Heart rate monitor and calorie burn?
jclawst
Posts: 45 Member
o I got the UA healthbox today and I used the heart rate band for the last 64 minutes of my workout and stretching exercises (cardio day). It said I burnt just over 1000 calories. I had a good pace and a good sweat on the whole time almost.
I’m wondering how accurate the heart rate tracker and wristband are for actually assessing how many calories have actually been burned off. If it’s burned off what it says, then I’m at a huge calorie deficit and will need to up my calorie intake to avoid my body panicking and lowering my metabolism and start saving the fat.
I’m wondering how accurate the heart rate tracker and wristband are for actually assessing how many calories have actually been burned off. If it’s burned off what it says, then I’m at a huge calorie deficit and will need to up my calorie intake to avoid my body panicking and lowering my metabolism and start saving the fat.
0
Replies
-
What was the workout?0
-
1000 cals in an hour? Unlikely.2
-
1000 calories in an hour?
Maybe if you weigh around 250 pounds and ran 6-7 miles in that hour.1 -
It may be a good indicator during the workout, but not for the stretching portion, as your HR is elevated from the earlier work not the stretching. Keep in mind that HR does not lead to calorie burn, the equation in the watch assumes work done using HR as a proxy. HRM's are pretty good at estimating calorie burns during steady state cardio only, and if your Max HR matches what is in the calculation 220-age, or one you inputted into the device.
For anything other than steady state cardio, HRMs will not be a good estimate at all.
For 64 minutes of work, I would typically guess 500- 800 cals, depending on the exercise and intensity. 1000 seems really high unless you are, as another poster stated well over 250 lbs.1 -
It depends on your weight and exercise your doing. I ride my stationary bike 70 minutes a day on uphill, level 10 with a 16.4-18.0 MPH and I burn 830-845, when I ride my regular bike for 60 minutes including stops and lights, I average 675-800 calories burned.0
-
Seconding the opinion that the nature of the activity and the environment will distort HR-based calorie estimates, possibly severely. And if the device doesn't know your personal accurate HR range (measured AM resting to measured max), it will be materially less accurate. (Age based HRmax formulas can be substantially off.)
Lots of things raise HR without burning extra calories: Hot environment, strain (as in weight training), emotional reactions, dehydration, suboptimal breathing patterns, and more.
Fitness level influences accuracy. It's generally incorrect to think that a fit person burns materially fewer calories doing activity X for Y time at Z intensity compared to an unfit person of the same size/age/etc. However, the fit person will typically do that activity at a lower heart rate, so the HRM will produce a lower calorie estimate.
The activity type matters because things with a strength component tend to elevate heart rate partly because of strain; things with an interval component tend to distort estimates because HR in the rest/easy phases doesn't drop as far/fast as the actual calorie burn of the workload does - in this sense, it could be slightly less inaccurate for a fit person because their HR will drop quicker during the easy phases.
Use alternate calorie estimates as a cross-check on whatever the HRM says (machine estimates, MFP database or other MET-oriented estimator, sport-specific estimator, etc.). Pick whichever estimate is lowest. Even then, the "eat back 50% to start" rule might be sensible.1 -
o I got the UA healthbox today and I used the heart rate band for the last 64 minutes of my workout and stretching exercises (cardio day). It said I burnt just over 1000 calories. I had a good pace and a good sweat on the whole time almost.
I’m wondering how accurate the heart rate tracker and wristband are for actually assessing how many calories have actually been burned off. If it’s burned off what it says, then I’m at a huge calorie deficit and will need to up my calorie intake to avoid my body panicking and lowering my metabolism and start saving the fat.
It depends on the workout for me. I use a HRM strap for all my workouts. For running it's very accurate for me, heck it gives me less calories for a run than MFP does if I enter a run manually. But, when doing circuit training, which consists of circuits of different exercises with little or no rest between muscle groups, it tends to overestimate by at least 20%. Sure, my heart rate gets high, but it also goes lower when resting between sets even for a few seconds. So if it's more steady state I guess you could say it's accurate for me anyway. I go for about 110 minutes most workouts, just under 2 hours, and burn is around 1000-1100 calories. That's circuit training for 45 minutes followed by a run for about 22-24 minutes, then another 45 minutes of body weight circuit training. I figure only about 900ish calories of that is possibly accurate at my height/weight/fitness level.0 -
My personal experience with UA is they over estimate everything wildly. I've used UA record and mapmyfitness. For 3.5 mile dog walk they had me burning over 800 cals. For 1 hr weight lifting they have burning from 450 to 600. I even burnt 300 cal in a 30 min yoga session. So my opinion of UA and their algorithms is not very good.
