's really been debunked or if that's just haterade?
Can you provide studies? Not blogs, or opinion, but actual scientific studies that have debunked the various zones. Because, I will actually sue these guys if it's fact and not just conjecture. So, I really want to know.
Thanks.
In for the lawsuit. If it pays by the pound give me plenty of time to fatten up.
I'd say it's been busted as nothing more than myth, but it depends on the myth any certain entity promoted. Fat reduction relies primarily on calorie deficit. Fuel during workouts can be swayed towards fat or carbs (glycogen) but that isn't what gets rid of the fat. The deficit gets rid of fat.
The fuel used during the workout might change the very short term use to sway towards fat or carbs, but overall doesn't change the big picture.
Based on what I have read and studied, there is validity to the fat burning zones. Thats why you can have fat ultramarathon runners. Where the argument becomes problematic is by saying that you can burn more fat in those zones than at higher intensities. It really depends on a number of factors.0 -
Yes, a number of factors
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Either device is subject to the flaws of the algorithms used to calculate the relationship between measures of power and heart rate. Power cannot be denied and is absolute. Heart rate is a measure of the efficiency of the bodys systems in relationship to power output. Though the measure of HR is absolute, it really means little without a measure of power, even in steady state cardio. The absolute measure of power means little without the relationship of heart rate. Both stated speaking in terms of calorie burn.
Really without direct testing to match either type of device to a unique person, they are both using estimations and averages somewhere in the various formulas that determine what calorie burn they spit out. And in both cases, if the algorithm is flawed, even proper setup and "cheating" the devices with weight inputs and such might only fool the device in a specific window of exercise level.
Work is work. Without the relationship to HR in a human, it's a useless measure.
HR is HR. Without the relationship to work in a human, it's a useless measure.
Both combined, properly, are useful measures.
Read it twice
Still don't follow ...what do you mean by "measure of power" ...the algorithm is based on the relationship between HR and oxygen uptake under specific conditions eg steady state ...eg elliptical at steady intensity fits
Can you use fewer words? In general
Less words is hard, so I'll try another example.
Measure of power. Could be many things, but in real life terms MPH for one hour is a good example.
For the sake of example, you now have an identical twin, Rabbitjb2. You are both capable of the same running pace for an hour, say 5 MPH. Your weight is exactly the same, as is food intake, and your stride while running. So you would have the same measure of power to go 5 miles in one hour. Moving your weight at 5 MPH for one hour. Power is power, HR does not change that. It took the same amount of energy to move either of you.
BUT you go to the gym and lift on a regular basis, but no cardio. Rabbitjb2 goes and does cardio on a regular basis, but does not lift. She would in this example be more efficient at oxygen uptake due to differences in training methods, and most likely have a lower HR for that reason. And for that reason, she would burn less calories doing the exact same amount of work, while doing that run.
No. You are on point with a lot of your comments but not this one. Interestingly, you have the right definition in one paragraph, but draw an inaccurate conclusion in the next.
Yes, it takes "the same amount of energy to move" two people with the same weight. So if it takes the same energy, one cannot then say that one person "would burn less calories doing the exact same amount of work".
In the absence of gross biomechanical anomalies or medical conditions, energy use, and thus calories burned, will be the same regardless of fitness level. The energy cost of running 5 mph is relatively fixed. The reason why the trained person has a lower HR and lowered perceived exertion is because that energy cost represents a LOWER percentage of their maximum, not because of huge differences in "efficiency". The "more efficient at oxygen uptake" you note is part of the increase in aerobic capacity.
The effect of "mechanical efficiency" is modest at best.
I suspect we simply see a difference in communicating the same thing. You are stating lower percentage of maximum (output, O2 uptake) while I state is as efficiency. Working at a lower level of maximum is more efficient (O2 uptake) for the same amount of work. My intent was to give an example of mechanical efficiency being the same with the twins, only uptake efficiency and the impact on heart rate differing.
Gas exchange efficiency lowers heart rate. Between the lower rate of the heart contractions and the muscle used for the breathing part of the equation, the calorie burn drops. The heart is among the most energy intensive organs in the body so variances in heart rate and respiration muscles impact calorie burn.
You can describe it any way you want, but the fact is that, for the most part, fitness level does not impact calorie burn. The aerobic cost is inherent in the workload of the activity itself, regardless of the fitness level of the person doing the activity. The energy cost of running 6 mph is approximately 10 METs--whether you are running, I am running, or my neighbor Chuck is running. Calorie burn is the MET value of the activity times body wt in KG. Take 2 people who weigh 80 kg and have the same resting and max HR, one for whom running 6 mph represents 75% of their aerobic max and one for whom running 6 mph represents 50% of their aerobic max. Runner 1 will have a higher HR and higher perceived exertion, yet both will burn approx 800 calories per hour. All other factors (e.g wind, terrain) being equal, the energy cost of running 6 mph is inherent to the workload. In your example of the twin, yes, heart rate will be lower because of the difference in aerobic fitness level. However, that does not impact calorie burn--calorie burn will be the same, as long as workload and weight are the same.
"Gas exchange efficiency" is somewhat of a meaningless term. Transport of O2 into the blood is not that different between individuals and maxes out at submaximal levels of effort. Same thing with O2 extraction (a-vO2 difference) at the capillary level. Gas exchange kinetics are of vital importance to sustaining life and so the body maintains them rather fiercely. In other words, the system is very efficient, and that efficiency is not particularly enhanced with training.
What DOES increase is capacity--Maximum Voluntary Ventilation, Pa-O2 saturation, cardiac output, capillary density, mitochondrial density, etc.
The actual energy cost of the heart beating and the muscles used in ventilation is considered negligible. Whether during laboratory testing or any energy prediction equation, the actual metabolic costs of breathing and the beating of the heart are not factored in because the total amount is trivial. (The exception is for those with a medical problem like COPD). It is not accurate to assert that the actual work of the heart itself and the effort involved in breathing affects calorie burn.
0 -
Aaaaaaaand schooled.
Great post Azdak. Good to see somebody who knows something about something clearing things up for those who are following along.0 -
Thank you. This was a very good read. I just want to be sure of something. There seem to be two thoughts here, comparison of calorie burn for two different people, with the same work and weight factors except heart rate, and calorie burn of the same person with two different heart rates. I am going to focus in on your statement that "calorie burn will be the same as long as workload and weight are the same"
If I look at a steady state exercise where one person is running 4 miles and 75% Max HR and that same person walks 4 miles and 50% Max HR, is the work different and therefore calorie burn is different?
What are your thoughts on this article - http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/caloricexp.html
0 -
To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.
Sorry to tell you but heart rates zones were debunked years ago
Still up in gyms and on machines but higher intensity = higher calorie burn and HRMs translate to calories in steady state only
Just because they debunked the myth about the fat burn zone not burning as many calories as the cardio zones does not mean the whole cardio zone concept is debunked. The fat burn zone still burns a higher percentage of fat then the cardio zones do. you just have to do a much longer session in that zone to burn more calories.
I for one find heart rate zone extremely useful. My Polar V800 has a training benefit feature that determines the training effect based how long my heart rate was in each zone during the session (weather it is basic, steady state, tempo, or maximum. or even combinations of these). Also, the fat burn zone is great for workouts to recover from more intense workouts.0 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »Thank you. This was a very good read. I just want to be sure of something. There seem to be two thoughts here, comparison of calorie burn for two different people, with the same work and weight factors except heart rate, and calorie burn of the same person with two different heart rates. I am going to focus in on your statement that "calorie burn will be the same as long as workload and weight are the same"
If I look at a steady state exercise where one person is running 4 miles and 75% Max HR and that same person walks 4 miles and 50% Max HR, is the work different and therefore calorie burn is different?
What are your thoughts on this article - http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/caloricexp.html
In answer to the question about walking and running, yes, the workload intensity is different and thus the calories are burned at higher rate during running. You have to be a little careful about using distance as a comparison because then total duration of exercise is different, but running--whether comparing time or distance--will burn more calories than walking.
The Kravitz article is good, like most of his writing. He's a reliable read who tries to communicate scientific information to a professional, but non-academic audience. In this article, I thought he got a little bogged down in the details and it might be a little confusing to someone without an exercise physiology background, but certainly the information is an accurate review.
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.
Sorry to tell you but heart rates zones were debunked years ago
Still up in gyms and on machines but higher intensity = higher calorie burn and HRMs translate to calories in steady state only
Just because they debunked the myth about the fat burn zone not burning as many calories as the cardio zones does not mean the whole cardio zone concept is debunked. The fat burn zone still burns a higher percentage of fat then the cardio zones do. you just have to do a much longer session in that zone to burn more calories.
I for one find heart rate zone extremely useful. My Polar V800 has a training benefit feature that determines the training effect based how long my heart rate was in each zone during the session (weather it is basic, steady state, tempo, or maximum. or even combinations of these). Also, the fat burn zone is great for workouts to recover from more intense workouts.
You are talking about apples and oranges. When people are saying "the fat burning zone is a myth" they are referring to the idea that there is an exercise intensity that, all other factors being equal, will result in a greater loss of stored body fat, independent of total calories burned. That is not true. Fuel substrate use during exercise has virtually no effect on stored body fat. Body fat loss is a 24/7/365 process--exercise has only an indirect influence on that process.
"Zone training" as a means of fitness training is another thing completely. Zone training just means working at different combinations of intensities/durations to enhance fitness and performance development. That is a valid and widely accepted training philosophy. In that context, it is better to think in terms of an "endurance workout" or zone, than of "fat burning zone", even though they are the same thing.0 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.
Sorry to tell you but heart rates zones were debunked years ago
Still up in gyms and on machines but higher intensity = higher calorie burn and HRMs translate to calories in steady state only
That's funny. Orange Theory has an entire gym built on fat burning zones. http://www.orangetheoryfitness.com
Anyone can have a business and claim what they want. But, if it's been debunked as a matter of fact, I wonder if it's really been debunked or if that's just haterade?
Can you provide studies? Not blogs, or opinion, but actual scientific studies that have debunked the various zones. Because, I will actually sue these guys if it's fact and not just conjecture. So, I really want to know.
Thanks.
I know 3 zones are still being taught in the ACE certification programs. The focus is less on exact numbers but more on VT1 and VT2
See my other quote about apples and oranges.
0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.
Sorry to tell you but heart rates zones were debunked years ago
Still up in gyms and on machines but higher intensity = higher calorie burn and HRMs translate to calories in steady state only
That's funny. Orange Theory has an entire gym built on fat burning zones. http://www.orangetheoryfitness.com
Anyone can have a business and claim what they want. But, if it's been debunked as a matter of fact, I wonder if it's really been debunked or if that's just haterade?
