Will a heart rate monitor tell me exactly how i burn
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I wear a Charge HR 2 and have been using it (or the Charge HR) since July of 2015 and eating my calories back.
I'm not sure if I qualify exactly as the type of person that you're looking for because I do run just about every day. I average about 18,000 steps a day because I tend to do a lot of walking besides running and I do eat all my calories back. It's never been a problem for me.
I completely believe that they're inaccurate for some people, but my results show that it's accurate for me.
Thank you. It makes no sense to me that people would spend hundreds of dollars on a HR monitor to lose weight/count calories if it only served as a shiny watch..3 -
It depends on the specifics about how good people are about counting their calories and what they are using their HRM for and what HRM they use. I'm pretty religious about logging my food and I weigh whenever I can. I use my HRM to record my exercise when I go for a run or a long walk with my dog. I eat back all my exercise calories. Based on what I'm doing, my weight loss has mirrored EXACTLY what I'd expect to the decimal point. My TDEE is about 2300 for a sedentary lifestyle. I try to average 1,500 NET a day. When I started that equated to 1.8 lbs per week. Now that equates to 1.6 lbs/week.
So to answer your question @Christine_72 I believe if you use the tools as intended then you will get the results as expected.
2 -
And if they were so pathetically inaccurate, people would be piling on the pounds eating back their exercise calories as opposed to losing/maintaining trusting their devices.2
-
Christine_72 wrote: »I've asked this before, but I'll ask again...
Those people who wear a wrist based HR monitor such as the fitbit HR/charge 2 who only walk for exercise or do the odd jog, and say that it is incredibly accurate with the calorie burn so they are able to eat all/most of the calories fitbit awards them back, are either delusional or just got lucky??
I read these stories on here most everyday, and i also read that HR monitors are useless for calculating calorie burns . Who's right, who's wrong???
I've had a Fenix 3 and then a Fenix 3 HR. The first one did a great job of my walking calories. Maybe the Fitbit devices you describe don't even take HR into account. Without seeing the code, we don't know.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I wear a Charge HR 2 and have been using it (or the Charge HR) since July of 2015 and eating my calories back.
I'm not sure if I qualify exactly as the type of person that you're looking for because I do run just about every day. I average about 18,000 steps a day because I tend to do a lot of walking besides running and I do eat all my calories back. It's never been a problem for me.
I completely believe that they're inaccurate for some people, but my results show that it's accurate for me.
Thank you. It makes no sense to me that people would spend hundreds of dollars on a HR monitor to lose weight/count calories if it only served as a shiny watch..
It doesn't matter sense to me that people would collectively spend millions of dollars on apple cider vinegar to lose weight, but there you have it.5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I wear a Charge HR 2 and have been using it (or the Charge HR) since July of 2015 and eating my calories back.
I'm not sure if I qualify exactly as the type of person that you're looking for because I do run just about every day. I average about 18,000 steps a day because I tend to do a lot of walking besides running and I do eat all my calories back. It's never been a problem for me.
I completely believe that they're inaccurate for some people, but my results show that it's accurate for me.
Thank you. It makes no sense to me that people would spend hundreds of dollars on a HR monitor to lose weight/count calories if it only served as a shiny watch..
It doesn't matter sense to me that people would collectively spend millions of dollars on apple cider vinegar to lose weight, but there you have it.
Bam!
0 -
@Christine_72Christine_72 wrote: »And if they were so pathetically inaccurate, people would be piling on the pounds eating back their exercise calories as opposed to losing/maintaining trusting their devices.
A lot of people don't do much exercise so accuracy is relatively unimportant.
A lot of people's food logging is pretty useless too (inaccurate isn't just one way).
A lot of people have the common sense to adjust their calorie goal (or eating) based on actual results.
A lot of people choose a dreadfully inappropriate fast rate of loss so maybe inaccurate exercise estimates may save them from harm.
My experience with HRMs....
Started out fairly fit and believed my basic Polar FT7 estimates because I didn't know any better, could get 900 calories burns (allegedly!) from an extreme hour of exercise. I now know that was both gross calories and badly over-exaggerated. Remember I was already fit with a fairly low exercise HR compared to most people starting out on their fitness "journey".
But I adjusted my calorie goal to achieve my chosen 1lb/week rate - that would have corrected both my lazy food logging and exercise calories.
Switched to a more sophisticated FT60 which you can calibrate yourself - after sport science lab testing I knew my VO2 max and max HR. Under suitable conditions (steady state cardio effectively) it was accurate enough to match a power meter almost perfectly. Under imperfect conditions (intervals or getting too hot) it could be out by 20%.
But then discovered the power meter used a very strange algorithm which again was attempting to estimate gross calories not net calories. When I corrected that I found that despite being far fitter than when I started out my true maximum (net) calories per hour is about 720. Despite all this, and doing far more hours of training than most, I managed my weight successfully both when losing and when maintaining.
Consistency and adjusting based on results fixes most problems!
Unless someone presents some evidence of corroborating their HRM calorie estimate beyond simple weight management I would always assume the HRM numbers are suspect. Usable in many cases, but still suspect.
4 -
I’m not sure how exact they are, or what the best ones are, but it’s better than not knowing. I don’t worry about it much because I’m not exercising enough to need to worry about it really.
However, when my husband was doing P90X and Insanity, he started looking gaunt. I told him he needed an activity tracker becuase there were nights when he was hungry and would push through it, and that was really the wrong thing to do.
Then, he finally got one, and started logging on MFP and said, OMG - I have room to eat some more - which is good ‘cause I’m HUNG-RY! LOL1 -
There is a dated thread back to August. So this past month and previous months data would have have given me enough data to figure out my daily calories burned via calories consumed, exercise calories and rate of loss by now.
OP and if you wanna use a formula for walking you can use this:
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
A formula backed by scientific study, yet people push the "woo button. The truth seems to be unpopular at times.
But it remains a truth backed by science.
2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I've asked this before, but I'll ask again...
Those people who wear a wrist based HR monitor such as the fitbit HR/charge 2 who only walk for exercise or do the odd jog, and say that it is incredibly accurate with the calorie burn so they are able to eat all/most of the calories fitbit awards them back, are either delusional or just got lucky??
I don't think I did a great job of answering this, so I'll try again.
If the exercise you do is walking, or running, it's very easy to calculate from mass over distance and always be in the right ballpark. It isn't exact like surgery, but weight loss isn't a linear process, either, and this is within everybody's allowable tolerance.
That explains how all these people who only walk for exercise can eat their calories and stay on track, they're not delusional or lucky, they're doing something very common and pretty well understood.
Heart rate doesn't have to be part of the calculation. Lots of people have older Fitbits without HRMs in them, and eat all their walking calories back and lose weight at the expected pace. Without HRMs.2 -
robertw486 wrote: »There is a dated thread back to August. So this past month and previous months data would have have given me enough data to figure out my daily calories burned via calories consumed, exercise calories and rate of loss by now.
OP and if you wanna use a formula for walking you can use this:
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
A formula backed by scientific study, yet people push the "woo button. The truth seems to be unpopular at times.
But it remains a truth backed by science.
Robert you surprise me.
It is not backed by anything my friend, other than a runner world article and someone pulling numbers out of their **kitten**.
***It does not take walking speed or incline into account*** and as a result it CANOT be anything other than a generic approximation that is surpassed by the accuracy of MFP's own database.
Feel free to provide some evidence that the formula is somehow superior to researched and published MET values that take both speed and incline into account ...
ETA: net vs gross calories have to be taken into account. MET values provide gross burns, not just additional exercise burns.
ETA: in terms of the general discussion, for many people (something like 70%.i believe I saw a while back and more so men than women) their burn during aerobic activity (not anaerobic; not pre aerobic threshold) will correlate very well with calories burned. So no, the HRM will not "measure" calories. But it may help provide a better estimate, maybe, depending on type of activity.
As always accept the tools and estimates and adjust based on consistent logging and trending weight results.6 -
robertw486 wrote: »There is a dated thread back to August. So this past month and previous months data would have have given me enough data to figure out my daily calories burned via calories consumed, exercise calories and rate of loss by now.
OP and if you wanna use a formula for walking you can use this:
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
A formula backed by scientific study, yet people push the "woo button. The truth seems to be unpopular at times.
But it remains a truth backed by science.
Robert you surprise me.
It is not backed by anything my friend, other than a runner world article and someone pulling numbers out of their **kitten**.
***It does not take walking speed or incline into account*** and as a result it CANOT be anything other than a generic approximation that is surpassed by the accuracy of MFP's own database.
Feel free to provide some evidence that the formula is somehow superior to researched and published MET values that take both speed and incline into account ...
ETA: net vs gross calories have to be taken into account. MET values provide gross burns, not just additional exercise burns.
ETA: in terms of the general discussion, for many people (something like 70%.i believe I saw a while back and more so men than women) their burn during aerobic activity (not anaerobic; not pre aerobic threshold) will correlate very well with calories burned. So no, the HRM will not "measure" calories. But it may help provide a better estimate, maybe, depending on type of activity.
As always accept the tools and estimates and adjust based on consistent logging and trending weight results.
Those formulas are not made up at random. They are based on energy prediction equations. They have accuracy issues, as do any predictions, but they are reasonble and quick.
Within the accepted speeds for walking (2mph-4.2 mph) and the accepted speeds for running (5.0 mph +), speed has only a minimum effect on CALORIES PER MILE. The increased RATE of burn from the faster speed is offset by the shorter time it takes to complete the distance. So, when looking at distance, walking speed vs walking speed, and running speed vs running speed, will result in roughly equal calories (but not walking speed vs running speed). If the comparison was RATE of burn per unit time, then, yes, speed would have to be taken into consideration. But it’s not, so it doesn’t.
The formulas are designed for estimating walking/running “on the ground” rather than on a treadmill. When walking outdoors, incline cannot be considered with any certainty, since one cannot accurately measure incline, and because terrain varies. So it is completely disingenuous to compare an ACSM equation (which calculates speed and incline separately) designed for controlled situations (e.g. lab or machine) with an equation designed for regular outdoor walking. That’s an apples to oranges comparison. Any published “table” for measuring outdoor walking on varied terrain is a vague estimate at best.
HRMs can provide reasonable (15%-20% error) estimates during steady state aerobic exercise, but only under certain conditions. Things like: estimated vs actual HRmax, estimated vs actual VO2 max, thermal stress, cardiovascular drift, stress, fatigue, medication, exercise modality, can all affect estimated calorie burn from an HRM and significantly increase that 15%-20% error.
There are times when HRMs can provide a decent estimate of calories, but for a lot of the time, the estimates can be way off and no more accurate than a rough guess.1 -
robertw486 wrote: »There is a dated thread back to August. So this past month and previous months data would have have given me enough data to figure out my daily calories burned via calories consumed, exercise calories and rate of loss by now.
OP and if you wanna use a formula for walking you can use this:
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)
A formula backed by scientific study, yet people push the "woo button. The truth seems to be unpopular at times.
But it remains a truth backed by science.
Robert you surprise me.
It is not backed by anything my friend, other than a runner world article and someone pulling numbers out of their **kitten**.
***It does not take walking speed or incline into account*** and as a result it CANOT be anything other than a generic approximation that is surpassed by the accuracy of MFP's own database.
Feel free to provide some evidence that the formula is somehow superior to researched and published MET values that take both speed and incline into account ...
ETA: net vs gross calories have to be taken into account. MET values provide gross burns, not just additional exercise burns.
ETA: in terms of the general discussion, for many people (something like 70%.i believe I saw a while back and more so men than women) their burn during aerobic activity (not anaerobic; not pre aerobic threshold) will correlate very well with calories burned. So no, the HRM will not "measure" calories. But it may help provide a better estimate, maybe, depending on type of activity.
As always accept the tools and estimates and adjust based on consistent logging and trending weight results.
To obtain the sources of information from said article, all one has to do is actually read it and search the source...
The Runners World article states in part the following, bolded for emphasis:
"I was still gathering my resources for a retort when a new article crossed my desk, and changed my cosmos. In "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," published last December in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men and 12 women while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and just 88 while walking; the women burned 105 and 74. (The men burned more than the women because they weighed more.)"
The same source is shown on the graph in the Runners World article. After finding that nugget of information, a simple search will lead to the actual source, which is this study.
Actually reading the study or abstract can help people find online calculators or formulas that provide the best prediction equations. METs have long ago been proven to be very generalized, and there are loads of studies pointing out the flaws and errors within the published MET values as compared to actual groups of people of varied age, weight, and sex.1 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »It depends on the specifics about how good people are about counting their calories and what they are using their HRM for and what HRM they use. I'm pretty religious about logging my food and I weigh whenever I can. I use my HRM to record my exercise when I go for a run or a long walk with my dog. I eat back all my exercise calories. Based on what I'm doing, my weight loss has mirrored EXACTLY what I'd expect to the decimal point. My TDEE is about 2300 for a sedentary lifestyle. I try to average 1,500 NET a day. When I started that equated to 1.8 lbs per week. Now that equates to 1.6 lbs/week.
So to answer your question @Christine_72 I believe if you use the tools as intended then you will get the results as expected.
could you share how to get started doing all these calculations?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions