Heart rate = amount of calories burnt?

daniellockridge

chloehallam180894 wrote: »

That's annoying! It doesn't matter how hard I work it seems to stay at 120-130! Before I was on them it was 170-180

That's probably the best zone for weight loss. I've researched and found that they call that the "fat loss zone" because you burn more fat cals that way. The only problem is it burns cals slower so you have to workout for longer periods of time. For example: Bob sprints for 5 min his heart rate is about 170 for that Amy of time. Bob burns 100cals. Bob rides his bicycle for 5 min his heart rate is about 130, Bob burned 40 cals riding his bike... But the good thing is you're burning the cals that you see if that makes sense.

Azdak

CattOfTheGarage wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

To throw more information into the mix, the people who burn the most calories are often the people who have the lowest heart rates while doing it. Many professional cyclists have resting heart rates in the 40's and even when they are putting out power that seems impossible to most of us, their heart rates don't go excessively high.

Now beta blockers won't do that for you. It is more like it will put a limit on how much you can exert yourself.

It's not a hard limit either, I've been on them for a couple of years now and they don't limit my exertion noticeably. For the first few months I'd feel weird if I exerted myself, I think because the heart rate wasn't elevating enough, but I adapted and now feel normal and can do as much as before.

Beta blockers don't affect my weight loss. They just stop the fight/flight reaction being triggered constantly for no reason. When that's happening you are not burning extra calories - you're like car revving in neutral.

Heart rate is not a direct indicator of calorie burn, it's related, but the relation is not simple. At the end of the day, you burn energy by doing stuff, not by achieving a certain heart rate.

Heart Rate is the speedometer, not the engine.