I like the software and connectibility but, their calorie estimations are way off. Note : I use a wristbased HRM so I don't have the accuracy of a chest based one. But still I feel like there is something majorly wrong with UA calorie algorithms.1 -
mutantspicy wrote: »My personal experience with UA is they over estimate everything wildly. I've used UA record and mapmyfitness. For 3.5 mile dog walk they had me burning over 800 cals. For 1 hr weight lifting they have burning from 450 to 600. I even burnt 300 cal in a 30 min yoga session. So my opinion of UA and their algorithms is not very good.
I like the software and connectibility but, their calorie estimations are way off.
I've used Endomondo (also owned by UA), and with the exceptions I listed above it's been more accurate for me. You can see it adjust the burns with average HR over time. For instance, if you go for 30 minutes at 150bpm doing a run and end up with 350 calories burned, then meander around for another 30 minutes and let your HR go down to resting it'll drop those calories as it goes, so you will end up with 400ish or 450 instead of 700. The other apps seemed to just give me so many calories per minute and pretty much ignored heart rate.0 -
I gotta believe all of these things are based on formulas that are derived from population studies, under the covers, so will have all the statistical weaknesses of estimates of that type. If so, any given device may be closer for some people and further away for others, for reasons that have nothing to do with how "good" the device/algorithms are . . . on top of any variation attributable to the algorithmic/research "goodness" of that device. Just a guess, though.0
-
TavistockToad wrote: »What was the workout?
The workout was elliptical trainer for 33 minutes followed by stretching. Prior to actually switching the app on, I had already done 20 minutes on stationary bike, 20 minutes walking at sp 3.4 incline lvl2 on treadmill.1000 calories in an hour?
Maybe if you weigh around 250 pounds and ran 6-7 miles in that hour.
I currently weighed in this morning at 273lbs. Down from 296 on May 8, 2018
1 -
I gotta believe all of these things are based on formulas that are derived from population studies, under the covers, so will have all the statistical weaknesses of estimates of that type. If so, any given device may be closer for some people and further away for others, for reasons that have nothing to do with how "good" the device/algorithms are . . . on top of any variation attributable to the algorithmic/research "goodness" of that device. Just a guess, though.
You're right, it's all based on best estimate based on the average person. That includes devices, apps, and even MFP's manual entries for exercise. Only way to know for sure how accurate your setup may be is to use the same hardware/software/app combo over a long period of months, monitor your loss or gain based on what you estimate it should be. If it's not as much loss, then it's overestimating, adjust as necessary. If your loss increases beyond what you expected then adjust as necessary the other way. Takes months to know how accurate your setup may be for you, and it's always going to be different for someone else. Then.. as you lose weight and become more fit.. guess what.. the actual burns change. It's a moving target, best you can do is be consistent with exercise, and be consistent with what you believe is accurate for your apps/devices. MFP allows you to adjust your entries even after an app auto-enters a workout for you. I do it every day.
You'll see a lot of people say "my device is better because....". Honestly, use what you like and what works for you. Spent $400 on a nice smart watch.. use it. Don't let anyone tell you it sucks at estimating calories. Simply watch your goals and your weight loss/gain trends, and adjust those calorie burns how you need in order for them to be accurate over time. Just my .02.
Enjoy yourself. 3 -
Two or three times reality.0
-
It depends on your weight and exercise your doing. I ride my stationary bike 70 minutes a day on uphill, level 10 with a 16.4-18.0 MPH and I burn 830-845, when I ride my regular bike for 60 minutes including stops and lights, I average 675-800 calories burned.
You should be racing of you can do 222 watts for an hour. 2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »It depends on your weight and exercise your doing. I ride my stationary bike 70 minutes a day on uphill, level 10 with a 16.4-18.0 MPH and I burn 830-845, when I ride my regular bike for 60 minutes including stops and lights, I average 675-800 calories burned.
You should be racing of you can do 222 watts for an hour.
I wish I had a way to show you my regular bike riding, however here is a screen of my exercise bike.
1 -
It depends on your weight and exercise your doing. I ride my stationary bike 70 minutes a day on uphill, level 10 with a 16.4-18.0 MPH and I burn 830-845, when I ride my regular bike for 60 minutes including stops and lights, I average 675-800 calories burned.
I have a female friend who produces less power than your supposed calorie burns would indicate - she has just qualified for the world championships after averaging 23mph for 80 miles.
Remember that a stationary bike does zero MPH and travels no distance.
If it measured power (watts) it could be very accurate but otherwise take with a huge pinch of salt.
Sorry but your burns look horribly inflated both indoors and outdoors.3 -
Just for comparison purposes:
My spin bike monitor at yesterday's 45-minute class said I burned 579 calories. It lied. I'd estimate the real number at approximately 250 +/- 25 . . . judging from HRM and RPE comparison to better metered exercises. (For the techheads: No power meter on the spin bike. Add-on monitor - kind of the worstest of the worst.)
To burn 530 calories on a Concept 2 rowing machine (which is well metered), I'd have to row at about a 2:18/500m pace (131W average) for 50 minutes. That's a moderately fast pace: Faster than the 50-percentile pace for women of all ages/weights for 60-minute pieces in the Concept 2 rankings. (I think I couldn't row that fast for 50 minutes. I can row that fast for 10 minutes or so; at 50-60 minutes, I'd probably have to drop to about 2:30/500m, which is around 103 average watts.)
I think 530 calories for 23 minutes on a stationary bike is an over-estimate.1 -
how do I calculate calories burned if my band, bike and I phone app are lying? I have lost 46 pounds eating daily calories and eating back exercise calories as well. Super confused..0
-
how do I calculate calories burned if my band, bike and I phone app are lying? I have lost 46 pounds eating daily calories and eating back exercise calories as well. Super confused..
Truthfully, it doesn't matter if your exercise calories are accurate, it only matters if you estimate them consistently. Once you have a track record of logging your eating and exercise, and monitoring your weight loss, you can adjust your calorie intake as needed to achieve a sensible weight loss rate. As long as those measurements/estimates stay in the same ratios (consistent), you'll do fine, whether the exact numbers are perfect or not.
If you're losing weight at the desired (sensible) rate, all is well. Keep going, and thrive on! As you get closer to goal, things may get a bit more difficult. If so, you can adjust your calorie goal or adjust the percentage of exercise calories you eat back, to get to the (slower) weight loss rate you'll need at that point.
It's not a practical problem, really, as long as you're losing at a reasonable rate. But it's worth a mental note, for communicating with other people, that machine and device calorie estimates may not be exactly accurate.
Best wishes for continued success!4 -
@bertabugghow do I calculate calories burned if my band, bike and I phone app are lying? I have lost 46 pounds eating daily calories and eating back exercise calories as well. Super confused..
Do you need accuracy then?
That your overall calorie balance works is the aim of all the estimating of BMR, activity multipliers, food and exercise logging. It becomes an issue if your routine changes though as that balance of inaccuracy changes.
I lost my weight using 30% exaggerated burns from my Polar HRM.
But using poor methods can't be a basis of comparing burns between people. If you used a power meter (very accurate calculation for cycling) then that's a good comparison.
If you want (rather than need) to try a different method for outdoor riding you could try Strava on your phone, it tries to estimate your power from what you tell it about you, your bike, terrain, speed etc. Whilst not empirically accurate it's likely to be a more reasonable estimate.2 -
Bertabug, most information we are logging - calorie intake and output - is at best, just a guide. I’m a cyclist and use a Garmin to log output, I’m aware that MFP calorie guides can be up to 20% out. But if you’re feeling good and have lost 46lbs you’re doing fine and you’ll have a strong sense of what works for you. It’s working for me too. You’ve tapped into one of life’s truisms, in that, if you ask 4 people their opinions you’ll end up with 5 different pieces of advice.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
- 96.3K 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