VO2 Max and HRMs

TigerBite

I've gotten pretty fit w/o ever using a HRM (Best 5K time was 21:17 (28 degrees and slipped a few times on some patches of black ice, but luckily, never went down ... on 11-28-2013) w/o ever having used a HRM ... The last 5K I ran, I was the first female to finish (11th place overall ... woo ... ran it in the snow too, had to run a bit slower than usually since the road conditions were a wee bit treacherous, but 22:08 isn't a bad time considering the weather and road conditions), in addition to the shiny medal I received (nice little addition to the collection), I also won a Polar FT7 HRM ...

Now, here's my question:

I set up the HRM with all of my stats, but it's giving me a lower read out on calories than say the runnersworld.com calculators, in addition to others ... I've been maintaining my weight based on the calculations I get from that site (for my running) and some other online calculators for my other exercise (elliptical and stationary bike, Pilates reformer and circuit training) ... I go pretty hard (RPE averages around 7 or 8, for steady state cardio, and between 5/6 and 10 for interval training) ... I'm assuming that my calculations have thus far been accurate, since there are no other unknowns (I precisely weigh and account for all food, except on the following holidays: Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve/Day, New Years Eve/Day, Easter, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, My Birthday ... even then, the only day I really "gorge" myself, is Christmas Eve, gotta love the 7 fishes) ) ... I also had my VO2 Max tested about a year go, it was 56 ... since then I have used some online calculators, which put me at around or slightly higher than a year ago (do not currently have the expendable income I had at the time, so I don't really want to spend the money to have it tested again)...

Does the fact that I have a higher than average VO2 Max and lower than average RHR (50-54 BPM upon waking) for a 26 year old F, mean that my HRM calculations will be off? I mean getting up to 160-170 BPM is tough, that like spinning or all out sprinting for me ...

FrustratedYoYoer

Personally I find the cal burns given on apps like runkeeper are too low compared to my HRM. Same with the readings on the cv equipment at the gym. From my HRM my vo2 max score is 59 and my RHR is 44-45 bpm. In my case I've found it has led to higher burns on the HRM. I've always trusted it and eaten back my exercise cals with success. How does the burn on the elliptical compare to your online calculations etc

ThickMcRunFast

First, congrats on your times!

Second, at best, even with all the correct information, your HRM is only going to give you an estimate. Are you gaining, even accounting for all your calories? Then your logged burns are too high. Losing, though trying to maintain? Your burns are too low. Sorry, I wish I could give you a better answer, but at this level, its going to take some trial and error.

For what its worth, I also have a very low resting heart rate, high VO2 max, and rarely top a HR of 160 (except in sprint workouts). I would make myself crazy trying to account for every single calorie, so I switched to the TDEE method during training. I have also found that the ".63 x weight x miles ran" equation returns the roughly the same burn as my HRM for most runs (sprints are a bit different).

erickirb

I've gotten pretty fit w/o ever using a HRM (Best 5K time was 21:17 (28 degrees and slipped a few times on some patches of black ice, but luckily, never went down ... on 11-28-2013) w/o ever having used a HRM ... The last 5K I ran, I was the first female to finish (11th place overall ... woo ... ran it in the snow too, had to run a bit slower than usually since the road conditions were a wee bit treacherous, but 22:08 isn't a bad time considering the weather and road conditions), in addition to the shiny medal I received (nice little addition to the collection), I also won a Polar FT7 HRM ...

Now, here's my question:

I set up the HRM with all of my stats, but it's giving me a lower read out on calories than say the runnersworld.com calculators, in addition to others ... I've been maintaining my weight based on the calculations I get from that site (for my running) and some other online calculators for my other exercise (elliptical and stationary bike, Pilates reformer and circuit training) ... I go pretty hard (RPE averages around 7 or 8, for steady state cardio, and between 5/6 and 10 for interval training) ... I'm assuming that my calculations have thus far been accurate, since there are no other unknowns (I precisely weigh and account for all food, except on the following holidays: Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve/Day, New Years Eve/Day, Easter, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, My Birthday ... even then, the only day I really "gorge" myself, is Christmas Eve, gotta love the 7 fishes) ) ... I also had my VO2 Max tested about a year go, it was 56 ... since then I have used some online calculators, which put me at around or slightly higher than a year ago (do not currently have the expendable income I had at the time, so I don't really want to spend the money to have it tested again)...

