eliptical trainers calories burned?
Replies
-
robertw486 wrote: »
@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.
Thank You Soldier.
I served in the Army for 6 years back in the 80's (83-89), and just used that basic knowledge from what I learned there to begin my mission of getting back in shape. It was an activity tracker that gave me the kiwi injection (boot in the butt) I needed to get going though. I started out with just a regular activity tracker, and as I got more advanced in my workouts, I needed a more advanced tracker and did a lot of research, and wound up settling on the Polar V800.
I could have done the same thing without the devices, but I like gadgets, and it is cool to be able to see the progress in the data and have a history of it.
Thank you for your service, and we may have even chewed some of the same dirt.0 -
I've been wondering the same thing. When I get on the treadmill at the gym I set it to burn 500 calories every timeand I enter my weight and age. This takes me anywhere from 30-40 mins depending on how fast I run or for how long I am running fast lol. I usually get over 3 miles in that time so I just log what it says and I'm satisfied because I've gone for at least 3 miles. Not sure if it's accurate but I feel like I've definitely done something and I'm sweating from head to toe!0
-
This is saying you are burning 125 calories every ten minutes or 167 every ten minutes. If your goal is weight loss you may want to look at other ways to calculate your burn as you get closer to goal and not rely on the calorie burn from the machine.I've been wondering the same thing. When I get on the treadmill at the gym I set it to burn 500 calories every timeand I enter my weight and age. This takes me anywhere from 30-40 mins depending on how fast I run or for how long I am running fast lol. I usually get over 3 miles in that time so I just log what it says and I'm satisfied because I've gone for at least 3 miles. Not sure if it's accurate but I feel like I've definitely done something and I'm sweating from head to toe!0 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »
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.
Without being familiar with your particular device, I'd suggest that anything that tracks outdoors and can do so without HR involved is using GPS. If it is always higher with your HR factored in, and the trend is similar on machines, it could simply be that your heart rate at those work loads is higher than the programmed averages those devices use.
As for the machine increasing calorie burn using the hand grips, another indication that it uses HR input to alter calorie burn rates.
The big factor is finding enough accuracy to know if it keeps your food intake in line with your weight goals. If your HRM can do that with steady state stuff, it would probably be easier to just use that when you get on various machines, so you don't have to figure out each individual machine.bcalvanese wrote: »
Thank You Soldier.
I served in the Army for 6 years back in the 80's (83-89), and just used that basic knowledge from what I learned there to begin my mission of getting back in shape. It was an activity tracker that gave me the kiwi injection (boot in the butt) I needed to get going though. I started out with just a regular activity tracker, and as I got more advanced in my workouts, I needed a more advanced tracker and did a lot of research, and wound up settling on the Polar V800.
I could have done the same thing without the devices, but I like gadgets, and it is cool to be able to see the progress in the data and have a history of it.
Thank you for your service, and we may have even chewed some of the same dirt.
Depending on where you went over the years we may have crossed paths at some point. I was Marine Corps 82-90 and traveled around the globe a decent bit. I'm sure we both trained against communist tactics. Damn Rooskies... made for some great "Ivan" targets though.
And being old school mentality helps I think. These days some act like weight control and fitness would stop if our devices broke. As long as I own a human scale my devices are just to make it easier.I've been wondering the same thing. When I get on the treadmill at the gym I set it to burn 500 calories every timeand I enter my weight and age. This takes me anywhere from 30-40 mins depending on how fast I run or for how long I am running fast lol. I usually get over 3 miles in that time so I just log what it says and I'm satisfied because I've gone for at least 3 miles. Not sure if it's accurate but I feel like I've definitely done something and I'm sweating from head to toe!
For treadmills you can often find accepted methods to calculate the calorie burn. Many machines will spit out net calories, which includes the calories you would burn sitting and doing nothing. Below are a couple for running that quite a few of the runner crowd here seem to accept for most average runners speed ranges. This came from an article in Runners World that was based on actual peer reviewed studies.
Net calorie burn = .63 x weight x miles
Gross calorie burn = .75 x weight x miles
Don't get too hung up on the time factor other than to measure fitness level IMO. Though you will burn more calories going faster, in the end it doesn't vary much if you use the miles alone. Going faster will burn more calories, but for a shorter period of time, so it all comes close to balancing out anyway.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »
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.