Can you provide studies? Not blogs, or opinion, but actual scientific studies that have debunked the various zones. Because, I will actually sue these guys if it's fact and not just conjecture. So, I really want to know.
Thanks.
Start by looking at my comment re apples and oranges.
Orange Theory is pretty much complete BS. However you won't be able to sue because: a)they actually believe what they are saying and b) they tell you just enough truth to be lying.
Part of the confusion of saying the "fat burning zone is a myth" is that people confuse the traditional (and debunked) "fat burning zone" with cardio training zones.
As I wrote earlier, the traditional definition of the "fat burning zone" is that lower-intensity endurance cardio will burn a higher percentage of fat as fuel and thus will have a greater effect on losing stored body fat--both compared to other exercise intensities and independent of total calorie expenditure. That has been thoroughly debunked--to the point where demanding "proof" is like demanding studies to "prove" the earth is round. However, the best study I know is the 2009 article by Melanson et al titled "Exercise improves fat metabolism in muscle but does not increase 24 HR fat oxidation". While the "fat burning zone" was "debunked" 20 years ago, this study is the holy grail of debunk IMO.
However, zone training is a different story. People describe them differently, but I stick with 3 zones: endurance, tempo (aka threshold), and maximum effort. A balanced training program should include time in all three zones. In this case, using different "zones" as a focus for different workouts is very beneficial.
OTF, from what I understand relies more on a completely different type of BS--Elevated Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption, or EPOC. EPOC describes the increase in metabolism (and in calorie burn) that occurs in the minutes/hours after a workout has ended. Heavy lifting and High Intensity Interval Training have a much higher EPOC than endurance training. EPOC is one of those things that sounds awesome--who wouldn't want to burn extra calories for 24 hours after a workout? However, study after study after study has shown that the calories burned from EPOC--regardless of how long the effect lasts--only ranges from about 50-125 calories TOTAL. Nothing wrong with that, but hardly a game changer.
0 -
In.0
-
bcalvanese wrote: »To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.
Sorry to tell you but heart rates zones were debunked years ago
Still up in gyms and on machines but higher intensity = higher calorie burn and HRMs translate to calories in steady state only
Just because they debunked the myth about the fat burn zone not burning as many calories as the cardio zones does not mean the whole cardio zone concept is debunked. The fat burn zone still burns a higher percentage of fat then the cardio zones do. you just have to do a much longer session in that zone to burn more calories.
I for one find heart rate zone extremely useful. My Polar V800 has a training benefit feature that determines the training effect based how long my heart rate was in each zone during the session (weather it is basic, steady state, tempo, or maximum. or even combinations of these). Also, the fat burn zone is great for workouts to recover from more intense workouts.
You are talking about apples and oranges. When people are saying "the fat burning zone is a myth" they are referring to the idea that there is an exercise intensity that, all other factors being equal, will result in a greater loss of stored body fat, independent of total calories burned. That is not true. Fuel substrate use during exercise has virtually no effect on stored body fat. Body fat loss is a 24/7/365 process--exercise has only an indirect influence on that process.
"Zone training" as a means of fitness training is another thing completely. Zone training just means working at different combinations of intensities/durations to enhance fitness and performance development. That is a valid and widely accepted training philosophy. In that context, it is better to think in terms of an "endurance workout" or zone, than of "fat burning zone", even though they are the same thing.
Thank you for your responses. Really appreciate it especially the reference. I read it and it put what you are saying into perspective. My wife did Orange Theory and I don't believe in the whole maxing out in the highest zone for beginners. I agree overall the calories from EPOC aren't that important. I also agree that being in the "fat burning zone" doesn't mean your burn the most fat/calories (based on how many calories of fat are actually stored versus how much are tapped in an exercise period). I also think what bcalvanese said is important. Many spend so much time thinking about how to burn more calories that they ignore how important that "fat burning zone" is with regard to reducing injuring and allowing exercise to continue in the first place. i think I hijacked OPs discussion enough but this was a great discussion.
0 -
Good read 0
-
20yearsyounger wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.
Sorry to tell you but heart rates zones were debunked years ago
Still up in gyms and on machines but higher intensity = higher calorie burn and HRMs translate to calories in steady state only
Just because they debunked the myth about the fat burn zone not burning as many calories as the cardio zones does not mean the whole cardio zone concept is debunked. The fat burn zone still burns a higher percentage of fat then the cardio zones do. you just have to do a much longer session in that zone to burn more calories.
I for one find heart rate zone extremely useful. My Polar V800 has a training benefit feature that determines the training effect based how long my heart rate was in each zone during the session (weather it is basic, steady state, tempo, or maximum. or even combinations of these). Also, the fat burn zone is great for workouts to recover from more intense workouts.
You are talking about apples and oranges. When people are saying "the fat burning zone is a myth" they are referring to the idea that there is an exercise intensity that, all other factors being equal, will result in a greater loss of stored body fat, independent of total calories burned. That is not true. Fuel substrate use during exercise has virtually no effect on stored body fat. Body fat loss is a 24/7/365 process--exercise has only an indirect influence on that process.
"Zone training" as a means of fitness training is another thing completely. Zone training just means working at different combinations of intensities/durations to enhance fitness and performance development. That is a valid and widely accepted training philosophy. In that context, it is better to think in terms of an "endurance workout" or zone, than of "fat burning zone", even though they are the same thing.
Thank you for your responses. Really appreciate it especially the reference. I read it and it put what you are saying into perspective. My wife did Orange Theory and I don't believe in the whole maxing out in the highest zone for beginners. I agree overall the calories from EPOC aren't that important. I also agree that being in the "fat burning zone" doesn't mean your burn the most fat/calories (based on how many calories of fat are actually stored versus how much are tapped in an exercise period). I also think what bcalvanese said is important. Many spend so much time thinking about how to burn more calories that they ignore how important that "fat burning zone" is with regard to reducing injuring and allowing exercise to continue in the first place. i think I hijacked OPs discussion enough but this was a great discussion.
I find zone 1&2 (fat burn zone) very handy for recovery workouts. Yesterday I did an extreme power walk. I walked 7.5 miles on hilly terrain at a 4.5 mph pace. My time was 1:40:34, my avg. HR was 138, and my time in each zone was z2-1%, z3-8%, z4-73%, z5-15%, and I burned 1,096 calories. Zone 5 is ok for short bursts but not for extended periods of time, and in the case of this workout were short bursts as I reached the top of hills in order to keep my pace above 4mph.
My Polar V800- has a recovery advisor and tells me I should not do another extreme workout for a few days, but I can still do recovery workouts during this time. I can do nice long walks in zone 2&3, still burns some calories, and that actually aids in recovery and maintains my fitness level.
I think the important things to know about the zones are that they all have their uses, and the best results are achieved using them as intended.
1&2 recovery & maintenance
3&4 improve cardio capacity
5 short bursts & high level athletes
And if you want to go deeper, different combinations to get different effects (steady state, tempo, etc....).
This is a good thread because many people do not understand how to get a training effect and wonder why they are having trouble increasing their cardio capacity.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.
Sorry to tell you but heart rates zones were debunked years ago
Still up in gyms and on machines but higher intensity = higher calorie burn and HRMs translate to calories in steady state only
Just because they debunked the myth about the fat burn zone not burning as many calories as the cardio zones does not mean the whole cardio zone concept is debunked. The fat burn zone still burns a higher percentage of fat then the cardio zones do. you just have to do a much longer session in that zone to burn more calories.
I for one find heart rate zone extremely useful. My Polar V800 has a training benefit feature that determines the training effect based how long my heart rate was in each zone during the session (weather it is basic, steady state, tempo, or maximum. or even combinations of these). Also, the fat burn zone is great for workouts to recover from more intense workouts.
You are talking about apples and oranges. When people are saying "the fat burning zone is a myth" they are referring to the idea that there is an exercise intensity that, all other factors being equal, will result in a greater loss of stored body fat, independent of total calories burned. That is not true. Fuel substrate use during exercise has virtually no effect on stored body fat. Body fat loss is a 24/7/365 process--exercise has only an indirect influence on that process.
"Zone training" as a means of fitness training is another thing completely. Zone training just means working at different combinations of intensities/durations to enhance fitness and performance development. That is a valid and widely accepted training philosophy. In that context, it is better to think in terms of an "endurance workout" or zone, than of "fat burning zone", even though they are the same thing.
Would this be the same as high intensity interval training? I am just curious.
0 -
You can describe it any way you want, but the fact is that, for the most part, fitness level does not impact calorie burn. The aerobic cost is inherent in the workload of the activity itself, regardless of the fitness level of the person doing the activity. The energy cost of running 6 mph is approximately 10 METs--whether you are running, I am running, or my neighbor Chuck is running. Calorie burn is the MET value of the activity times body wt in KG. Take 2 people who weigh 80 kg and have the same resting and max HR, one for whom running 6 mph represents 75% of their aerobic max and one for whom running 6 mph represents 50% of their aerobic max. Runner 1 will have a higher HR and higher perceived exertion, yet both will burn approx 800 calories per hour. All other factors (e.g wind, terrain) being equal, the energy cost of running 6 mph is inherent to the workload. In your example of the twin, yes, heart rate will be lower because of the difference in aerobic fitness level. However, that does not impact calorie burn--calorie burn will be the same, as long as workload and weight are the same.
Disagree. The aerobic cost is impacted by efficiency within the systems that fuel the body. In your example Runner 1 would not only have a perceived change in energy exertion, he would have an actual change in energy exertion. The heart is a muscle, muscles require energy in use, and the higher rate of use requires more energy. The same applies to the muscles that are involved in the respiration process. If you are breathing harder and your heart is beating faster, you use more energy.
It’s this very reason why energy use during exercise is greater than at rest. Muscle contractions use energy, and energy demands increase with increased muscle use."Gas exchange efficiency" is somewhat of a meaningless term. Transport of O2 into the blood is not that different between individuals and maxes out at submaximal levels of effort. Same thing with O2 extraction (a-vO2 difference) at the capillary level. Gas exchange kinetics are of vital importance to sustaining life and so the body maintains them rather fiercely. In other words, the system is very efficient, and that efficiency is not particularly enhanced with training.
What DOES increase is capacity--Maximum Voluntary Ventilation, Pa-O2 saturation, cardiac output, capillary density, mitochondrial density, etc.
VO2max is indicative of gas exchange efficiency, and is far from a meaningless term. It varies greatly person to person, even entry level training can change it, and in one of the most common forms it is expressed relative to body mass. As such, loss of body mass immediately increases VO2max, and gains decrease it, if all chemical and training variables remained completely stable.
