New HRM wonky??

Options
joehempel
joehempel Posts: 1,543 Member
edited February 10 in Fitness and Exercise
I bought a new HRM today, it's the first I've had, and I've got some questions about it.

It's the Sportslline Duo 560, and it's on par with my own readings that I take manually, but the calorie burn just seems out of control! Or maybe I've always grossly under-estimated.

I'm 5'9, male, 190lbs of non not muscle, and I did Insanity Plyometric Cardio Circuit, with a time of 44:30 (I left my timer running when I took longer breaks.).

I had a max HR of 198, and an average of 171 according to the watch. It's on par with several other tests that I did regarding my heart rate during the workout.

So, the calories burned by this watch say a WHOPPING 784!!!!

If I adjust say 50 calories for just being alive, that still puts me at 734 calories for that 44:30 period.

That can't be right....could it??

Replies

  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,724 Member
    Seems okay I guess. At 167 lbs, female, 194 max heart rate, and an hour of one of my more intense workouts (interspersed with some lower intensity work) I burn about 600 calories.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    HRMs are not going to be accurate for calorie burns with this type of exercise.

    Unless you can run 6.5 miles in that same 45 minutes, it is vastly over-guesstimating your burn.
  • joehempel
    joehempel Posts: 1,543 Member
    Actually....thats close to my PR lol.

    Cant wait for it to warm up to run again....I hat sub zero temp running.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Almost 18 calories per minute? I don't think so. Check out these burns for comparison-

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/exercise/SM00109
  • joehempel
    joehempel Posts: 1,543 Member
    Almost 18 calories per minute? I don't think so. Check out these burns for comparison-

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/exercise/SM00109

    For some reason I cant get there.
  • joehempel
    joehempel Posts: 1,543 Member
    Did some more research on a multitude of sites ( still can't get to that MayoClinic one above), and as much as I am still skeptical of my burn....it's sounding closer and closer to being accurate for someone of my size...not saying 190lbs is huge for 5'9" but it's definitely not muscle.


    I know it was reading my HR right because I was checking it manually during the breaks, and the calculators I've used (just about every one I could fine) are all within about 60 calories of each other....hmm....we'll see as it progresses, I'm going to reset the watch and re-put in all the info just to make sure.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Almost 18 calories per minute? I don't think so. Check out these burns for comparison-

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/exercise/SM00109

    For some reason I cant get there.

    Sorry, try this-

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/exercise/art-20050999
  • joehempel
    joehempel Posts: 1,543 Member
    Thanks!!

    So it's possible that my HRM is correct, however not adjusting to calories burned in one hour from living.

    I kept checking my HR for about 30 minutes past my workout and it took that long to drop below 130....so my burn may have been correct in general, just not for the 45 minutes of time I was working out.

    I have a feeling I'm in the ball park. HRM's are never 100% accurate, but being 50-100 calories away isn't going to break me, I don't hardly ever eat my calories back anyway....no matter how hard I try LOL.

    Oh, I also set my watch this morning to HIGH in the activity level, even though I'm not, to see if that lowers the calculation some.
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,724 Member
    Well unless your heart rate is just high like that, I recall almost passing out the last time I hit 197. You do have to be mighty fit (IMO) to sustain such a high HR and with your higher weight I could definitely see your burn in the high side of possible!
  • joehempel
    joehempel Posts: 1,543 Member
    I have a high heart rate I think....I've never felt like I was passing out, just winded, which of course, is the point of the workout LOL.

    When I run, and when I ran my marathon in September, my heart rate was around the 170's at a slow 12 minute pace....I can run a 10k in about 48 minutes if I really try, so it gets up there for sure then
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Usually a high HR is just a genetic thing. Mine is. It doesn't mean we burn more calories. Heart rate is one indication of possible rate of burn but it's not a direct correlation. I can get mine over 200 and I'm over 45. One estimate of max HR is 220 minus age. Never worked for me.

    And, oddly, my HRM still doesn't give me more than 10 calories per minute at the highest levels and my BMI is about the same as Joe's. Though I'm smaller, shorter, older and female so I'll never burn as many, at rest or in activity.
  • joehempel
    joehempel Posts: 1,543 Member
    Usually a high HR is just a genetic thing. Mine is. It doesn't mean we burn more calories. Heart rate is one indication of possible rate of burn but it's not a direct correlation. I can get mine over 200 and I'm over 45. One estimate of max HR is 220 minus age. Never worked for me.

    And, oddly, my HRM still doesn't give me more than 10 calories per minute at the highest levels and my BMI is about the same as Joe's. Though I'm smaller, shorter, older and female so I'll never burn as many, at rest or in activity.

    Glad to know Im not the only one where 220-age doesnt work lol. Ive not gotten to 200, but got close yesterday
This discussion has been closed.

Categories