Without being familiar with your particular device, I'd suggest that anything that tracks outdoors and can do so without HR involved is using GPS. If it is always higher with your HR factored in, and the trend is similar on machines, it could simply be that your heart rate at those work loads is higher than the programmed averages those devices use.
As for the machine increasing calorie burn using the hand grips, another indication that it uses HR input to alter calorie burn rates.
The big factor is finding enough accuracy to know if it keeps your food intake in line with your weight goals. If your HRM can do that with steady state stuff, it would probably be easier to just use that when you get on various machines, so you don't have to figure out each individual machine.
It doesnt use GPS, just steps, speed and distance but I have calibrated it based on GPS and it is very very close. To put things into perspective, my resting HR is in the low 40s so its not that any little exercise is going to max out my HR. The key point I want to make is in agreement with you that many devices these days do factor in HR in their calculations and the difference can be significant.
0 -
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.
I'm not criticizing, because I did write a lot of stuff, but you are continuing to miss the crucial point:
Heart rate is an INDICATOR of things going on in the body during exercise. It is not the CAUSE. A car speedometer does not make the car go faster--it is a gauge that lets you know the car is going faster.
"Calories burned" is not affected DIRECTLY by heart rate. It's just the opposite--Heart Rate is affected by calories burned (i.e. by oxygen uptake).
Heart rate is only significant as an indicator when oxygen uptake increases and under conditions in which heart rate and oxygen uptake are in sync.
Your Polar data doesn't prove anything except that heart rate is variable under different exercise conditions.
Calorie Burn numbers on HRMs are NOT actual measurements--a computer chip is programmed to react a certain way when it receives a certain input. It has absolutely no knowledge of the conditions or source of that input. You can strap your HRM to a heart rate simulator, leave in on there for an hour, and the watch would say you burned 600 calories. Things like fatigue, heat, dehydration, stress can all affect heart rate without affecting calories burned. That's why you get these wildly exaggerated claims for calories burned in hot yoga. Heart rates there can go up to the same level as someone running--the HRM numbers are through the roof, yet actual calorie burn is probably only 1/4 the number on the watch.
That's the fatal flaw in yours and many others observations: you are mistaking the odd mechanics of an HRM for actual physiology. The detailed instructions for how to make your HRM calorie readout more accurate are NOT because of human physiology--it's to make up for the challenges/shortcomings of HRM technology to estimate something (calories burned) that is not easy to do. (Not a knock against Polar--they do it as well as can be done--ultimately, though, there are limits as to how well it can be done--even with a V800, which is a very good HRM).
Let me take a side trip to the Polar "Fitness Test": The link between resting HR and aerobic fitness level is a tenuous one. For a beginner, you often do see noticeable changes in resting HR as fitness level improves, and the Polar test will capture that (I also think they do a more sophisticated analysis of the actual impulse as well--these guys have been obsessed with heart rate study for decades). However (and there is always a "however"), over time, the link between resting HR and VO2max becomes much less reliable. Someone who runs for 10 years and has a resting HR of 48 can stop running, gain 50 lbs, and after 2-3 years likely still have a resting HR in the mid 50s. Even though they can't run around the block, the Polar test will still tell them they are an athlete.
As to your remarks about "getting too rapped (sic) up in every little detail"--they sound a little odd coming from someone who has posted numerous replies to this topic and wears a $300+ sports watch. ;-)
Just kidding--no, most of this is not necessary to be successful with a fitness program. It's just good clean fun for anyone who is interested.0 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »20yearsyounger wrote: »
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.
Without being familiar with your particular device, I'd suggest that anything that tracks outdoors and can do so without HR involved is using GPS. If it is always higher with your HR factored in, and the trend is similar on machines, it could simply be that your heart rate at those work loads is higher than the programmed averages those devices use.
As for the machine increasing calorie burn using the hand grips, another indication that it uses HR input to alter calorie burn rates.
The big factor is finding enough accuracy to know if it keeps your food intake in line with your weight goals. If your HRM can do that with steady state stuff, it would probably be easier to just use that when you get on various machines, so you don't have to figure out each individual machine.
It doesnt use GPS, just steps, speed and distance but I have calibrated it based on GPS and it is very very close. To put things into perspective, my resting HR is in the low 40s so its not that any little exercise is going to max out my HR. The key point I want to make is in agreement with you that many devices these days do factor in HR in their calculations and the difference can be significant.
I didn't miss the part about the HR influence on calorie burn. I obviously fell prey to assuming that anything made by Garmin would rely on GPS rather than step counting though!
As for the speculation I made on why it would affect calorie burn rate in your case to the greater side, I was trying to put my head into what factors they might use. If your HR is in line with norms for your age/weight/gender/etc, then it should indicate that the device is still finding a reason to alter the calorie burn one direction or the other.
Without having looked into things in depth, it's hard to say how many factors they might consider. The rise in HR, oxygen update efficiency, overall efficiency of the pumping mechanism of the heart, blood pressures, specific heart impulses, and quite a few more could factor. How many of those are directly related well enough for a formula to try to determine... I have no idea.
I know I have seen some fairly in depth formula's to try to predict the actual energy consumption of the human heart. I really don't know which would be the most accurate or what factors require absolutes vs predictions. But the people who sell HRMs have probably looked into it a great deal more than most of us ever will.0 -
I'm not criticizing, because I did write a lot of stuff, but you are continuing to miss the crucial point:
Heart rate is an INDICATOR of things going on in the body during exercise. It is not the CAUSE. A car speedometer does not make the car go faster--it is a gauge that lets you know the car is going faster.
"Calories burned" is not affected DIRECTLY by heart rate. It's just the opposite--Heart Rate is affected by calories burned (i.e. by oxygen uptake).
Heart rate is only significant as an indicator when oxygen uptake increases and under conditions in which heart rate and oxygen uptake are in sync.
Your Polar data doesn't prove anything except that heart rate is variable under different exercise conditions.
Calorie Burn numbers on HRMs are NOT actual measurements--a computer chip is programmed to react a certain way when it receives a certain input. It has absolutely no knowledge of the conditions or source of that input. You can strap your HRM to a heart rate simulator, leave in on there for an hour, and the watch would say you burned 600 calories. Things like fatigue, heat, dehydration, stress can all affect heart rate without affecting calories burned. That's why you get these wildly exaggerated claims for calories burned in hot yoga. Heart rates there can go up to the same level as someone running--the HRM numbers are through the roof, yet actual calorie burn is probably only 1/4 the number on the watch.
That's the fatal flaw in yours and many others observations: you are mistaking the odd mechanics of an HRM for actual physiology. The detailed instructions for how to make your HRM calorie readout more accurate are NOT because of human physiology--it's to make up for the challenges/shortcomings of HRM technology to estimate something (calories burned) that is not easy to do. (Not a knock against Polar--they do it as well as can be done--ultimately, though, there are limits as to how well it can be done--even with a V800, which is a very good HRM).
Let me take a side trip to the Polar "Fitness Test": The link between resting HR and aerobic fitness level is a tenuous one. For a beginner, you often do see noticeable changes in resting HR as fitness level improves, and the Polar test will capture that (I also think they do a more sophisticated analysis of the actual impulse as well--these guys have been obsessed with heart rate study for decades). However (and there is always a "however"), over time, the link between resting HR and VO2max becomes much less reliable. Someone who runs for 10 years and has a resting HR of 48 can stop running, gain 50 lbs, and after 2-3 years likely still have a resting HR in the mid 50s. Even though they can't run around the block, the Polar test will still tell them they are an athlete.
As to your remarks about "getting too rapped (sic) up in every little detail"--they sound a little odd coming from someone who has posted numerous replies to this topic and wears a $300+ sports watch. ;-)
Just kidding--no, most of this is not necessary to be successful with a fitness program. It's just good clean fun for anyone who is interested.
I am trying to understand where you're coming from here, but here is the way I understand it.
VO2max is a measure of fitness level. Fitness level can be improved by keeping your heart rate at a certain rate for a certain amount of time (this is called a training effect), which means that VO2max should improve (since it is a measure of fitness level).
I think when you say about the conditions where heart rate and O2 uptake are in sync, your are talking about training effect (keeping your heart rate in a cardio zone for a certain amount of time), but you first have to get your heart rate up for that to happen. I have already said that the VO2max test on the Polar is just ballpark, but at least it's a ballpark.
My point is that either way you look at it, you are going to burn more calories because you have to first get your heart rate up to get your O2 uptake up, so if what you say about O2 uptake is true, it's kind of moot because increase in heart rate is still needed to increase the O2 uptake to the point of burning more calories.
Maybe some day they will come out with a device that measures VO2max during a workout, but until then my Polar V800 seems to be doing a pretty good job, and even though I hate that it calculates less calories than every other device I have tried to date, that also tells me that it is probably the most accurate, and I also have a $500.00 Garmin Fenix3 that just sits in my drawer now. It is pretty buggy and quite inconsistent. They release a fix for one thing and break 5 other things. It also has a VO2max function, and it was telling me that my VO2max was declining over the same time period that my V800 was telling me that it was improving.
But aside from all the devices and data, I went from having to lay down for an hour after walking just 1 mile at a 3 mph pace to being able to power walk 7.5 miles at a 4.5 mph pace in heart rate zones 4 & 5, and my resting heart rate has gone from the 80's to the 60's. This tells me that I have greatly improved my fitness level, and that is the real measure because I can feel it, and if I did not feel it, I would not know which device was giving me the correct information.
And yes... you have to step on the gas to make the car go faster, and yes... the speedometer is telling you that the car is going faster... and yes when you step on the gas, it activates the linkage which opens the throttle (heart rate) which allows more gas to get to the engine (O2 uptake) which makes the car go faster and burn more fuel (calories), but the point is... the car is still going faster, and you still have to open up the throttle... 0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »
I'm not criticizing, because I did write a lot of stuff, but you are continuing to miss the crucial point:
Heart rate is an INDICATOR of things going on in the body during exercise. It is not the CAUSE. A car speedometer does not make the car go faster--it is a gauge that lets you know the car is going faster.
"Calories burned" is not affected DIRECTLY by heart rate. It's just the opposite--Heart Rate is affected by calories burned (i.e. by oxygen uptake).
Heart rate is only significant as an indicator when oxygen uptake increases and under conditions in which heart rate and oxygen uptake are in sync.
Your Polar data doesn't prove anything except that heart rate is variable under different exercise conditions.
Calorie Burn numbers on HRMs are NOT actual measurements--a computer chip is programmed to react a certain way when it receives a certain input. It has absolutely no knowledge of the conditions or source of that input. You can strap your HRM to a heart rate simulator, leave in on there for an hour, and the watch would say you burned 600 calories. Things like fatigue, heat, dehydration, stress can all affect heart rate without affecting calories burned. That's why you get these wildly exaggerated claims for calories burned in hot yoga. Heart rates there can go up to the same level as someone running--the HRM numbers are through the roof, yet actual calorie burn is probably only 1/4 the number on the watch.
That's the fatal flaw in yours and many others observations: you are mistaking the odd mechanics of an HRM for actual physiology. The detailed instructions for how to make your HRM calorie readout more accurate are NOT because of human physiology--it's to make up for the challenges/shortcomings of HRM technology to estimate something (calories burned) that is not easy to do. (Not a knock against Polar--they do it as well as can be done--ultimately, though, there are limits as to how well it can be done--even with a V800, which is a very good HRM).
Let me take a side trip to the Polar "Fitness Test": The link between resting HR and aerobic fitness level is a tenuous one. For a beginner, you often do see noticeable changes in resting HR as fitness level improves, and the Polar test will capture that (I also think they do a more sophisticated analysis of the actual impulse as well--these guys have been obsessed with heart rate study for decades). However (and there is always a "however"), over time, the link between resting HR and VO2max becomes much less reliable. Someone who runs for 10 years and has a resting HR of 48 can stop running, gain 50 lbs, and after 2-3 years likely still have a resting HR in the mid 50s. Even though they can't run around the block, the Polar test will still tell them they are an athlete.
As to your remarks about "getting too rapped (sic) up in every little detail"--they sound a little odd coming from someone who has posted numerous replies to this topic and wears a $300+ sports watch. ;-)
Just kidding--no, most of this is not necessary to be successful with a fitness program. It's just good clean fun for anyone who is interested.