Peer reviewed study link that attaches body weight to VO2max, and VO2max relative to body weight, including data on cardio capacity
Peer reviewed link, summary of Tabata protocol testing, showing increases in VO2max for both training groups in a month and a half of training
Science views it as very meaningful. Various efficiencies are part of what drive calorie burn at all levels, including RMR. Body composition is a driver as well, but the heart alone accounts for in the neighborhood of 10% of RMR energy use.The actual energy cost of the heart beating and the muscles used in ventilation is considered negligible. Whether during laboratory testing or any energy prediction equation, the actual metabolic costs of breathing and the beating of the heart are not factored in because the total amount is trivial. (The exception is for those with a medical problem like COPD). It is not accurate to assert that the actual work of the heart itself and the effort involved in breathing affects calorie burn.
The below quoted directly from the posted Kravitz article, the one you seemed to agree with.
“Research has shown that during exercise the increase in caloric expenditure is almost entirely due to the contraction of skeletal muscle; the balance is due to an increase in the energy demands of the heart and the muscles used during ventilation.”
The amounts of many systems individually are trivial, however testing measures the entire body, not the body devoid of all the organs. If we were to remove the major organs alone, the energy demands of the remaining muscle are small in comparison. I know of no direct testing in a lab or any other environment that involved the testing of individual body parts without assumptions and estimations involved. However if anyone has any peer reviewed links showing the testing of a humans muscle mass without his major organs attached, I’m all ears.
VO2max influences heart rate, backed by science. Heart rate influences calorie burn, backed by science. Though all but direct testing of gas exchange still relies on estimations for unknowns, the very reason we replace unknowns with actual data collection is to adjust the algorithms in a more accurate method towards the individual factors of our body. Many newer heart rate monitors use VO2max input so as to individualize and account for the lack of a true power meter measure. Many machines use heart rate to account for lack of VO2max input.
I already know the direct change in calorie burn at a given rate of work on my elliptical if I pair the HRM to the machine. Those with any HRM that use VO2max inputs can simple punch in a new VO2max number and see the results for themselves. At a given rate of work, both the machine and the HRM algorithms will lower calorie burn if the HR is lower due to VO2max being higher.
The very reason VO2max input is becoming more common in HRM devices and wearables is due to the fact that it has influence on calorie burn. Otherwise they may as well just ask for your eye color. If heart rate alone was the driving factor, any type of device that measured heart rate could work perfectly with just that information.
I’m always open to learning something new, and any science based links that counter any of the above are welcome. Stating things not backed by science is great, but in the end science will trump. But for now, I’m going to lower my VO2max relative to body weight by consuming large amounts of holiday goodies.
0 -
I apologize that I cannot figure out the new way to interject comments into partial quotes, so I used brackets to identify the comments I am addressing. Sorry if that's confusing.robertw486 wrote: »You can describe it any way you want, but the fact is that, for the most part, fitness level does not impact calorie burn. The aerobic cost is inherent in the workload of the activity itself, regardless of the fitness level of the person doing the activity. The energy cost of running 6 mph is approximately 10 METs--whether you are running, I am running, or my neighbor Chuck is running. Calorie burn is the MET value of the activity times body wt in KG. Take 2 people who weigh 80 kg and have the same resting and max HR, one for whom running 6 mph represents 75% of their aerobic max and one for whom running 6 mph represents 50% of their aerobic max. Runner 1 will have a higher HR and higher perceived exertion, yet both will burn approx 800 calories per hour. All other factors (e.g wind, terrain) being equal, the energy cost of running 6 mph is inherent to the workload. In your example of the twin, yes, heart rate will be lower because of the difference in aerobic fitness level. However, that does not impact calorie burn--calorie burn will be the same, as long as workload and weight are the same.
Disagree. The aerobic cost is impacted by efficiency within the systems that fuel the body. In your example Runner 1 would not only have a perceived change in energy exertion, he would have an actual change in energy exertion. The heart is a muscle, muscles require energy in use, and the higher rate of use requires more energy. The same applies to the muscles that are involved in the respiration process. If you are breathing harder and your heart is beating faster, you use more energy.
It’s this very reason why energy use during exercise is greater than at rest. Muscle contractions use energy, and energy demands increase with increased muscle use.
There is an increase, but the amount is negligible and irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. The average size of an adult heart is approx 310 grams vs avg skeletal muscle weight of 25-40 kg. The math should be obvious."Gas exchange efficiency" is somewhat of a meaningless term. Transport of O2 into the blood is not that different between individuals and maxes out at submaximal levels of effort. Same thing with O2 extraction (a-vO2 difference) at the capillary level. Gas exchange kinetics are of vital importance to sustaining life and so the body maintains them rather fiercely. In other words, the system is very efficient, and that efficiency is not particularly enhanced with training.
What DOES increase is capacity--Maximum Voluntary Ventilation, Pa-O2 saturation, cardiac output, capillary density, mitochondrial density, etc.
VO2max is indicative of gas exchange efficiency, and is far from a meaningless term. It varies greatly person to person, even entry level training can change it, and in one of the most common forms it is expressed relative to body mass. As such, loss of body mass immediately increases VO2max, and gains decrease it, if all chemical and training variables remained completely stable.
Peer reviewed study link that attaches body weight to VO2max, and VO2max relative to body weight, including data on cardio capacity
Peer reviewed link, summary of Tabata protocol testing, showing increases in VO2max for both training groups in a month and a half of training
[Science views it as very meaningful. Various efficiencies are part of what drive calorie burn at all levels, including RMR. Body composition is a driver as well, but the heart alone accounts for in the neighborhood of 10% of RMR energy use.]
I don't think you understand the term "gas exchange". You ignored my listing of some of the specific processes involved and instead gave me a cut and paste definition of VO2 max which is not the same thing at all. And you included "studies" that again are not in any way related to the discussion.The actual energy cost of the heart beating and the muscles used in ventilation is considered negligible. Whether during laboratory testing or any energy prediction equation, the actual metabolic costs of breathing and the beating of the heart are not factored in because the total amount is trivial. (The exception is for those with a medical problem like COPD). It is not accurate to assert that the actual work of the heart itself and the effort involved in breathing affects calorie burn.
[The below quoted directly from the posted Kravitz article, the one you seemed to agree with.
“Research has shown that during exercise the increase in caloric expenditure is almost entirely due to the contraction of skeletal muscle; the balance is due to an increase in the energy demands of the heart and the muscles used during ventilation.”]
When I read that sentence in the Kravitz article I was pretty sure you would cite that--but I don't think you understand the context. "Balance" is a relative term. This summer I transferred about $12,000 from my savings account to pay for a bathroom remodeling job. The "balance" in the account was $1.32. Myocardial oxygen consumption makes up about 4% of total VO2 during heavy exercise. So, again, the difference between a trained heart beating at 140 bpm and a less trained heart beating 160 bpm at the same running speed represents a trivial and insignificant difference.
[The amounts of many systems individually are trivial, however testing measures the entire body, not the body devoid of all the organs. If we were to remove the major organs alone, the energy demands of the remaining muscle are small in comparison. I know of no direct testing in a lab or any other environment that involved the testing of individual body parts without assumptions and estimations involved. However if anyone has any peer reviewed links showing the testing of a humans muscle mass without his major organs attached, I’m all ears.
VO2max influences heart rate, backed by science. Heart rate influences calorie burn, backed by science. Though all but direct testing of gas exchange still relies on estimations for unknowns, the very reason we replace unknowns with actual data collection is to adjust the algorithms in a more accurate method towards the individual factors of our body. Many newer heart rate monitors use VO2max input so as to individualize and account for the lack of a true power meter measure. Many machines use heart rate to account for lack of VO2max input.]
Heart rate does not "influence calorie burn" from a physiological standpoint. Heart rate is an indirect indicator of oxygen consumption during steady-state cardiovascular exercises. Under those conditions, the increase in VO2 driven by the increased exercise workload, is matched by a related increase in HR. In that case HR is like an exertion meter; it does NOT independently drive increased exertion or increased calorie burn. If someone takes an adenosine stress test, a drug is administered that increases heart rate so that myocardial perfusion can be studied. Heart rate can increase to 120-150 beats/min while the person is lying down on a bed. That person is not experiencing an increased calorie burn, other than the trivial amount from the increased working of the 300 gram organ.
Increases in exertion/oxygen consumption/calorie burn "influence" heart rate--not the other way around.
Commercial exercise equipment does not use heart rate to estimate calories. Since the machines can measure workload directly, and since any given workload has a relatively fixed energy cost, they don't need to know VO2 max.
**I already know the direct change in calorie burn at a given rate of work on my elliptical if I pair the HRM to the machine. Those with any HRM that use VO2max inputs can simple punch in a new VO2max number and see the results for themselves. At a given rate of work, both the machine and the HRM algorithms will lower calorie burn if the HR is lower due to VO2max being higher.**
You have mentioned that before and I asked for more information because that doesn't sound right. You said you had a Precor machine. There is nothing in any of the Precor literature or their website that suggests that there is any interaction between an HRM and the calorie estimations. There is no mention in any of the owner's manuals. I won't claim to know everything about every piece of commercial exercise equipment, esp anything that has come out in the last 2 years. But anything made before then I do know about and that feature did not exist on any commercial exercise equipment.
What will happen if you use a HR interactive program is that, as the exercise workout progresses, your HR will gradually increase, even with no change in workload. This is called cardiovascular drift. If you are using a HR interactive program, it will sense that HR is increasing and decrease the workload in order to keep you in your target "zone". That would result in decreased calories burned for the workout. It's why I strongly discourage people to not use those programs.
Re your comments on HRMs: The answer is "no, just the opposite", but we are not using common terms, so let me just describe how it is.
The amount of calories burned depends on oxygen uptake (VO2, not VO2max) during the exercise. Oxygen uptake changes in response to exercise workload (e.g. if one increases running speed from 6mph to 7 mph, VO2 and calorie burn increases).
HR during steady state cardio exercise changes in response to changes in workload and VO2. The HRM either estimates your HRmax or sometimes you can enter it manually.
The HRM now knows your HR scale--it knows your HR rest and your HR max--and from that it can calculate the RELATIVE intensity of your exercise--i.e. if you are working at 50%, 60%, 70%, etc of max.
Since that is a relative number, however, and since heart rate alone doesn't have any quantitive value for determining calories (remember, that's calculated only from VO2), the HRM has to know: 60% of what? The HRM has to have an oxygen uptake number to estimate calories.
If you can manually input VO2max, then it's problem solved and the HRM will be much more accurate. If you cannot, the HRM must come with a fitness level somehow--and I don't know how they do it.
If the HRM knows that you are working at a heart rate that is 70% of max, and that your VO2max is 30, then it can calculate that your exercise VO2 is about 21 and that your calorie burn (per hour) is about (6 x body wt in KG). In the case of an 80 kg person, that is 480 cal/hr or 8 cal/min.
Now you have been training, training, training, and the hard work is paying off. You have increased your VO2max to 40. And you entered that new number into your HRM. Now, you are working out at the same 70% of max heart rate. The HRM knows that, but now it estimates the exercise VO2 at 28 (70% of 40). At a VO2 of 28 you are burning MORE calories (assuming weight is the same)--640 cal/hr or 10.6 cal/min.
The reason why people think they are burning fewer calories because of "efficiency" is that they either have not or cannot change the VO2max settings in the HRM. When they do the same workload, the HR is now lower because it represents a smaller percentage of VO2max. The HRM assumes they are working at a lower workload.
It anyone has a Polar FT40 or FT60, this will be readily evident if you change the VO2max setting (which is not that simple because you have to do the stupid 5-min "fitness test" first before you can manually input your VO2max number). If you change the VO2max number from say 35 to 40, and do the exact same workout, your calorie burn will increase. That's because you are working with a bigger "scale". (PS this is a gross oversimplification of how HRMs work, but it's the basic concept)
[The very reason VO2max input is becoming more common in HRM devices and wearables is due to the fact that it has influence on calorie burn. Otherwise they may as well just ask for your eye color. If heart rate alone was the driving factor, any type of device that measured heart rate could work perfectly with just that information.
I’m always open to learning something new, and any science based links that counter any of the above are welcome. Stating things not backed by science is great, but in the end science will trump. But for now, I’m going to lower my VO2max relative to body weight by consuming large amounts of holiday goodies.]
I like "science" as much as anyone, but "science" also requires placing facts in context, and having an understanding of fundamental physiological principles. A lot of what I am explaining is stuff that is taught in Exercise Physiology 101 class. So, hopefully you found some of the information useful.0 -
I apologize that I cannot figure out the new way to interject comments into partial quotes, so I used brackets to identify the comments I am addressing. Sorry if that's confusing.robertw486 wrote: »You can describe it any way you want, but the fact is that, for the most part, fitness level does not impact calorie burn. The aerobic cost is inherent in the workload of the activity itself, regardless of the fitness level of the person doing the activity. The energy cost of running 6 mph is approximately 10 METs--whether you are running, I am running, or my neighbor Chuck is running. Calorie burn is the MET value of the activity times body wt in KG. Take 2 people who weigh 80 kg and have the same resting and max HR, one for whom running 6 mph represents 75% of their aerobic max and one for whom running 6 mph represents 50% of their aerobic max. Runner 1 will have a higher HR and higher perceived exertion, yet both will burn approx 800 calories per hour. All other factors (e.g wind, terrain) being equal, the energy cost of running 6 mph is inherent to the workload. In your example of the twin, yes, heart rate will be lower because of the difference in aerobic fitness level. However, that does not impact calorie burn--calorie burn will be the same, as long as workload and weight are the same.
Disagree. The aerobic cost is impacted by efficiency within the systems that fuel the body. In your example Runner 1 would not only have a perceived change in energy exertion, he would have an actual change in energy exertion. The heart is a muscle, muscles require energy in use, and the higher rate of use requires more energy. The same applies to the muscles that are involved in the respiration process. If you are breathing harder and your heart is beating faster, you use more energy.
It’s this very reason why energy use during exercise is greater than at rest. Muscle contractions use energy, and energy demands increase with increased muscle use.
There is an increase, but the amount is negligible and irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. The average size of an adult heart is approx 310 grams vs avg skeletal muscle weight of 25-40 kg. The math should be obvious."Gas exchange efficiency" is somewhat of a meaningless term. Transport of O2 into the blood is not that different between individuals and maxes out at submaximal levels of effort. Same thing with O2 extraction (a-vO2 difference) at the capillary level. Gas exchange kinetics are of vital importance to sustaining life and so the body maintains them rather fiercely. In other words, the system is very efficient, and that efficiency is not particularly enhanced with training.
What DOES increase is capacity--Maximum Voluntary Ventilation, Pa-O2 saturation, cardiac output, capillary density, mitochondrial density, etc.
VO2max is indicative of gas exchange efficiency, and is far from a meaningless term. It varies greatly person to person, even entry level training can change it, and in one of the most common forms it is expressed relative to body mass. As such, loss of body mass immediately increases VO2max, and gains decrease it, if all chemical and training variables remained completely stable.
Peer reviewed study link that attaches body weight to VO2max, and VO2max relative to body weight, including data on cardio capacity
Peer reviewed link, summary of Tabata protocol testing, showing increases in VO2max for both training groups in a month and a half of training
[Science views it as very meaningful. Various efficiencies are part of what drive calorie burn at all levels, including RMR. Body composition is a driver as well, but the heart alone accounts for in the neighborhood of 10% of RMR energy use.]
I don't think you understand the term "gas exchange". You ignored my listing of some of the specific processes involved and instead gave me a cut and paste definition of VO2 max which is not the same thing at all. And you included "studies" that again are not in any way related to the discussion.The actual energy cost of the heart beating and the muscles used in ventilation is considered negligible. Whether during laboratory testing or any energy prediction equation, the actual metabolic costs of breathing and the beating of the heart are not factored in because the total amount is trivial. (The exception is for those with a medical problem like COPD). It is not accurate to assert that the actual work of the heart itself and the effort involved in breathing affects calorie burn.
[The below quoted directly from the posted Kravitz article, the one you seemed to agree with.
“Research has shown that during exercise the increase in caloric expenditure is almost entirely due to the contraction of skeletal muscle; the balance is due to an increase in the energy demands of the heart and the muscles used during ventilation.”]
When I read that sentence in the Kravitz article I was pretty sure you would cite that--but I don't think you understand the context. "Balance" is a relative term. This summer I transferred about $12,000 from my savings account to pay for a bathroom remodeling job. The "balance" in the account was $1.32. Myocardial oxygen consumption makes up about 4% of total VO2 during heavy exercise. So, again, the difference between a trained heart beating at 140 bpm and a less trained heart beating 160 bpm at the same running speed represents a trivial and insignificant difference.
[The amounts of many systems individually are trivial, however testing measures the entire body, not the body devoid of all the organs. If we were to remove the major organs alone, the energy demands of the remaining muscle are small in comparison. I know of no direct testing in a lab or any other environment that involved the testing of individual body parts without assumptions and estimations involved. However if anyone has any peer reviewed links showing the testing of a humans muscle mass without his major organs attached, I’m all ears.
VO2max influences heart rate, backed by science. Heart rate influences calorie burn, backed by science. Though all but direct testing of gas exchange still relies on estimations for unknowns, the very reason we replace unknowns with actual data collection is to adjust the algorithms in a more accurate method towards the individual factors of our body. Many newer heart rate monitors use VO2max input so as to individualize and account for the lack of a true power meter measure. Many machines use heart rate to account for lack of VO2max input.]
Heart rate does not "influence calorie burn" from a physiological standpoint. Heart rate is an indirect indicator of oxygen consumption during steady-state cardiovascular exercises. Under those conditions, the increase in VO2 driven by the increased exercise workload, is matched by a related increase in HR. In that case HR is like an exertion meter; it does NOT independently drive increased exertion or increased calorie burn. If someone takes an adenosine stress test, a drug is administered that increases heart rate so that myocardial perfusion can be studied. Heart rate can increase to 120-150 beats/min while the person is lying down on a bed. That person is not experiencing an increased calorie burn, other than the trivial amount from the increased working of the 300 gram organ.
Increases in exertion/oxygen consumption/calorie burn "influence" heart rate--not the other way around.
Commercial exercise equipment does not use heart rate to estimate calories. Since the machines can measure workload directly, and since any given workload has a relatively fixed energy cost, they don't need to know VO2 max.
**I already know the direct change in calorie burn at a given rate of work on my elliptical if I pair the HRM to the machine. Those with any HRM that use VO2max inputs can simple punch in a new VO2max number and see the results for themselves. At a given rate of work, both the machine and the HRM algorithms will lower calorie burn if the HR is lower due to VO2max being higher.**
You have mentioned that before and I asked for more information because that doesn't sound right. You said you had a Precor machine. There is nothing in any of the Precor literature or their website that suggests that there is any interaction between an HRM and the calorie estimations. There is no mention in any of the owner's manuals. I won't claim to know everything about every piece of commercial exercise equipment, esp anything that has come out in the last 2 years. But anything made before then I do know about and that feature did not exist on any commercial exercise equipment.
What will happen if you use a HR interactive program is that, as the exercise workout progresses, your HR will gradually increase, even with no change in workload. This is called cardiovascular drift. If you are using a HR interactive program, it will sense that HR is increasing and decrease the workload in order to keep you in your target "zone". That would result in decreased calories burned for the workout. It's why I strongly discourage people to not use those programs.
Re your comments on HRMs: The answer is "no, just the opposite", but we are not using common terms, so let me just describe how it is.
The amount of calories burned depends on oxygen uptake (VO2, not VO2max) during the exercise. Oxygen uptake changes in response to exercise workload (e.g. if one increases running speed from 6mph to 7 mph, VO2 and calorie burn increases).
HR during steady state cardio exercise changes in response to changes in workload and VO2. The HRM either estimates your HRmax or sometimes you can enter it manually.
The HRM now knows your HR scale--it knows your HR rest and your HR max--and from that it can calculate the RELATIVE intensity of your exercise--i.e. if you are working at 50%, 60%, 70%, etc of max.
Since that is a relative number, however, and since heart rate alone doesn't have any quantitive value for determining calories (remember, that's calculated only from VO2), the HRM has to know: 60% of what? The HRM has to have an oxygen uptake number to estimate calories.
If you can manually input VO2max, then it's problem solved and the HRM will be much more accurate. If you cannot, the HRM must come with a fitness level somehow--and I don't know how they do it.
If the HRM knows that you are working at a heart rate that is 70% of max, and that your VO2max is 30, then it can calculate that your exercise VO2 is about 21 and that your calorie burn (per hour) is about (6 x body wt in KG). In the case of an 80 kg person, that is 480 cal/hr or 8 cal/min.
Now you have been training, training, training, and the hard work is paying off. You have increased your VO2max to 40. And you entered that new number into your HRM. Now, you are working out at the same 70% of max heart rate. The HRM knows that, but now it estimates the exercise VO2 at 28 (70% of 40). At a VO2 of 28 you are burning MORE calories (assuming weight is the same)--640 cal/hr or 10.6 cal/min.
The reason why people think they are burning fewer calories because of "efficiency" is that they either have not or cannot change the VO2max settings in the HRM. When they do the same workload, the HR is now lower because it represents a smaller percentage of VO2max. The HRM assumes they are working at a lower workload.
