Heart Rate Monitors

mkwillman26

I am getting so annoyed. I walked/jogged almost 4 miles today for a total of 1hr and my HRM says my heart rate was 177 and that I burned 1025. However, i get on here and it says 375 and than i get on the,

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

and it's confusing me by saying this...

"At a heartrate of 177 bpm, or 95% of your estimated
maximum heartrate (186 bpm), your calorie burn is an
estimated 730 calories per hour. In 47 minutes and
18 seconds you will burn approximately 575 calories.

Should i go by my HRM or this site... or MFP?

stacy71773

Personally I trust my HRM before anything else and I use that number when I enter my exercise calories burned.

Keto_T

If you're HRM is set correctly with weight and gender and it's a decently respected brand, i'd trust it first.

qtgonewild

I wonder if it's reading the whole time. My ft7 is less than a month old and stops reading all the damn time. I'm trying to figure out a fix for it.

Athena53

375 seems low. I get about that for an hour of cardio according to my Polar FT7 but I'm almost 61 and my average heart rate during a workout runs about 125.

Vic_of_Steel

What type of HRM do you have?

I would go with the HRM! These numbers on MFP are estimates and everyones body is different. The only weird thing to me is that normally MFP over estimates for me..

glassgallm

I jogged today a total of just under 6 miles and my Garmin heart rate monitor gave me a total calorie burn of 438. I trust it more than a generic number from a website. My monitor is calibrated for my age, gender, and weight. I will gleefully eat all my exercise calories!

nkovacs1954

I threw all the bands, monitors and other gadgets in a drawer and never looked at them again. I get out and walk and make sure I do the three mile loop…pretty freeing getting rid of all that "stuff"

amysgottadothisthang

I have absolutely NO idea but wanted to say that you are stunningly beautiful!!!!!!!

Relaeh

I always go by my HRM! Only time I use the site is when I forget to wear it

mkwillman26

I have absolutely NO idea but wanted to say that you are stunningly beautiful!!!!!!!

Aw thank you! That was really sweet!
Thanks everyone Else... I think i will go with the HRM. I programmed it to my body, but it didn't ask for my weight!

mkwillman26

I jogged today a total of just under 6 miles and my Garmin heart rate monitor gave me a total calorie burn of 438. I trust it more than a generic number from a website. My monitor is calibrated for my age, gender, and weight. I will gleefully eat all my exercise calories!

I wish i could eat back all the calories i burn, lol! I eat maybe a little less than half back

MrGonzo05

You certainly did not burn 1000+ calories.

heybales

I am getting so annoyed. I walked/jogged almost 4 miles today for a total of 1hr and my HRM says my heart rate was 177 and that I burned 1025. However, i get on here and it says 375 and than i get on the,

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

and it's confusing me by saying this...

"At a heartrate of 177 bpm, or 95% of your estimated
maximum heartrate (186 bpm), your calorie burn is an
estimated 730 calories per hour. In 47 minutes and
18 seconds you will burn approximately 575 calories.

Should i go by my HRM or this site... or MFP?

The HRM's estimate of your calorie burn (contrary to popular belief, it doesn't measure calorie burn, it tries to associate calorie burn with HR) is based on figures it estimated based on provided stats.

For the simple one, age.
220 - age = HRmax.
Your's may be no where near that calculated value.

But that important value says what % of max you were working out at. If HRmax is calculated to be 180 and you did 177 - that appears to be a huge effort and would be calculated as such. But if your real HRmax is 200, then it wasn't nearly as hard an effort, so your calorie burn is inflated.

More complex one, that is the biggest factor in calculating calorie burn.
VO2max - how much oxygen are you providing to burn the fuel needed to power you through your workout.
High VO2max, and you can power say 4 mph for 1 hr with a low HR.
Low VO2max, and to do that same effort requires a much higher HR.

Look on that Shapesense site again for the relationship between VO2max and HRmax - that's what is associated together.
Polars and other HRM's use your BMI for that - so that requires your height and weight, and your gender and age tell if it's a good, bad, or ugly BMI.
Polar assumes a bad BMI means a bad VO2max - there are several studies that have come up with formula's estimating one from the other.
But bad assumption - you could have a bad BMI but be in really good aerobic shape compared to what they come up with.

So here's actually a more accurate formula, based on weight and pace, because really that's all that's needed. Between certain walking and running speeds, the variance is much smaller % of inaccuracy compared to what a HRM is going to calculated based on a bunch of assumptions.
And yes, MFP uses those same formula's.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

You don't give your weight, but for 4mph walking burning 375 calories, you must weigh 161 lbs.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

MFP's tables are for flat walking - did you do hills actually or incline - then of course it's wrong.

But if you are really out of shape, more than the HRM is assuming your are based on BMI, then your HR is no indication of how hard you worked and how many calories you burned.

A 10 lb weight on the floor. Picking it straight up to break it free from gravity, takes a set amount of energy, doesn't matter young or old, male or female, light or heavy, or if your HR went up doing it or not.

Now, you lift it out in front of you like a big lever, sure it takes more, and there's a formula for that too now, and everyone with arms your length will burn the same amount of energy doing it that way.

All these tools are only as good as what they are being used for. HRM was intended to do exactly as the name implies - monitor the HR, that's it.
The formula's for trying to associate HR to amount of calories burned came much later, and those can be fouled up with simple stress, heat, stimulate elevated HR.

The nice thing with the calculator for the walking / running, you pick gross you are getting the same thing a HRM or database like MFP is giving you.
Pick NET though, it's not including what you would have burned at rest - that's the amount you eat back.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn

mkwillman26

I am getting so annoyed. I walked/jogged almost 4 miles today for a total of 1hr and my HRM says my heart rate was 177 and that I burned 1025. However, i get on here and it says 375 and than i get on the,

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

and it's confusing me by saying this...

"At a heartrate of 177 bpm, or 95% of your estimated
maximum heartrate (186 bpm), your calorie burn is an
estimated 730 calories per hour. In 47 minutes and
18 seconds you will burn approximately 575 calories.

Should i go by my HRM or this site... or MFP?


The HRM's estimate of your calorie burn (contrary to popular belief, it doesn't measure calorie burn, it tries to associate calorie burn with HR) is based on figures it estimated based on provided stats.

For the simple one, age.
220 - age = HRmax.
Your's may be no where near that calculated value.

But that important value says what % of max you were working out at. If HRmax is calculated to be 180 and you did 177 - that appears to be a huge effort and would be calculated as such. But if your real HRmax is 200, then it wasn't nearly as hard an effort, so your calorie burn is inflated.

More complex one, that is the biggest factor in calculating calorie burn.
VO2max - how much oxygen are you providing to burn the fuel needed to power you through your workout.
High VO2max, and you can power say 4 mph for 1 hr with a low HR.
Low VO2max, and to do that same effort requires a much higher HR.

Look on that Shapesense site again for the relationship between VO2max and HRmax - that's what is associated together.
Polars and other HRM's use your BMI for that - so that requires your height and weight, and your gender and age tell if it's a good, bad, or ugly BMI.
Polar assumes a bad BMI means a bad VO2max - there are several studies that have come up with formula's estimating one from the other.
But bad assumption - you could have a bad BMI but be in really good aerobic shape compared to what they come up with.

So here's actually a more accurate formula, based on weight and pace, because really that's all that's needed. Between certain walking and running speeds, the variance is much smaller % of inaccuracy compared to what a HRM is going to calculated based on a bunch of assumptions.
And yes, MFP uses those same formula's.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

You don't give your weight, but for 4mph walking burning 375 calories, you must weigh 161 lbs.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

MFP's tables are for flat walking - did you do hills actually or incline - then of course it's wrong.

But if you are really out of shape, more than the HRM is assuming your are based on BMI, then your HR is no indication of how hard you worked and how many calories you burned.

A 10 lb weight on the floor. Picking it straight up to break it free from gravity, takes a set amount of energy, doesn't matter young or old, male or female, light or heavy, or if your HR went up doing it or not.

Now, you lift it out in front of you like a big lever, sure it takes more, and there's a formula for that too now, and everyone with arms your length will burn the same amount of energy doing it that way.

All these tools are only as good as what they are being used for. HRM was intended to do exactly as the name implies - monitor the HR, that's it.
The formula's for trying to associate HR to amount of calories burned came much later, and those can be fouled up with simple stress, heat, stimulate elevated HR.

The nice thing with the calculator for the walking / running, you pick gross you are getting the same thing a HRM or database like MFP is giving you.
Pick NET though, it's not including what you would have burned at rest - that's the amount you eat back.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn

Thank you!!! This information was helpful. Now, should i just take the watch back? Lol!

yoga_mel

If you're HRM is set correctly with weight and gender and it's a decently respected brand, i'd trust it first.

this

Kimsied

I am getting so annoyed. I walked/jogged almost 4 miles today for a total of 1hr and my HRM says my heart rate was 177 and that I burned 1025. However, i get on here and it says 375 and than i get on the,

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

and it's confusing me by saying this...

"At a heartrate of 177 bpm, or 95% of your estimated
maximum heartrate (186 bpm), your calorie burn is an
estimated 730 calories per hour. In 47 minutes and
18 seconds you will burn approximately 575 calories.

Should i go by my HRM or this site... or MFP?

First, I agree with the post about maximum heart rate. If you don't enter one, most likely your HRM used a formula to estimate it for you. The formula might estimate high or low for your body even with the correct stats. This makes a difference as most HRM's use formulas based on the percent of your maximum heart rate you acheive in the workout (often what percent of your max heart rate your average workout heart rate acheives). I am not sure I believe you reached 95% of your maximum heart rate walking unless you are new to exercise or were walking in hills/mountains or something like that. For most healthy, active people walking is a moderate intensity activity so I would expect the workout average to be lower than 95% maybe 80%+/- if you were really working it. That makes me think the formula may have estimated your maximum heart rate too low and that can give inflated calorie burn estimates. At 95% of your max heart rate you should be very breathless and probably not sustain it for an hour. The fact you walked for an hour also indicates it is moderate cardio for you.

Dnarules

I am getting so annoyed. I walked/jogged almost 4 miles today for a total of 1hr and my HRM says my heart rate was 177 and that I burned 1025. However, i get on here and it says 375 and than i get on the,

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

and it's confusing me by saying this...

"At a heartrate of 177 bpm, or 95% of your estimated
maximum heartrate (186 bpm), your calorie burn is an
estimated 730 calories per hour. In 47 minutes and
18 seconds you will burn approximately 575 calories.

Should i go by my HRM or this site... or MFP?

The HRM's estimate of your calorie burn (contrary to popular belief, it doesn't measure calorie burn, it tries to associate calorie burn with HR) is based on figures it estimated based on provided stats.

For the simple one, age.
220 - age = HRmax.
Your's may be no where near that calculated value.

But that important value says what % of max you were working out at. If HRmax is calculated to be 180 and you did 177 - that appears to be a huge effort and would be calculated as such. But if your real HRmax is 200, then it wasn't nearly as hard an effort, so your calorie burn is inflated.

More complex one, that is the biggest factor in calculating calorie burn.
VO2max - how much oxygen are you providing to burn the fuel needed to power you through your workout.
High VO2max, and you can power say 4 mph for 1 hr with a low HR.
Low VO2max, and to do that same effort requires a much higher HR.

Look on that Shapesense site again for the relationship between VO2max and HRmax - that's what is associated together.
Polars and other HRM's use your BMI for that - so that requires your height and weight, and your gender and age tell if it's a good, bad, or ugly BMI.
Polar assumes a bad BMI means a bad VO2max - there are several studies that have come up with formula's estimating one from the other.
But bad assumption - you could have a bad BMI but be in really good aerobic shape compared to what they come up with.

So here's actually a more accurate formula, based on weight and pace, because really that's all that's needed. Between certain walking and running speeds, the variance is much smaller % of inaccuracy compared to what a HRM is going to calculated based on a bunch of assumptions.
And yes, MFP uses those same formula's.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

You don't give your weight, but for 4mph walking burning 375 calories, you must weigh 161 lbs.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

MFP's tables are for flat walking - did you do hills actually or incline - then of course it's wrong.

But if you are really out of shape, more than the HRM is assuming your are based on BMI, then your HR is no indication of how hard you worked and how many calories you burned.

A 10 lb weight on the floor. Picking it straight up to break it free from gravity, takes a set amount of energy, doesn't matter young or old, male or female, light or heavy, or if your HR went up doing it or not.

Now, you lift it out in front of you like a big lever, sure it takes more, and there's a formula for that too now, and everyone with arms your length will burn the same amount of energy doing it that way.

All these tools are only as good as what they are being used for. HRM was intended to do exactly as the name implies - monitor the HR, that's it.
The formula's for trying to associate HR to amount of calories burned came much later, and those can be fouled up with simple stress, heat, stimulate elevated HR.

The nice thing with the calculator for the walking / running, you pick gross you are getting the same thing a HRM or database like MFP is giving you.
Pick NET though, it's not including what you would have burned at rest - that's the amount you eat back.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn

Bump, because I need this info too .

holliebevineau

Thanks haybales!!!!!

Athena53

I threw all the bands, monitors and other gadgets in a drawer and never looked at them again. I get out and walk and make sure I do the three mile loop…pretty freeing getting rid of all that "stuff"

The "stuff" is part of my workout baggage because I get brownie points in my company's Wellness program if my workouts are electronically monitored and uploaded. Yeah, it's Big Brother, but I can't knock saving $1,000/year off the company health insurance premiums and getting the occasional freebie electronic toys.

Now I find it's an incentive. With the HRM I know when I'm slacking off so I get better workouts. Last year I did a triathlon that I'd done 2 years before and I cut 2 minutes off my bicycle time (9-mile course). Same course, same conditions, same bike. I think I just had better stamina. At my age, improving times is really good news.