Does the fact that I have a higher than average VO2 Max and lower than average RHR (50-54 BPM upon waking) for a 26 year old F, mean that my HRM calculations will be off? I mean getting up to 160-170 BPM is tough, that like spinning or all out sprinting for me ...

A higher VO2 Max then what is assumed by Polar would lead to higher burns, so would a higher max HR, the resting HR will have very little to do with that as the calculation uses % of max to calculate intensity and assumed oxygen uptake. So a higher VO2 Max and a higher than 220-age max HR will lead the HRM to under estimate calories burned. that said the HRM gives you total cals burned including maintenance for the time you exercised (cals you would have burned had you done nothing), and should normally be backed out if eating cals back, so with your higher info, but not backing those extra 1-1.5 cals/min I would think it would even out pretty well.

Derf_Smeggle

I just started using my FT4, and I've read that the HRM's give you your gross calorie burn. Are the numbers closer if you calculate your net calorie burn?

WalkingAlong

I think some Polars let you input a VO2 max value. Are you sure yours doesn't?

erickirb

I think some Polars let you input a VO2 max value. Are you sure yours doesn't?

I think you need FT40 and higher to do that, FT7 May allow you to change the Max HR though.

No_Finish_Line

this is a good question.

Not sure how vOmax would effect it.

The HRM calorie calculation is based on the duration and your heart rate (and weight and maybe gender and age as well).

Immagine there was a girl exactly like you in every way but was not conditioned as well. Assume you run the same distance at the same speed. Her lower conditioning will make her HR higher and ultimately register as more calories burned for her... Which is likely accurate.

Probably the sight you use assumes a certain level of conditioning because it doesn't use HR data. i guess you've surpassed this level of conditioning.

I would say the HRM is more accurate... even tho everythings working for you with the numbers from the website.

How big a difference are we talking here?

Mr_Knight

It doesn't need to be that complicated. Virtually all calories burned during running are defined by just two factors: body weight and distance run.

gross calories burned running = miles run * body weight in pounds * 0.75
net calories burned running = miles run * body weight in pounds * 0.63

That will put you in a nice tight ballpark.

Derf_Smeggle

There are also a number of different equations out there for calculating Max Heart Rate. This page has multiple calculations based on age.

http://www.digifit.com/heartratezones/maximum-heart-rate.asp

erickirb

It doesn't need to be that complicated. Virtually all calories burned during running are defined by just two factors: body weight and distance run.

gross calories burned running = miles run * body weight in pounds * 0.75
net calories burned running = miles run * body weight in pounds * 0.63

That will put you in a nice tight ballpark.

That is not so, that is an estimate that would be even less accurate than most HRMs. how hard you push, how fit you are, muscle mass, all play a role

Azdak

I've gotten pretty fit w/o ever using a HRM (Best 5K time was 21:17 (28 degrees and slipped a few times on some patches of black ice, but luckily, never went down ... on 11-28-2013) w/o ever having used a HRM ... The last 5K I ran, I was the first female to finish (11th place overall ... woo ... ran it in the snow too, had to run a bit slower than usually since the road conditions were a wee bit treacherous, but 22:08 isn't a bad time considering the weather and road conditions), in addition to the shiny medal I received (nice little addition to the collection), I also won a Polar FT7 HRM ...

Now, here's my question:

I set up the HRM with all of my stats, but it's giving me a lower read out on calories than say the runnersworld.com calculators, in addition to others ... I've been maintaining my weight based on the calculations I get from that site (for my running) and some other online calculators for my other exercise (elliptical and stationary bike, Pilates reformer and circuit training) ... I go pretty hard (RPE averages around 7 or 8, for steady state cardio, and between 5/6 and 10 for interval training) ... I'm assuming that my calculations have thus far been accurate, since there are no other unknowns (I precisely weigh and account for all food, except on the following holidays: Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve/Day, New Years Eve/Day, Easter, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, My Birthday ... even then, the only day I really "gorge" myself, is Christmas Eve, gotta love the 7 fishes) ) ... I also had my VO2 Max tested about a year go, it was 56 ... since then I have used some online calculators, which put me at around or slightly higher than a year ago (do not currently have the expendable income I had at the time, so I don't really want to spend the money to have it tested again)...

Does the fact that I have a higher than average VO2 Max and lower than average RHR (50-54 BPM upon waking) for a 26 year old F, mean that my HRM calculations will be off? I mean getting up to 160-170 BPM is tough, that like spinning or all out sprinting for me ...

The quick answer is that the FT7 will be completely befuddled by a VO2 max of 56. As someone else stated, a difference in HR max will also affect calorie burn.

The FT7 does not allow you to manually enter your VO2 max, so it will be pretty useless for estimating calories. Reading your profile, the only possible training uses that I can see will be to help you keep your slower runs slow (pushing the pace every run is not the best strategy, help determine recovery time on harder interval days, and perhaps give some indication if you are ill or overtrained. But for calories--not much there.

TigerBite

I've gotten pretty fit w/o ever using a HRM (Best 5K time was 21:17 (28 degrees and slipped a few times on some patches of black ice, but luckily, never went down ... on 11-28-2013) w/o ever having used a HRM ... The last 5K I ran, I was the first female to finish (11th place overall ... woo ... ran it in the snow too, had to run a bit slower than usually since the road conditions were a wee bit treacherous, but 22:08 isn't a bad time considering the weather and road conditions), in addition to the shiny medal I received (nice little addition to the collection), I also won a Polar FT7 HRM ...

Now, here's my question:

I set up the HRM with all of my stats, but it's giving me a lower read out on calories than say the runnersworld.com calculators, in addition to others ... I've been maintaining my weight based on the calculations I get from that site (for my running) and some other online calculators for my other exercise (elliptical and stationary bike, Pilates reformer and circuit training) ... I go pretty hard (RPE averages around 7 or 8, for steady state cardio, and between 5/6 and 10 for interval training) ... I'm assuming that my calculations have thus far been accurate, since there are no other unknowns (I precisely weigh and account for all food, except on the following holidays: Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve/Day, New Years Eve/Day, Easter, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, My Birthday ... even then, the only day I really "gorge" myself, is Christmas Eve, gotta love the 7 fishes) ) ... I also had my VO2 Max tested about a year go, it was 56 ... since then I have used some online calculators, which put me at around or slightly higher than a year ago (do not currently have the expendable income I had at the time, so I don't really want to spend the money to have it tested again)...

Does the fact that I have a higher than average VO2 Max and lower than average RHR (50-54 BPM upon waking) for a 26 year old F, mean that my HRM calculations will be off? I mean getting up to 160-170 BPM is tough, that like spinning or all out sprinting for me ...

The quick answer is that the FT7 will be completely befuddled by a VO2 max of 56. As someone else stated, a difference in HR max will also affect calorie burn.

The FT7 does not allow you to manually enter your VO2 max, so it will be pretty useless for estimating calories. Reading your profile, the only possible training uses that I can see will be to help you keep your slower runs slow (pushing the pace every run is not the best strategy, help determine recovery time on harder interval days, and perhaps give some indication if you are ill or overtrained. But for calories--not much there.

Ah, that would be useful ... I've been running (on and off) since HS, and I still have not learned how to "run slow" ... lol ...

Thanks to everyone who responded!