I am trying to understand where you're coming from here, but here is the way I understand it.
VO2max is a measure of fitness level. Fitness level can be improved by keeping your heart rate at a certain rate for a certain amount of time (this is called a training effect), which means that VO2max should improve (since it is a measure of fitness level).
I think when you say about the conditions where heart rate and O2 uptake are in sync, your are talking about training effect (keeping your heart rate in a cardio zone for a certain amount of time), but you first have to get your heart rate up for that to happen. I have already said that the VO2max test on the Polar is just ballpark, but at least it's a ballpark.
My point is that either way you look at it, you are going to burn more calories because you have to first get your heart rate up to get your O2 uptake up, so if what you say about O2 uptake is true, it's kind of moot because increase in heart rate is still needed to increase the O2 uptake to the point of burning more calories.
Maybe some day they will come out with a device that measures VO2max during a workout, but until then my Polar V800 seems to be doing a pretty good job, and even though I hate that it calculates less calories than every other device I have tried to date, that also tells me that it is probably the most accurate, and I also have a $500.00 Garmin Fenix3 that just sits in my drawer now. It is pretty buggy and quite inconsistent. They release a fix for one thing and break 5 other things. It also has a VO2max function, and it was telling me that my VO2max was declining over the same time period that my V800 was telling me that it was improving.
But aside from all the devices and data, I went from having to lay down for an hour after walking just 1 mile at a 3 mph pace to being able to power walk 7.5 miles at a 4.5 mph pace in heart rate zones 4 & 5, and my resting heart rate has gone from the 80's to the 60's. This tells me that I have greatly improved my fitness level, and that is the real measure because I can feel it, and if I did not feel it, I would not know which device was giving me the correct information.
And yes... you have to step on the gas to make the car go faster, and yes... the speedometer is telling you that the car is going faster... and yes when you step on the gas, it activates the linkage which opens the throttle (heart rate) which allows more gas to get to the engine (O2 uptake) which makes the car go faster and burn more fuel (calories), but the point is... the car is still going faster, and you still have to open up the throttle...
Again, I want to emphasize that is just kinda fun and games for exercise nerds. Almost no one has to care about this if they don't want to. The fact that you are exercising and improving your fitness level is the important thing.
Because heart rate is so visible, and because the HRM manufacturers want to sell you products, it is difficult for the average person to accept that, as I have mentioned before, that heart rate is a passive measurement and of secondary (at best) importance when it comes to exercise performance. You can also use perceived exertion and breathing awareness to gauge exercise effort -- sometimes more accurately than using an HRM.
When you say "Fitness level can be improved by keeping your heart rate at a certain rate for a certain amount of time", the answer is still technically "NO". Fitness level is improved by keeping your oxygen uptake at a certain level for a certain amount of time. Under certain conditions (steady-state cardio mostly), you can use heart rate as a GAUGE to indicate you are at the aerobic intensity level that you want. But the heart rate increase by itself does NOT lead to fitness improvement. If you sat in a sauna and the thermal stress caused your heart rate to increase 30-40 beats a minutes, you would not experience a training effect, nor would you significantly increase calorie burn. Conversely, if you were working out at a training workload (e.g. Running 6 mph), and you started taking a beta blocker medication, you would continue to experience a training effect, even though exercise heart rate was now 115 instead of 145 (and you would burn roughly the same calories).
"you are going to burn more calories because you have to first get your heart rate up to get your O2 uptake up"--Again, This is exactly the opposite of what happens. You "have" to get your O2 uptake up in order for heart rate to increase. Any time heart rate increases without an increase in O2 uptake, there is little/no aerobic training effect.
Your HRM can accurate reflect your improved performance when you use it to track cardiovascular training. The V800 also is programmed with a more more sophisticated HR analysis software (R-R monitoring) than the lower-level Polar products. So if you have reasonably accurate VO2 max and HR max numbers in there, it should give you helpful training feedback and as accurate a calorie burn during steady-state cardio as HRM technology allows.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »
I'm not criticizing, because I did write a lot of stuff, but you are continuing to miss the crucial point:
Heart rate is an INDICATOR of things going on in the body during exercise. It is not the CAUSE. A car speedometer does not make the car go faster--it is a gauge that lets you know the car is going faster.
"Calories burned" is not affected DIRECTLY by heart rate. It's just the opposite--Heart Rate is affected by calories burned (i.e. by oxygen uptake).
Heart rate is only significant as an indicator when oxygen uptake increases and under conditions in which heart rate and oxygen uptake are in sync.
Your Polar data doesn't prove anything except that heart rate is variable under different exercise conditions.
Calorie Burn numbers on HRMs are NOT actual measurements--a computer chip is programmed to react a certain way when it receives a certain input. It has absolutely no knowledge of the conditions or source of that input. You can strap your HRM to a heart rate simulator, leave in on there for an hour, and the watch would say you burned 600 calories. Things like fatigue, heat, dehydration, stress can all affect heart rate without affecting calories burned. That's why you get these wildly exaggerated claims for calories burned in hot yoga. Heart rates there can go up to the same level as someone running--the HRM numbers are through the roof, yet actual calorie burn is probably only 1/4 the number on the watch.
That's the fatal flaw in yours and many others observations: you are mistaking the odd mechanics of an HRM for actual physiology. The detailed instructions for how to make your HRM calorie readout more accurate are NOT because of human physiology--it's to make up for the challenges/shortcomings of HRM technology to estimate something (calories burned) that is not easy to do. (Not a knock against Polar--they do it as well as can be done--ultimately, though, there are limits as to how well it can be done--even with a V800, which is a very good HRM).
Let me take a side trip to the Polar "Fitness Test": The link between resting HR and aerobic fitness level is a tenuous one. For a beginner, you often do see noticeable changes in resting HR as fitness level improves, and the Polar test will capture that (I also think they do a more sophisticated analysis of the actual impulse as well--these guys have been obsessed with heart rate study for decades). However (and there is always a "however"), over time, the link between resting HR and VO2max becomes much less reliable. Someone who runs for 10 years and has a resting HR of 48 can stop running, gain 50 lbs, and after 2-3 years likely still have a resting HR in the mid 50s. Even though they can't run around the block, the Polar test will still tell them they are an athlete.
As to your remarks about "getting too rapped (sic) up in every little detail"--they sound a little odd coming from someone who has posted numerous replies to this topic and wears a $300+ sports watch. ;-)
Just kidding--no, most of this is not necessary to be successful with a fitness program. It's just good clean fun for anyone who is interested.
I am trying to understand where you're coming from here, but here is the way I understand it.
VO2max is a measure of fitness level. Fitness level can be improved by keeping your heart rate at a certain rate for a certain amount of time (this is called a training effect), which means that VO2max should improve (since it is a measure of fitness level).
I think when you say about the conditions where heart rate and O2 uptake are in sync, your are talking about training effect (keeping your heart rate in a cardio zone for a certain amount of time), but you first have to get your heart rate up for that to happen. I have already said that the VO2max test on the Polar is just ballpark, but at least it's a ballpark.
My point is that either way you look at it, you are going to burn more calories because you have to first get your heart rate up to get your O2 uptake up, so if what you say about O2 uptake is true, it's kind of moot because increase in heart rate is still needed to increase the O2 uptake to the point of burning more calories.
Maybe some day they will come out with a device that measures VO2max during a workout, but until then my Polar V800 seems to be doing a pretty good job, and even though I hate that it calculates less calories than every other device I have tried to date, that also tells me that it is probably the most accurate, and I also have a $500.00 Garmin Fenix3 that just sits in my drawer now. It is pretty buggy and quite inconsistent. They release a fix for one thing and break 5 other things. It also has a VO2max function, and it was telling me that my VO2max was declining over the same time period that my V800 was telling me that it was improving.
But aside from all the devices and data, I went from having to lay down for an hour after walking just 1 mile at a 3 mph pace to being able to power walk 7.5 miles at a 4.5 mph pace in heart rate zones 4 & 5, and my resting heart rate has gone from the 80's to the 60's. This tells me that I have greatly improved my fitness level, and that is the real measure because I can feel it, and if I did not feel it, I would not know which device was giving me the correct information.
And yes... you have to step on the gas to make the car go faster, and yes... the speedometer is telling you that the car is going faster... and yes when you step on the gas, it activates the linkage which opens the throttle (heart rate) which allows more gas to get to the engine (O2 uptake) which makes the car go faster and burn more fuel (calories), but the point is... the car is still going faster, and you still have to open up the throttle...
@bcalvanese: I am providing a link for your review. Vo2 max and smoking, some interesting stuff.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080014280.pdf
So, if you went from smoking 60 cigarettes down to say 3 it may have impacted your Vo2 max. In terms of overall fitness, since you were a military fitness instructor, and you have memory of doing the PT test where you could do 70 push ups, 70 sit ups, and the 2 mile run in 14 minutes back in the day, you could also use these standards to help determine your current level of fitness. I'm pretty certain someone confirmed the fitness test provides info up to age 51 so it would give you another set of markers to help determine your fitness level. I think this is information you provided in various threads over the last couple of days. It is sort fun to 'age date' a performance of fitness like military fitness test. In terms of v02 max and ball parking, yes, it is a ballpark. I did find my old Polar (2002 maybe?!?) information on V02 max and yes indeed it aligns with your comment up thread. I wonder what you could do to improve the number?
@adzak I never really tire of reading your information so thanks for contributing. Somewhere I read using a HR monitor for training is the best use and least popular among the sellers/manufacturers. Maybe it was in a thread here or a Fitzgerald book on running and training. Either way, I think these discussions can help people understand you can figure out your 'zone' simply by your breathing exertion when training or spend $500 on a device. I have a retro Garmin 220 (I think my wife paid $90 for me) so it isn't like devices aren't a heck of lot more fun then "I couldn't say the national anthem during a run, what zone is that again?"
0 -
Again, I want to emphasize that is just kinda fun and games for exercise nerds. Almost no one has to care about this if they don't want to. The fact that you are exercising and improving your fitness level is the important thing.
Because heart rate is so visible, and because the HRM manufacturers want to sell you products, it is difficult for the average person to accept that, as I have mentioned before, that heart rate is a passive measurement and of secondary (at best) importance when it comes to exercise performance. You can also use perceived exertion and breathing awareness to gauge exercise effort -- sometimes more accurately than using an HRM.
When you say "Fitness level can be improved by keeping your heart rate at a certain rate for a certain amount of time", the answer is still technically "NO". Fitness level is improved by keeping your oxygen uptake at a certain level for a certain amount of time. Under certain conditions (steady-state cardio mostly), you can use heart rate as a GAUGE to indicate you are at the aerobic intensity level that you want. But the heart rate increase by itself does NOT lead to fitness improvement. If you sat in a sauna and the thermal stress caused your heart rate to increase 30-40 beats a minutes, you would not experience a training effect, nor would you significantly increase calorie burn. Conversely, if you were working out at a training workload (e.g. Running 6 mph), and you started taking a beta blocker medication, you would continue to experience a training effect, even though exercise heart rate was now 115 instead of 145 (and you would burn roughly the same calories).
I focused in on this for ease of discussion. A lot of what you are saying makes absolutely sense. The problem is when you say that a "passive measurement" is not important and is secondary at best. Then later on hidden unless you have the patience to read it, you say "heart rate by itself does NOT lead to fitness improvement". The impatient reader focuses on what you bolded when in truth the by itself statement is also important.
You are looking at it purely from a technical point of view and missing the interaction of the other variables. Just because they are ignored, it doesnt mean that oxygen intake is not correlated. The same with heart rate except the correlation is weaker but that doesnt mean it cant be important if oxygen intake is ignored.
As an example, I have been on a beta blocker that stopped my heart rate from going over 118 no matter how hard I tried. As a prior college athlete, I didnt care what the doctor said, I just didnt feel the same training effect whether or not I had it. I got off the beta-blocker and started working on maintaining my heart rate at 133 (a point at which I did not feel a difference in my heart rythms). I exercised at that level for months and for my next test, I passed my EKG with flying colors. Yes, maybe my oxygen uptake was better but definitely the mechanics of how my heart muscle worked were better. As my heart started to work better under stress, and I felt better about my exercise performance, then I could start increasing my level of performance to once again hit maxes. I couldnt have done that without using HR gauge. Secondary maybe, unimportant no.
I do agree though that there are instances where my HR reading may not be telling a truthful story - such as when I row. Based on CICO and subsequent weight loss, I believe that I have a much lower HR reading than my calorie burn. Cant prove it but yes, you cant always take HR as a direct reflection of calorie burn.0 -
This is fun, but I still think you are overcomplicating things here.
Again, I want to emphasize that is just kinda fun and games for exercise nerds. Almost no one has to care about this if they don't want to. The fact that you are exercising and improving your fitness level is the important thing.
If heart rate is a measure of the result (O2 uptake) from exercise, and can be measured with a HRM, why would it not be an important tool?
Because heart rate is so visible, and because the HRM manufacturers want to sell you products, it is difficult for the average person to accept that, as I have mentioned before, that heart rate is a passive measurement and of secondary (at best) importance when it comes to exercise performance. You can also use perceived exertion and breathing awareness to gauge exercise effort -- sometimes more accurately than using an HRM.
I'm only talking about exercise here, so lets just remove all of the other factors that would raise a persons heart rate. If what you say about heart rate increase being a result of O2 uptake is true, and heart rate can be easily measured, and a VO2max ballpark can be used in conjunction with age, weight, heart rate, resting heart rate, and max heart rate, why would that not give a fairly accurate calorie burn?
When you say "Fitness level can be improved by keeping your heart rate at a certain rate for a certain amount of time", the answer is still technically "NO". Fitness level is improved by keeping your oxygen uptake at a certain level for a certain amount of time. Under certain conditions (steady-state cardio mostly), you can use heart rate as a GAUGE to indicate you are at the aerobic intensity level that you want. But the heart rate increase by itself does NOT lead to fitness improvement. If you sat in a sauna and the thermal stress caused your heart rate to increase 30-40 beats a minutes, you would not experience a training effect, nor would you significantly increase calorie burn. Conversely, if you were working out at a training workload (e.g. Running 6 mph), and you started taking a beta blocker medication, you would continue to experience a training effect, even though exercise heart rate was now 115 instead of 145 (and you would burn roughly the same calories).
Also a comment in one of your pervious posts about me using the basics of fitness yet owning a V800. Aside from the VO2max setting it is the basics. Age, height, weight, resting heart rate, and max heart rate. I didn't know about VO2max until I got the device, and it said to do the test to get more accurate calories burned.
Again, we are talking about exercise, and again, if you are exercising and raising your O2 uptake which is raising your heart rate, and you have a device that knows your VO2max, age, RHR, MHR, and HR, why would you not get a fairly accurate calories burned?
"you are going to burn more calories because you have to first get your heart rate up to get your O2 uptake up"--Again, This is exactly the opposite of what happens. You "have" to get your O2 uptake up in order for heart rate to increase. Any time heart rate increases without an increase in O2 uptake, there is little/no aerobic training effect.
Your HRM can accurate reflect your improved performance when you use it to track cardiovascular training. The V800 also is programmed with a more more sophisticated HR analysis software (R-R monitoring) than the lower-level Polar products. So if you have reasonably accurate VO2 max and HR max numbers in there, it should give you helpful training feedback and as accurate a calorie burn during steady-state cardio as HRM technology allows.
Yes, I did play around with the other tests as well, and actually got my MHR from a stress test that I had done a while back. Turns out my MHR was only 1 beat away from the 220 - age method. I'm 58 and my MHR was 163.
I could have done this the old fashioned way and got the same results. I could have taken my HR during workouts and kept records of HR and the time I stayed at that heart rate, but these devices take all the guess work out and keep the records for you so you can focus more on the workouts themselves.
My V800 even tells me how long I was in each zone and tells me the training benefit (recovery, basic, steady state, tempo, and maximum), and it even has a recovery status that tells me when I can do my next extreme workout and when I should do recovery workouts, and always keeps the current state.
The point is... if you get your heart rate into one of the cardio zones (through exercise) and keep it there for about 30 minutes or more, you will get a training effect and burn calories. And if you do that at least 3 times per week, you will increase your cardio fitness.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