Heart rate monitor accurate?

kaypeesee19

I bought a sportline heart rate monitor (one without chest strap) the other day and today I did day 1 week 1 of couch to 5k. You run for 1 minute and walk for a minute and half and repeat 8 more times. I ran an average of 10 minutes per mile and walked an average of 16 minutes per mile. The heart rate monitor says that I burned 506 calories in 35 minutes. I'm only 5 feet tall and 155 pounds and I was just thinking that this seems to high? Do you think this sounds accurate or is my heart rate moniter wrong? 500 calories seems like a lot for just a half hour workout to me.

MoreBean13

What is your overall average speed?

No, a HR monitor, especially without a chest strap, cannot give you accurate calorie burns. Without a chest strap it's just taking sample points and extrapolating a huge amount of assumptive information to give you a bogus number.

That said, 500 cals if you were mostly running for 35 minutes doesn't sound ridiculous to me, but it sounds like you were walking more than running. At your weight, I walked at around 100 cals/mile and run at around 120 cals/mile, to give you a little perspective on the numbers..

DavPul

What is your overall average speed?

No, a HR monitor, especially without a chest strap, cannot give you accurate calorie burns. Without a chest strap it's just taking sample points and extrapolating a huge amount of assumptive information to give you a bogus number.

That said, 500 cals if you were mostly running for 35 minutes doesn't sound ridiculous to me, but it sounds like you were walking more than running. At your weight, I walked at around 100 cals/mile and run at around 120 cals/mile, to give you a little perspective on the numbers..

BEANSY!!!

MoreBean13

What is your overall average speed?

No, a HR monitor, especially without a chest strap, cannot give you accurate calorie burns. Without a chest strap it's just taking sample points and extrapolating a huge amount of assumptive information to give you a bogus number.

That said, 500 cals if you were mostly running for 35 minutes doesn't sound ridiculous to me, but it sounds like you were walking more than running. At your weight, I walked at around 100 cals/mile and run at around 120 cals/mile, to give you a little perspective on the numbers..

BEANSY!!!

KISSES!

ghost15026

You're engaging in HIIT. Bad news is that no HRM is going to give you an accurate read based on what you're doing. High Intensity Interval Training results can't be measured any reliable way by the layman. The good news is, despite deceptively low HRM/calorie numbers, it's incredibly effective (some say 6x for body fat loss). The results you'll see are in superior fat loss but you can't measure it by calories (unfortunately).

http://www.simplyshredded.com/fit-with-hiit-science-is-dropping-the-hammer-on-endless-bouts-of-steady-state-cardio.html

HIIT won't create nice calorie figures during the workout itself. HIIT is effective due to the Afterburn effect. Essentially, a highly increased metabolism where your body continues to burn fat calories long after the workout has ended. As long as 3 days - basically your body just keeps going. Thus, the actual workout calories are meaningless in HIIT. It's the Afterburn calories that come for the next day or three that matter.

Yes, other types of training can increase metabolism. However, HIIT is just off the charts in comparison. I quote:

"The most recent study, out of Australia, reported that a group of females who followed a 20-minute HIIT program consisting of eight-second sprints followed by 12 seconds of rest lost an amazing six times more bodyfat than a group that followed a 40-minute cardio program performed at a constant intensity of 60% MHR."

A highly popular (and insanely intense) training regimen that follows HIIT is called Tabata. http://tabatatraining.org/

MoreBean13

You're engaging in HIIT. Bad news is that no HRM is going to give you an accurate read based on what you're doing. High Intensity Interval Training results can't be measured any reliable way by the layman. The good news is, despite deceptively low HRM/calorie numbers, it's incredibly effective (some say 6x for body fat loss). The results you'll see are in superior fat loss but you can't measure it by calories (unfortunately).

http://www.simplyshredded.com/fit-with-hiit-science-is-dropping-the-hammer-on-endless-bouts-of-steady-state-cardio.html

HIIT won't create nice calorie figures during the workout itself. HIIT is effective due to the Afterburn effect. Essentially, a highly increased metabolism where your body continues to burn fat calories long after the workout has ended. As long as 3 days - basically your body just keeps going. Thus, the actual workout calories are meaningless in HIIT. It's the Afterburn calories that come for the next day or three that matter.

Yes, other types of training can increase metabolism. However, HIIT is just off the charts in comparison. I quote:

"The most recent study, out of Australia, reported that a group of females who followed a 20-minute HIIT program consisting of eight-second sprints followed by 12 seconds of rest lost an amazing six times more bodyfat than a group that followed a 40-minute cardio program performed at a constant intensity of 60% MHR."

A highly popular (and insanely intense) training regimen that follows HIIT is called Tabata. http://tabatatraining.org/

16min/mile and 10min/mile 1-1.5 minute intervals is not HIIT.

ghost15026

You're right, my bad - I don't even remember reading that. Should have been sleeping instead of posting