It anyone has a Polar FT40 or FT60, this will be readily evident if you change the VO2max setting (which is not that simple because you have to do the stupid 5-min "fitness test" first before you can manually input your VO2max number). If you change the VO2max number from say 35 to 40, and do the exact same workout, your calorie burn will increase. That's because you are working with a bigger "scale". (PS this is a gross oversimplification of how HRMs work, but it's the basic concept)
[The very reason VO2max input is becoming more common in HRM devices and wearables is due to the fact that it has influence on calorie burn. Otherwise they may as well just ask for your eye color. If heart rate alone was the driving factor, any type of device that measured heart rate could work perfectly with just that information.
I’m always open to learning something new, and any science based links that counter any of the above are welcome. Stating things not backed by science is great, but in the end science will trump. But for now, I’m going to lower my VO2max relative to body weight by consuming large amounts of holiday goodies.]
I like "science" as much as anyone, but "science" also requires placing facts in context, and having an understanding of fundamental physiological principles. A lot of what I am explaining is stuff that is taught in Exercise Physiology 101 class. So, hopefully you found some of the information useful.
I don't understand half of what you are saying nor do I have a degree in fitness, but I do have a basic knowledge of fitness from being a fitness instructor in the military.
It sounds like you are saying that calories burned is in no way affected by heart rate. I don't agree with that. Here is what the documentation of my Polar V800 says about calories burned...
The most accurate calorie counter on the market calculates the number of calories burned. The energy
expenditure calculation is based on:
l Body weight, height, age, gender
l Individual maximum heart rate (HRmax)
l Heart rate during training
l Individual resting heart rate value (HRrest)
l Individual maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max)
l Altitude
For best possible Smart Calories information accuracy, please give V800 your measured VO2max and
HRmax values if you have them. If not, use the value given by Polar Fitness test.
I agree that the heart test to get VO2max is not as accurate as a proper test that you would have done, but it is probably at least in the ball park. I did the Polar test months ago when I first started walking and was at a poor fitness level and it was 28 (fair). I have taken it several times over the months as I was able to power walk faster and for longer, and my fitness level improved a very noticeable amount. The Polar tests indicated my VO2max has increased over that time and is now up to 37 (good). So VO2max sure seems to me like a measure of fitness level.
I think all the factors listed above determine calories burned, but you have to keep your stats updated. You also should not just change your VO2max number. You should take the Polar test (unless you get the test done in a lab).
I know my cardio level has increased because I went from only being able to walk 1 mile on flat terrain at a 3 mph pace to being able to walk over 7.5 miles on hilly terrain at a 4.5 mph pace. And the Polar VO2max tests have indicated exactly that as well. My resting heart rate has gone from the 80's to the 60's over this time as well (which I updated in the Polar V800). I got my max heart rate from a stress test that I had done a while back and it turns out that it is 220 - age (for me).
Some devices are not a accurate as others, and some overestimate the calorie burn more than others, but I find the Polar V800 to be the most accurate of all the ones I've owned to date (and I have owned quite a few), even the Garmin fenix3 which I also own.
Here is the exact same walk that I did on 2 different days. All the settings were the same except for the intensity (heart rate). notice the difference in calories burned and tell me that heart rate does not affect calories burned...
https://flow.polar.com/training/analysis/318112416
https://flow.polar.com/training/analysis/330241032
I like to read about this stuff some times, but what I am showing here is a real world example of how this is working for me, and not just things that I study.
I'm not trying to be rude, but new studies come out every day, and some of them disprove other studies that are already out, so to me, a study is something good to know, but may not always be correct.
I also think that many people get way too rapped up in every little detail instead of just using the basic principals of fitness to get to a better fitness level. It may be old school army, but it does work, and it works very well.0 -
I looked up VO2 levels for 50-59 YO males. Good range 40-43; so 37 is average (32-39); next category above good is High (44-48); athletic (49-55) Olympic (56+). Maybe the table you use is different.bcalvanese wrote: »I apologize that I cannot figure out the new way to interject comments into partial quotes, so I used brackets to identify the comments I am addressing. Sorry if that's confusing.robertw486 wrote: »You can describe it any way you want, but the fact is that, for the most part, fitness level does not impact calorie burn. The aerobic cost is inherent in the workload of the activity itself, regardless of the fitness level of the person doing the activity. The energy cost of running 6 mph is approximately 10 METs--whether you are running, I am running, or my neighbor Chuck is running. Calorie burn is the MET value of the activity times body wt in KG. Take 2 people who weigh 80 kg and have the same resting and max HR, one for whom running 6 mph represents 75% of their aerobic max and one for whom running 6 mph represents 50% of their aerobic max. Runner 1 will have a higher HR and higher perceived exertion, yet both will burn approx 800 calories per hour. All other factors (e.g wind, terrain) being equal, the energy cost of running 6 mph is inherent to the workload. In your example of the twin, yes, heart rate will be lower because of the difference in aerobic fitness level. However, that does not impact calorie burn--calorie burn will be the same, as long as workload and weight are the same.
Disagree. The aerobic cost is impacted by efficiency within the systems that fuel the body. In your example Runner 1 would not only have a perceived change in energy exertion, he would have an actual change in energy exertion. The heart is a muscle, muscles require energy in use, and the higher rate of use requires more energy. The same applies to the muscles that are involved in the respiration process. If you are breathing harder and your heart is beating faster, you use more energy.
It’s this very reason why energy use during exercise is greater than at rest. Muscle contractions use energy, and energy demands increase with increased muscle use.
There is an increase, but the amount is negligible and irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. The average size of an adult heart is approx 310 grams vs avg skeletal muscle weight of 25-40 kg. The math should be obvious."Gas exchange efficiency" is somewhat of a meaningless term. Transport of O2 into the blood is not that different between individuals and maxes out at submaximal levels of effort. Same thing with O2 extraction (a-vO2 difference) at the capillary level. Gas exchange kinetics are of vital importance to sustaining life and so the body maintains them rather fiercely. In other words, the system is very efficient, and that efficiency is not particularly enhanced with training.
What DOES increase is capacity--Maximum Voluntary Ventilation, Pa-O2 saturation, cardiac output, capillary density, mitochondrial density, etc.
VO2max is indicative of gas exchange efficiency, and is far from a meaningless term. It varies greatly person to person, even entry level training can change it, and in one of the most common forms it is expressed relative to body mass. As such, loss of body mass immediately increases VO2max, and gains decrease it, if all chemical and training variables remained completely stable.
Peer reviewed study link that attaches body weight to VO2max, and VO2max relative to body weight, including data on cardio capacity
Peer reviewed link, summary of Tabata protocol testing, showing increases in VO2max for both training groups in a month and a half of training
[Science views it as very meaningful. Various efficiencies are part of what drive calorie burn at all levels, including RMR. Body composition is a driver as well, but the heart alone accounts for in the neighborhood of 10% of RMR energy use.]
I don't think you understand the term "gas exchange". You ignored my listing of some of the specific processes involved and instead gave me a cut and paste definition of VO2 max which is not the same thing at all. And you included "studies" that again are not in any way related to the discussion.The actual energy cost of the heart beating and the muscles used in ventilation is considered negligible. Whether during laboratory testing or any energy prediction equation, the actual metabolic costs of breathing and the beating of the heart are not factored in because the total amount is trivial. (The exception is for those with a medical problem like COPD). It is not accurate to assert that the actual work of the heart itself and the effort involved in breathing affects calorie burn.
[The below quoted directly from the posted Kravitz article, the one you seemed to agree with.
“Research has shown that during exercise the increase in caloric expenditure is almost entirely due to the contraction of skeletal muscle; the balance is due to an increase in the energy demands of the heart and the muscles used during ventilation.”]
When I read that sentence in the Kravitz article I was pretty sure you would cite that--but I don't think you understand the context. "Balance" is a relative term. This summer I transferred about $12,000 from my savings account to pay for a bathroom remodeling job. The "balance" in the account was $1.32. Myocardial oxygen consumption makes up about 4% of total VO2 during heavy exercise. So, again, the difference between a trained heart beating at 140 bpm and a less trained heart beating 160 bpm at the same running speed represents a trivial and insignificant difference.
[The amounts of many systems individually are trivial, however testing measures the entire body, not the body devoid of all the organs. If we were to remove the major organs alone, the energy demands of the remaining muscle are small in comparison. I know of no direct testing in a lab or any other environment that involved the testing of individual body parts without assumptions and estimations involved. However if anyone has any peer reviewed links showing the testing of a humans muscle mass without his major organs attached, I’m all ears.
VO2max influences heart rate, backed by science. Heart rate influences calorie burn, backed by science. Though all but direct testing of gas exchange still relies on estimations for unknowns, the very reason we replace unknowns with actual data collection is to adjust the algorithms in a more accurate method towards the individual factors of our body. Many newer heart rate monitors use VO2max input so as to individualize and account for the lack of a true power meter measure. Many machines use heart rate to account for lack of VO2max input.]
Heart rate does not "influence calorie burn" from a physiological standpoint. Heart rate is an indirect indicator of oxygen consumption during steady-state cardiovascular exercises. Under those conditions, the increase in VO2 driven by the increased exercise workload, is matched by a related increase in HR. In that case HR is like an exertion meter; it does NOT independently drive increased exertion or increased calorie burn. If someone takes an adenosine stress test, a drug is administered that increases heart rate so that myocardial perfusion can be studied. Heart rate can increase to 120-150 beats/min while the person is lying down on a bed. That person is not experiencing an increased calorie burn, other than the trivial amount from the increased working of the 300 gram organ.
Increases in exertion/oxygen consumption/calorie burn "influence" heart rate--not the other way around.
Commercial exercise equipment does not use heart rate to estimate calories. Since the machines can measure workload directly, and since any given workload has a relatively fixed energy cost, they don't need to know VO2 max.
**I already know the direct change in calorie burn at a given rate of work on my elliptical if I pair the HRM to the machine. Those with any HRM that use VO2max inputs can simple punch in a new VO2max number and see the results for themselves. At a given rate of work, both the machine and the HRM algorithms will lower calorie burn if the HR is lower due to VO2max being higher.**
You have mentioned that before and I asked for more information because that doesn't sound right. You said you had a Precor machine. There is nothing in any of the Precor literature or their website that suggests that there is any interaction between an HRM and the calorie estimations. There is no mention in any of the owner's manuals. I won't claim to know everything about every piece of commercial exercise equipment, esp anything that has come out in the last 2 years. But anything made before then I do know about and that feature did not exist on any commercial exercise equipment.
What will happen if you use a HR interactive program is that, as the exercise workout progresses, your HR will gradually increase, even with no change in workload. This is called cardiovascular drift. If you are using a HR interactive program, it will sense that HR is increasing and decrease the workload in order to keep you in your target "zone". That would result in decreased calories burned for the workout. It's why I strongly discourage people to not use those programs.
Re your comments on HRMs: The answer is "no, just the opposite", but we are not using common terms, so let me just describe how it is.
The amount of calories burned depends on oxygen uptake (VO2, not VO2max) during the exercise. Oxygen uptake changes in response to exercise workload (e.g. if one increases running speed from 6mph to 7 mph, VO2 and calorie burn increases).
HR during steady state cardio exercise changes in response to changes in workload and VO2. The HRM either estimates your HRmax or sometimes you can enter it manually.
The HRM now knows your HR scale--it knows your HR rest and your HR max--and from that it can calculate the RELATIVE intensity of your exercise--i.e. if you are working at 50%, 60%, 70%, etc of max.
Since that is a relative number, however, and since heart rate alone doesn't have any quantitive value for determining calories (remember, that's calculated only from VO2), the HRM has to know: 60% of what? The HRM has to have an oxygen uptake number to estimate calories.
If you can manually input VO2max, then it's problem solved and the HRM will be much more accurate. If you cannot, the HRM must come with a fitness level somehow--and I don't know how they do it.
If the HRM knows that you are working at a heart rate that is 70% of max, and that your VO2max is 30, then it can calculate that your exercise VO2 is about 21 and that your calorie burn (per hour) is about (6 x body wt in KG). In the case of an 80 kg person, that is 480 cal/hr or 8 cal/min.
Now you have been training, training, training, and the hard work is paying off. You have increased your VO2max to 40. And you entered that new number into your HRM. Now, you are working out at the same 70% of max heart rate. The HRM knows that, but now it estimates the exercise VO2 at 28 (70% of 40). At a VO2 of 28 you are burning MORE calories (assuming weight is the same)--640 cal/hr or 10.6 cal/min.
The reason why people think they are burning fewer calories because of "efficiency" is that they either have not or cannot change the VO2max settings in the HRM. When they do the same workload, the HR is now lower because it represents a smaller percentage of VO2max. The HRM assumes they are working at a lower workload.
It anyone has a Polar FT40 or FT60, this will be readily evident if you change the VO2max setting (which is not that simple because you have to do the stupid 5-min "fitness test" first before you can manually input your VO2max number). If you change the VO2max number from say 35 to 40, and do the exact same workout, your calorie burn will increase. That's because you are working with a bigger "scale". (PS this is a gross oversimplification of how HRMs work, but it's the basic concept)
[The very reason VO2max input is becoming more common in HRM devices and wearables is due to the fact that it has influence on calorie burn. Otherwise they may as well just ask for your eye color. If heart rate alone was the driving factor, any type of device that measured heart rate could work perfectly with just that information.
I’m always open to learning something new, and any science based links that counter any of the above are welcome. Stating things not backed by science is great, but in the end science will trump. But for now, I’m going to lower my VO2max relative to body weight by consuming large amounts of holiday goodies.]
I like "science" as much as anyone, but "science" also requires placing facts in context, and having an understanding of fundamental physiological principles. A lot of what I am explaining is stuff that is taught in Exercise Physiology 101 class. So, hopefully you found some of the information useful.
I don't understand half of what you are saying nor do I have a degree in fitness, but I do have a basic knowledge of fitness from being a fitness instructor in the military.
It sounds like you are saying that calories burned is in no way affected by heart rate. I don't agree with that. Here is what the documentation of my Polar V800 says about calories burned...
The most accurate calorie counter on the market calculates the number of calories burned. The energy
expenditure calculation is based on:
l Body weight, height, age, gender
l Individual maximum heart rate (HRmax)
l Heart rate during training
l Individual resting heart rate value (HRrest)
l Individual maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max)
l Altitude
For best possible Smart Calories information accuracy, please give V800 your measured VO2max and
HRmax values if you have them. If not, use the value given by Polar Fitness test.
I agree that the heart test to get VO2max is not as accurate as a proper test that you would have done, but it is probably at least in the ball park. I did the Polar test months ago when I first started walking and was at a poor fitness level and it was 28 (fair). I have taken it several times over the months as I was able to power walk faster and for longer, and my fitness level improved a very noticeable amount. The Polar tests indicated my VO2max has increased over that time and is now up to 37 (good). So VO2max sure seems to me like a measure of fitness level.
I think all the factors listed above determine calories burned, but you have to keep your stats updated. You also should not just change your VO2max number. You should take the Polar test (unless you get the test done in a lab).
I know my cardio level has increased because I went from only being able to walk 1 mile on flat terrain at a 3 mph pace to being able to walk over 7.5 miles on hilly terrain at a 4.5 mph pace. And the Polar VO2max tests have indicated exactly that as well. My resting heart rate has gone from the 80's to the 60's over this time as well (which I updated in the Polar V800). I got my max heart rate from a stress test that I had done a while back and it turns out that it is 220 - age (for me).
Some devices are not a accurate as others, and some overestimate the calorie burn more than others, but I find the Polar V800 to be the most accurate of all the ones I've owned to date (and I have owned quite a few), even the Garmin fenix3 which I also own.
Here is the exact same walk that I did on 2 different days. All the settings were the same except for the intensity (heart rate). notice the difference in calories burned and tell me that heart rate does not affect calories burned...
https://flow.polar.com/training/analysis/318112416
https://flow.polar.com/training/analysis/330241032
I like to read about this stuff some times, but what I am showing here is a real world example of how this is working for me, and not just things that I study.
I'm not trying to be rude, but new studies come out every day, and some of them disprove other studies that are already out, so to me, a study is something good to know, but may not always be correct.
I also think that many people get way too rapped up in every little detail instead of just using the basic principals of fitness to get to a better fitness level. It may be old school army, but it does work, and it works very well.
0 -
Yeah not convinced about the lack of a strong relationship between calorie burn and HR. I have a years worth of my own Garmin data, weight loss and calorie intake records to back that up. Not saying other variables are not involved or that it is predictive but that relationship exists and can be used by the every day person.
*edited - for cardio activities0 -
I apologize that I cannot figure out the new way to interject comments into partial quotes, so I used brackets to identify the comments I am addressing. Sorry if that's confusing.
It’s a pain at times, but the brackets work fine for me.There is an increase, but the amount is negligible and irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. The average size of an adult heart is approx 310 grams vs avg skeletal muscle weight of 25-40 kg. The math should be obvious.
And that small organ has an energy impact of about 10% on average for humans. Since many modern devices monitor HR 24/7 I find it relevant. I’m assuming anyone not worried about it wouldn’t own such a device, wouldn’t be concerned with accuracy of workout calories, and wouldn’t follow the discussion. But I leave that to each person as I can’t speak for what they find relevant or not.I don't think you understand the term "gas exchange". You ignored my listing of some of the specific processes involved and instead gave me a cut and paste definition of VO2 max which is not the same thing at all. And you included "studies" that again are not in any way related to the discussion.
I have a thorough and complete understanding of gas exchange as it relates to the human cardiovascular system. That includes factors that most other than medical professionals and a small percentage of others would know. This is due to studies due to me being included in that small percentage of others that it would apply to and would find it relevant.
I did not ignore your more in depth statements, as they were not the source of any disagreement with me. I simply factored overall changes for the better or worse, and attempted to keep the discussion at that level so as to not overcomplicate it when I saw no reason to go more in depth.
As for the linked studies, neither was a copy/paste definition of VO2max. Both were linked to dispute your earlier claims that VO2max and uptake efficiencies were not highly variable, were hard to change, and were not of concern. Peer reviewed studies showed otherwise.
I’ve also made the point that VO2max and all subsequent exercise levels based on % of max can be influenced regardless of changes in efficiency of gas exchanges. A person could sit on their butt and smoke heavy and increase VO2max relative to weight through diet and weight loss, even though gas exchange efficiency itself would likely decrease or remain stable at best.
And essentially every device worth using is using percentages based on a known maximum uptake in relation to weight. I’d suggest personally that if anyone has a device that doesn’t allow you to input weight, the best use would be for a paper weight as the accuracy would be grossly skewed.When I read that sentence in the Kravitz article I was pretty sure you would cite that--but I don't think you understand the context. "Balance" is a relative term. This summer I transferred about $12,000 from my savings account to pay for a bathroom remodeling job. The "balance" in the account was $1.32. Myocardial oxygen consumption makes up about 4% of total VO2 during heavy exercise. So, again, the difference between a trained heart beating at 140 bpm and a less trained heart beating 160 bpm at the same running speed represents a trivial and insignificant difference.
See above. I leave it to each individual to decide what is trivial and insignificant to them. As I often exercise a lot when time allows, it matters to me. Especially when I get done with one training type and move to the next. A more complete understanding of the HR influence gives me a better gauge of any factors that may have skewed my workout calories burned. I’ve never made any claim that the myocardial consumption at exercise states was huge, but I do also understand that it varies person to person, whether at rest or exercising, and even when exercising varies with the level of intensity.Heart rate does not "influence calorie burn" from a physiological standpoint.
Completely disagree, as does modern science. You give an example of it below, using the inclusion of a drug as an outside influence to raise heart rate without increased muscle use due to exercise. The same would apply if HR was elevated for any reason, be it stress, dehydration, a traumatic scare, or pre workout/excess caffeine/any drug influence.Heart rate is an indirect indicator of oxygen consumption during steady-state cardiovascular exercises. Under those conditions, the increase in VO2 driven by the increased exercise workload, is matched by a related increase in HR. In that case HR is like an exertion meter; it does NOT independently drive increased exertion or increased calorie burn. If someone takes an adenosine stress test, a drug is administered that increases heart rate so that myocardial perfusion can be studied. Heart rate can increase to 120-150 beats/min while the person is lying down on a bed. That person is not experiencing an increased calorie burn, other than the trivial amount from the increased working of the 300 gram organ.
Increases in exertion/oxygen consumption/calorie burn "influence" heart rate--not the other way around.
Though I agree with some of these statements that HR is a good indicator of workload, I completely disagree that the workload from the heart isn’t a factor. I don’t discount the use of any muscle as a factor. In my case personally having a lower than average HR for my age/general health/weight demographics explains a good part of the reason why my TDEE is lower than for many people my size. And though I have no specific knowledge of any certain drug, I had to have such a test done with some type of drug to elevate my heart rate for testing. I had maxed out the treadmill they use and still had a heart rate lower than the minimum for the testing procedure.
As per the final sentence above I quoted, I agree that exertion raises heart rate and have never disputed that. Heart rate increases without exertion by other muscles only increase energy consumption within the heart and to some extent possibly the mechanics of the breathing system.Commercial exercise equipment does not use heart rate to estimate calories. Since the machines can measure workload directly, and since any given workload has a relatively fixed energy cost, they don't need to know VO2 max.
You have mentioned that before and I asked for more information because that doesn't sound right. You said you had a Precor machine. There is nothing in any of the Precor literature or their website that suggests that there is any interaction between an HRM and the calorie estimations. There is no mention in any of the owner's manuals. I won't claim to know everything about every piece of commercial exercise equipment, esp anything that has come out in the last 2 years. But anything made before then I do know about and that feature did not exist on any commercial exercise equipment.
I’m going to be very blunt here, but your information is wrong. We’ve owned this machine for some 14-15 years, and it without doubt is influenced in how it calculates calories by the heart rate. Every Precor machine I’ve tested it on is influenced, but that’s only a handful of models. I have a field service manual for the machine we own, and it has no mention of it. But it’s not sold as a heart rate monitor device, it’s sold as a fitness device.
I haven’t made any claim that the HR monitoring function of my machine is the primary driver for calculations. I know it’s not. The claim I made was that if energy expended remained stable, then HR affected the calorie burn outputs. I’m 100% certain that is correct for the machine I own. I’ve tested it and confirmed it as fact.
I have made no claim that every Precor machine is influenced by heart rate, simply that all I’m aware of are. There is a fairly simple way to test if anyone uses one and wants to find out for themselves on a particular model/generation/type.
In my case if I looked at the wrong readout without an understanding of how they all work, I would over time potentially change my workout without knowing it.What will happen if you use a HR interactive program is that, as the exercise workout progresses, your HR will gradually increase, even with no change in workload. This is called cardiovascular drift. If you are using a HR interactive program, it will sense that HR is increasing and decrease the workload in order to keep you in your target "zone". That would result in decreased calories burned for the workout. It's why I strongly discourage people to not use those programs.
Re your comments on HRMs: The answer is "no, just the opposite", but we are not using common terms, so let me just describe how it is.
The amount of calories burned depends on oxygen uptake (VO2, not VO2max) during the exercise. Oxygen uptake changes in response to exercise workload (e.g. if one increases running speed from 6mph to 7 mph, VO2 and calorie burn increases).
HR during steady state cardio exercise changes in response to changes in workload and VO2. The HRM either estimates your HRmax or sometimes you can enter it manually.
The HRM now knows your HR scale--it knows your HR rest and your HR max--and from that it can calculate the RELATIVE intensity of your exercise--i.e. if you are working at 50%, 60%, 70%, etc of max.
Since that is a relative number, however, and since heart rate alone doesn't have any quantitive value for determining calories (remember, that's calculated only from VO2), the HRM has to know: 60% of what? The HRM has to have an oxygen uptake number to estimate calories.
If you can manually input VO2max, then it's problem solved and the HRM will be much more accurate. If you cannot, the HRM must come with a fitness level somehow--and I don't know how they do it.
If the HRM knows that you are working at a heart rate that is 70% of max, and that your VO2max is 30, then it can calculate that your exercise VO2 is about 21 and that your calorie burn (per hour) is about (6 x body wt in KG). In the case of an 80 kg person, that is 480 cal/hr or 8 cal/min.
Now you have been training, training, training, and the hard work is paying off. You have increased your VO2max to 40. And you entered that new number into your HRM. Now, you are working out at the same 70% of max heart rate. The HRM knows that, but now it estimates the exercise VO2 at 28 (70% of 40). At a VO2 of 28 you are burning MORE calories (assuming weight is the same)--640 cal/hr or 10.6 cal/min.
The reason why people think they are burning fewer calories because of "efficiency" is that they either have not or cannot change the VO2max settings in the HRM. When they do the same workload, the HR is now lower because it represents a smaller percentage of VO2max. The HRM assumes they are working at a lower workload.
It anyone has a Polar FT40 or FT60, this will be readily evident if you change the VO2max setting (which is not that simple because you have to do the stupid 5-min "fitness test" first before you can manually input your VO2max number). If you change the VO2max number from say 35 to 40, and do the exact same workout, your calorie burn will increase. That's because you are working with a bigger "scale". (PS this is a gross oversimplification of how HRMs work, but it's the basic concept)
I don’t see anything in this last section that I disagree with, and have given examples upthread but less in depth. As for the lack couple of paragraphs, I gave a similar example upthread, but gave the “set” factor as velocity rather than % of VO2max. If your uptake improves, and you still run at 6 MPH, your overall calorie burn will decrease due to lower heart rate. We simply used examples that fixed different variables.
The HRM in your example might include factors that estimate for unknowns, such as power on an elliptical. In the case of my elliptical, it might estimate for VO2max and percentages since it’s not a user input, but power is actually measured. I would assume that any device worth using has algorithms to help make up for the shortcomings it might have in inputs.
@bcalvanese Great real world input on a “normal” person showing changes in VO2max without excess training, as well as an example of understanding and properly using your specific device to give the most accurate readouts possible. And being former military myself, completely agree that no matter what our level of equipment/data/excess we have or don’t, it all boils down to getting out there and putting in work towards improving. I actually wish I had done some type of VO2max testing earlier on after my back issues. Being it was my heaviest weight as probably low spot in training abilities, it would be great to see how much change I’ve made spit out in numbers. But the numbers really don’t matter in the end, I know compared to my lows I’ve made big improvements.20yearsyounger wrote: »Yeah not convinced about the lack of a strong relationship between calorie burn and HR. I have a years worth of my own Garmin data, weight loss and calorie intake records to back that up. Not saying other variables are not involved or that it is predictive but that relationship exists and can be used by the every day person.
*edited - for cardio activities
If you're interested in seeing how much weight your device gives to HR influence I could suggest an easy method to test it. All it would require is a way to keep a steady state walking or running test you could repeat. If you really want in depth answers, doing exercise and both lower and higher intensities on a set scale would be even more helpful. Probably best for repeating on a treadmill, but could be done walking or running if you can hold a reasonably steady pace.
AND... not directed at any certain person.
The main reason I provided input on any of this was due to constantly seeing questions on calorie burns, and getting the impression that a whole lot of people don't really understand the devices or machines they are using. When I start seeing blanket claims that "this is always better than THAT", people bringing RER into play and stating it's the reason your HR rises, or claims that proper programming on a machine or device won't make it more accurate, it's clear to me that many really aren't looking into things much.
The way I see it, if I use a device I should make attempt to understand it and if possible make it more accurate for me. If I completely fail to understand it and how to use it, it's probably not worth having for me personally.
Weight is probably the single largest driver in all these devices. If you don't program weight it's going to give you a false reading, even if it's otherwise capable of being accurate. Similar to people that use MFP intake for weight control, its' a vital statistic you should always program. If anyone wants an example of how quick it would skew things, program your current weight +50 pounds into MFP and take a look at what it tells you for your daily calorie goal.0 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »
Yeah not convinced about the lack of a strong relationship between calorie burn and HR. I have a years worth of my own Garmin data, weight loss and calorie intake records to back that up. Not saying other variables are not involved or that it is predictive but that relationship exists and can be used by the every day person.
*edited - for cardio activities
If you're interested in seeing how much weight your device gives to HR influence I could suggest an easy method to test it. All it would require is a way to keep a steady state walking or running test you could repeat. If you really want in depth answers, doing exercise and both lower and higher intensities on a set scale would be even more helpful. Probably best for repeating on a treadmill, but could be done walking or running if you can hold a reasonably steady pace.
Sorry great post but too long to requote when I am looking just a specific part
Earlier on the question I asked about the 4 miles is a real world example of my basic exercise path that I do 2-3 times a week. Not sure exactly how Garmin calculates it but I can use my device with or without an HR monitor. The results are much different (higher) when my HR is taken into account versus not. i haven't significantly changed weight in the last year and the calorie burn changes with as little of a difference between 5.5mph run and a 6mph run. It is significant enough for me to gripe about not having that extra shot of vodka. The original post was about an elliptical and thats where I really started to become more aerobically efficient. I don't do the elliptical as much because of time limits on the machines but because I travel a lot and every machine is different, I use the HRM to at least provide some type of equivalent workout based on Heart Rate. My maintenance weight is around 150, and I mostly get a chance to program the weight, but even if I don't, the calorie burn reading still allows me to maintain weight with excessive eating and drinking I have seen instances where the calories provided were lower than my norm and once I grabbed the HR sensors on the machine, the calorie burn accelerated. 0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
I looked up VO2 levels for 50-59 YO males. Good range 40-43; so 37 is average (32-39); next category above good is High (44-48); athletic (49-55) Olympic (56+). Maybe the table you use is different.bcalvanese wrote: »I apologize that I cannot figure out the new way to interject comments into partial quotes, so I used brackets to identify the comments I am addressing. Sorry if that's confusing.robertw486 wrote: »You can describe it any way you want, but the fact is that, for the most part, fitness level does not impact calorie burn. The aerobic cost is inherent in the workload of the activity itself, regardless of the fitness level of the person doing the activity. The energy cost of running 6 mph is approximately 10 METs--whether you are running, I am running, or my neighbor Chuck is running. Calorie burn is the MET value of the activity times body wt in KG. Take 2 people who weigh 80 kg and have the same resting and max HR, one for whom running 6 mph represents 75% of their aerobic max and one for whom running 6 mph represents 50% of their aerobic max. Runner 1 will have a higher HR and higher perceived exertion, yet both will burn approx 800 calories per hour. All other factors (e.g wind, terrain) being equal, the energy cost of running 6 mph is inherent to the workload. In your example of the twin, yes, heart rate will be lower because of the difference in aerobic fitness level. However, that does not impact calorie burn--calorie burn will be the same, as long as workload and weight are the same.
Disagree. The aerobic cost is impacted by efficiency within the systems that fuel the body. In your example Runner 1 would not only have a perceived change in energy exertion, he would have an actual change in energy exertion. The heart is a muscle, muscles require energy in use, and the higher rate of use requires more energy. The same applies to the muscles that are involved in the respiration process. If you are breathing harder and your heart is beating faster, you use more energy.
It’s this very reason why energy use during exercise is greater than at rest. Muscle contractions use energy, and energy demands increase with increased muscle use.
There is an increase, but the amount is negligible and irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. The average size of an adult heart is approx 310 grams vs avg skeletal muscle weight of 25-40 kg. The math should be obvious."Gas exchange efficiency" is somewhat of a meaningless term. Transport of O2 into the blood is not that different between individuals and maxes out at submaximal levels of effort. Same thing with O2 extraction (a-vO2 difference) at the capillary level. Gas exchange kinetics are of vital importance to sustaining life and so the body maintains them rather fiercely. In other words, the system is very efficient, and that efficiency is not particularly enhanced with training.
What DOES increase is capacity--Maximum Voluntary Ventilation, Pa-O2 saturation, cardiac output, capillary density, mitochondrial density, etc.
VO2max is indicative of gas exchange efficiency, and is far from a meaningless term. It varies greatly person to person, even entry level training can change it, and in one of the most common forms it is expressed relative to body mass. As such, loss of body mass immediately increases VO2max, and gains decrease it, if all chemical and training variables remained completely stable.
Peer reviewed study link that attaches body weight to VO2max, and VO2max relative to body weight, including data on cardio capacity
Peer reviewed link, summary of Tabata protocol testing, showing increases in VO2max for both training groups in a month and a half of training
[Science views it as very meaningful. Various efficiencies are part of what drive calorie burn at all levels, including RMR. Body composition is a driver as well, but the heart alone accounts for in the neighborhood of 10% of RMR energy use.]
I don't think you understand the term "gas exchange". You ignored my listing of some of the specific processes involved and instead gave me a cut and paste definition of VO2 max which is not the same thing at all. And you included "studies" that again are not in any way related to the discussion.The actual energy cost of the heart beating and the muscles used in ventilation is considered negligible. Whether during laboratory testing or any energy prediction equation, the actual metabolic costs of breathing and the beating of the heart are not factored in because the total amount is trivial. (The exception is for those with a medical problem like COPD). It is not accurate to assert that the actual work of the heart itself and the effort involved in breathing affects calorie burn.
[The below quoted directly from the posted Kravitz article, the one you seemed to agree with.
“Research has shown that during exercise the increase in caloric expenditure is almost entirely due to the contraction of skeletal muscle; the balance is due to an increase in the energy demands of the heart and the muscles used during ventilation.”]
When I read that sentence in the Kravitz article I was pretty sure you would cite that--but I don't think you understand the context. "Balance" is a relative term. This summer I transferred about $12,000 from my savings account to pay for a bathroom remodeling job. The "balance" in the account was $1.32. Myocardial oxygen consumption makes up about 4% of total VO2 during heavy exercise. So, again, the difference between a trained heart beating at 140 bpm and a less trained heart beating 160 bpm at the same running speed represents a trivial and insignificant difference.
[The amounts of many systems individually are trivial, however testing measures the entire body, not the body devoid of all the organs. If we were to remove the major organs alone, the energy demands of the remaining muscle are small in comparison. I know of no direct testing in a lab or any other environment that involved the testing of individual body parts without assumptions and estimations involved. However if anyone has any peer reviewed links showing the testing of a humans muscle mass without his major organs attached, I’m all ears.
VO2max influences heart rate, backed by science. Heart rate influences calorie burn, backed by science. Though all but direct testing of gas exchange still relies on estimations for unknowns, the very reason we replace unknowns with actual data collection is to adjust the algorithms in a more accurate method towards the individual factors of our body. Many newer heart rate monitors use VO2max input so as to individualize and account for the lack of a true power meter measure. Many machines use heart rate to account for lack of VO2max input.]
Heart rate does not "influence calorie burn" from a physiological standpoint. Heart rate is an indirect indicator of oxygen consumption during steady-state cardiovascular exercises. Under those conditions, the increase in VO2 driven by the increased exercise workload, is matched by a related increase in HR. In that case HR is like an exertion meter; it does NOT independently drive increased exertion or increased calorie burn. If someone takes an adenosine stress test, a drug is administered that increases heart rate so that myocardial perfusion can be studied. Heart rate can increase to 120-150 beats/min while the person is lying down on a bed. That person is not experiencing an increased calorie burn, other than the trivial amount from the increased working of the 300 gram organ.
Increases in exertion/oxygen consumption/calorie burn "influence" heart rate--not the other way around.
Commercial exercise equipment does not use heart rate to estimate calories. Since the machines can measure workload directly, and since any given workload has a relatively fixed energy cost, they don't need to know VO2 max.
**I already know the direct change in calorie burn at a given rate of work on my elliptical if I pair the HRM to the machine. Those with any HRM that use VO2max inputs can simple punch in a new VO2max number and see the results for themselves. At a given rate of work, both the machine and the HRM algorithms will lower calorie burn if the HR is lower due to VO2max being higher.**
You have mentioned that before and I asked for more information because that doesn't sound right. You said you had a Precor machine. There is nothing in any of the Precor literature or their website that suggests that there is any interaction between an HRM and the calorie estimations. There is no mention in any of the owner's manuals. I won't claim to know everything about every piece of commercial exercise equipment, esp anything that has come out in the last 2 years. But anything made before then I do know about and that feature did not exist on any commercial exercise equipment.
What will happen if you use a HR interactive program is that, as the exercise workout progresses, your HR will gradually increase, even with no change in workload. This is called cardiovascular drift. If you are using a HR interactive program, it will sense that HR is increasing and decrease the workload in order to keep you in your target "zone". That would result in decreased calories burned for the workout. It's why I strongly discourage people to not use those programs.
Re your comments on HRMs: The answer is "no, just the opposite", but we are not using common terms, so let me just describe how it is.
The amount of calories burned depends on oxygen uptake (VO2, not VO2max) during the exercise. Oxygen uptake changes in response to exercise workload (e.g. if one increases running speed from 6mph to 7 mph, VO2 and calorie burn increases).
HR during steady state cardio exercise changes in response to changes in workload and VO2. The HRM either estimates your HRmax or sometimes you can enter it manually.
The HRM now knows your HR scale--it knows your HR rest and your HR max--and from that it can calculate the RELATIVE intensity of your exercise--i.e. if you are working at 50%, 60%, 70%, etc of max.
Since that is a relative number, however, and since heart rate alone doesn't have any quantitive value for determining calories (remember, that's calculated only from VO2), the HRM has to know: 60% of what? The HRM has to have an oxygen uptake number to estimate calories.
If you can manually input VO2max, then it's problem solved and the HRM will be much more accurate. If you cannot, the HRM must come with a fitness level somehow--and I don't know how they do it.
If the HRM knows that you are working at a heart rate that is 70% of max, and that your VO2max is 30, then it can calculate that your exercise VO2 is about 21 and that your calorie burn (per hour) is about (6 x body wt in KG). In the case of an 80 kg person, that is 480 cal/hr or 8 cal/min.
Now you have been training, training, training, and the hard work is paying off. You have increased your VO2max to 40. And you entered that new number into your HRM. Now, you are working out at the same 70% of max heart rate. The HRM knows that, but now it estimates the exercise VO2 at 28 (70% of 40). At a VO2 of 28 you are burning MORE calories (assuming weight is the same)--640 cal/hr or 10.6 cal/min.
The reason why people think they are burning fewer calories because of "efficiency" is that they either have not or cannot change the VO2max settings in the HRM. When they do the same workload, the HR is now lower because it represents a smaller percentage of VO2max. The HRM assumes they are working at a lower workload.
It anyone has a Polar FT40 or FT60, this will be readily evident if you change the VO2max setting (which is not that simple because you have to do the stupid 5-min "fitness test" first before you can manually input your VO2max number). If you change the VO2max number from say 35 to 40, and do the exact same workout, your calorie burn will increase. That's because you are working with a bigger "scale". (PS this is a gross oversimplification of how HRMs work, but it's the basic concept)
[The very reason VO2max input is becoming more common in HRM devices and wearables is due to the fact that it has influence on calorie burn. Otherwise they may as well just ask for your eye color. If heart rate alone was the driving factor, any type of device that measured heart rate could work perfectly with just that information.
I’m always open to learning something new, and any science based links that counter any of the above are welcome. Stating things not backed by science is great, but in the end science will trump. But for now, I’m going to lower my VO2max relative to body weight by consuming large amounts of holiday goodies.]
I like "science" as much as anyone, but "science" also requires placing facts in context, and having an understanding of fundamental physiological principles. A lot of what I am explaining is stuff that is taught in Exercise Physiology 101 class. So, hopefully you found some of the information useful.
I don't understand half of what you are saying nor do I have a degree in fitness, but I do have a basic knowledge of fitness from being a fitness instructor in the military.
It sounds like you are saying that calories burned is in no way affected by heart rate. I don't agree with that. Here is what the documentation of my Polar V800 says about calories burned...
The most accurate calorie counter on the market calculates the number of calories burned. The energy
expenditure calculation is based on:
l Body weight, height, age, gender
l Individual maximum heart rate (HRmax)
l Heart rate during training
l Individual resting heart rate value (HRrest)
l Individual maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max)
l Altitude
For best possible Smart Calories information accuracy, please give V800 your measured VO2max and
HRmax values if you have them. If not, use the value given by Polar Fitness test.
I agree that the heart test to get VO2max is not as accurate as a proper test that you would have done, but it is probably at least in the ball park. I did the Polar test months ago when I first started walking and was at a poor fitness level and it was 28 (fair). I have taken it several times over the months as I was able to power walk faster and for longer, and my fitness level improved a very noticeable amount. The Polar tests indicated my VO2max has increased over that time and is now up to 37 (good). So VO2max sure seems to me like a measure of fitness level.
I think all the factors listed above determine calories burned, but you have to keep your stats updated. You also should not just change your VO2max number. You should take the Polar test (unless you get the test done in a lab).
I know my cardio level has increased because I went from only being able to walk 1 mile on flat terrain at a 3 mph pace to being able to walk over 7.5 miles on hilly terrain at a 4.5 mph pace. And the Polar VO2max tests have indicated exactly that as well. My resting heart rate has gone from the 80's to the 60's over this time as well (which I updated in the Polar V800). I got my max heart rate from a stress test that I had done a while back and it turns out that it is 220 - age (for me).
Some devices are not a accurate as others, and some overestimate the calorie burn more than others, but I find the Polar V800 to be the most accurate of all the ones I've owned to date (and I have owned quite a few), even the Garmin fenix3 which I also own.
Here is the exact same walk that I did on 2 different days. All the settings were the same except for the intensity (heart rate). notice the difference in calories burned and tell me that heart rate does not affect calories burned...
https://flow.polar.com/training/analysis/318112416
https://flow.polar.com/training/analysis/330241032
I like to read about this stuff some times, but what I am showing here is a real world example of how this is working for me, and not just things that I study.
I'm not trying to be rude, but new studies come out every day, and some of them disprove other studies that are already out, so to me, a study is something good to know, but may not always be correct.
I also think that many people get way too rapped up in every little detail instead of just using the basic principals of fitness to get to a better fitness level. It may be old school army, but it does work, and it works very well.
Polar uses a different scale for the fitness test as follows...
Fitness Level Classes from the users guide
age - 55-59
very low - < 22
low - 22-26
fair - 27-30
moderate - 31-34
good - 35-39
very good - 40-43
elite - > 43
Not sure how this equates to the actual VO2max scale, but my number is 37 on this scale.
Maybe its because the test is performed while at rest (you have to lay down and relax with the heart rate monitor on for 5 minutes while the test is being performed).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions