What did you learn from your HRM?

jlahorn

I've had my Polar FT7 for about a month now, and I learned:

- I was working way less hard in my Mon/Wed/Sat Zumba instructor's class (~500 cal/hr with a HR 150-170 for most of the class) than in my Thu/Sun class (~650 cal/hr with a HR of 160-175) and so stepped it up, which probably makes me look like a spaz compared to the rest of the class, but I'd rather keep my HR up and burn the calories than look graceful

- Hiking burns way less than MFP and FitBit and all the other sites say. Huge bummer. ~350/hr with a HR around 130 keeping a quick pace. Still fun, but now I'm less likely to blow off the gym and just go hiking with my husband. If anything, I have to do both

- My nightly walk with DH is about as weaksauce as I thought. ~250 cal/hr.

Next test - Step Class vs. Zumba - Battle of the Burns!

(I am 40, F, 5' 6", 145 lbs, and relatively fit, for anyone comparing burn stats.)


What did you learn?

whatitd013

I learnt that I only burnt 250 calories in "Hot Yoga" at Lifetime - a good perk to membership but they basically just turn up the heat in the room, not like a real hot yoga studio with humidifiers etc.. Stopped doing that on Tuesday's and went back to it being a cardio day where I burn an average of 750 in an hour!

Scott_2025

I am looking into getting another activity tracker. And I look forward to more reports from you. Thanks for posting.

NJL13500

I learned that walking does not burn very many calories for me at all. I used to use the 100 calories/mile rule. I did learn that running burns way more than 100 calories/mile for me though. So yay for running!

I also learned that I burn the same number of calories in spin class (resistance high vs. low), so I'm trying to protect my knees and put a lower resistance on the bike. I always thought that the harder I was pushing the more calories I would be burning, but I guess I work just as hard on a lower resistance by being able to go faster. ~520 calories in a one hour class

Finally I learned that MFP estimates are WAY high for me in a lot of things.

I have a Polar FT4. I'm 5'6' and 43 and female and 147.

GetSoda

i learned that HRMS are more or less useless

jlahorn

Well, step seems to be about the same as Zumba. My current instructor does 40 minutes of cardio, 15 minutes of abs and core. The step part is relatively intense - HR 140-175, but the overall calories burned for the hour is about the same as an average Zumba class.

Hmm. Makes me miss some old instructors who just went balls-to-the-wall cardio for an hour Also makes me wonder how good the new Zumba step classes are, but they're not offered at my gym.

Making room for Girl Scout Cookies

@GetSoda - why useless? Mine is a good prompt to me for ratchet up intensity when I see my HR dropping too low, and I think the numbers are a good tool for deciding which workout to do. Learning which instructors' classes are more intense (and by how much) was pretty helpful, too.

mreeves261

I learned I become WAY TOO obsessed with my heart rate than what I am actually doing. I can run a 5K never thinking about my heart rate. As soon as I put the HRM on I am worried about the readings and not how I feel so I end up run/walking the 5K.

Cycling I can do with the HRM but that's only because I am more worried about getting hit by car than my heart rate.

parkscs

@GetSoda - why useless? Mine is a good prompt to me for ratchet up intensity when I see my HR dropping too low, and I think the numbers are a good tool for deciding which workout to do. Learning which instructors' classes are more intense (and by how much) was pretty helpful, too.

Probably because a lot of people on this site illogically conclude that HRMs are useless because they don't accurately estimate caloric burn for ALL activities and because some people use their HRM to overestimate their caloric burn. The one common theme with these folks is they don't offer a better solution, but rather simply rant about how some people overestimate their caloric burn and then conclusively state HRM's are worthless.

For steady state cardio and for keeping your HR at a target level for a sustained period of time, HRMs are great.

GetSoda

@GetSoda - why useless? Mine is a good prompt to me for ratchet up intensity when I see my HR dropping too low, and I think the numbers are a good tool for deciding which workout to do. Learning which instructors' classes are more intense (and by how much) was pretty helpful, too.

Because all it does is measure heart rate, which is an extremely poor indicator of calories burned or in reality, effort.

parkscs

@GetSoda - why useless? Mine is a good prompt to me for ratchet up intensity when I see my HR dropping too low, and I think the numbers are a good tool for deciding which workout to do. Learning which instructors' classes are more intense (and by how much) was pretty helpful, too.

Because all it does is measure heart rate, which is an extremely poor indicator of calories burned or in reality, effort.

And so when doing steady state cardio, the superior choice for estimating caloric burn would be... guestimating your effort?

GetSoda

@GetSoda - why useless? Mine is a good prompt to me for ratchet up intensity when I see my HR dropping too low, and I think the numbers are a good tool for deciding which workout to do. Learning which instructors' classes are more intense (and by how much) was pretty helpful, too.

Because all it does is measure heart rate, which is an extremely poor indicator of calories burned or in reality, effort.

And so when doing steady state cardio, the superior choice for estimating caloric burn would be... guestimating your effort?

For weight loss? Find a steady caloric goal that fits your needs and reevaluate every 3 weeks without trying to micromanage your calories/exercise with inaccurate gadgets.

pinkraynedropjacki

@GetSoda - why useless? Mine is a good prompt to me for ratchet up intensity when I see my HR dropping too low, and I think the numbers are a good tool for deciding which workout to do. Learning which instructors' classes are more intense (and by how much) was pretty helpful, too.

Because all it does is measure heart rate, which is an extremely poor indicator of calories burned or in reality, effort.

And so when doing steady state cardio, the superior choice for estimating caloric burn would be... guestimating your effort?

For weight loss? Find a steady caloric goal that fits your needs and reevaluate every 3 weeks without trying to micromanage your calories/exercise with inaccurate gadgets.

I'd rather stick to me HRM that I found helped me lose weight faster after I got it compared to when I used MFP's version of guessing.

You may find it useless... but for me & others....it works & works very damn well.

GetSoda

@GetSoda - why useless? Mine is a good prompt to me for ratchet up intensity when I see my HR dropping too low, and I think the numbers are a good tool for deciding which workout to do. Learning which instructors' classes are more intense (and by how much) was pretty helpful, too.

Because all it does is measure heart rate, which is an extremely poor indicator of calories burned or in reality, effort.

And so when doing steady state cardio, the superior choice for estimating caloric burn would be... guestimating your effort?

For weight loss? Find a steady caloric goal that fits your needs and reevaluate every 3 weeks without trying to micromanage your calories/exercise with inaccurate gadgets.

I'd rather stick to me HRM that I found helped me lose weight faster after I got it compared to when I used MFP's version of guessing.

You may find it useless... but for me & others....it works & works very damn well.

I didn't suggest that MFP's guessing was any better or worse.

knra_grl

actually the only reason I enter calories for walking is for the extra it gives me in case I am a bit over (I try not to eat it all back but a wee bit for an evening snack is nice to have)

I don't work nearly as hard at other things as a lot of the people on here do (my own downfall) so I haven't been logging it. Maybe when I get to the point where I am working harder I will be hungry enough to log the extra exercise. I have been sedentary with the exception of work for so long that the other stuff I do is just "conditioning" so I can work harder at some point.

edit: I guess my point was that I haven't been using a HRM to guage my calorie burn yet but plan to in the future. Judging by the different burn readings people get I guess I will take the readings "with a grain of salt" so to speak and not rely too heavily on them.

meshashesha2012

how hard it is to burn net 500 calories

also learned that the longer i perform an activity, the higher my heart rate gets. so if at the beginning of a run i'm averaging 150 BPM, by the end i'm at 160 even though i'm going the same pace.

rassha01

i learned that HRMS are more or less useless

Just like your response......

If you like to run or do some type of steady state cardio I think they can very helpful in monitoring improvements in aerobic fitness. If you are using them to estimate calorie burns for weight training then you are grossly overestimating.

spetermann190

Provides Great intensity benchmarks, use for rest between set timing when lifting, great motivator and tracking tool!

parkscs

For weight loss? Find a steady caloric goal that fits your needs and reevaluate every 3 weeks without trying to micromanage your calories/exercise with inaccurate gadgets.

How is estimating my TDEE based on a rough calculation of my activity level any more accurate than simply logging my caloric burn from steady state cardio via a HRM? I'd be willing to wager it's quite a bit less accurate. Perhaps if your activity level is extremely static you can use this method and have consistent success, but there are weeks I do more cardio, weeks I do more intense cardio and weeks I do no cardio whatsoever. The suggestion that estimating my TDEE will be more accurate each week, even though it fails to account for my weekly activity, is pretty silly. For someone who's criticizing HRMs because they don't account for "effort", suggesting they use TDEE instead which doesn't even account for duration/intensity/heart rate/etc. is pretty laughable.

As for adjusting every few weeks, I'd agree with that in the long-term but it has nothing to do with whether one should use a HRM. Yes, if you aren't losing weight, you need to readjust your routine/diet, but you should be doing that even if you DO use a HRM. In short, it's irrelevant to this discussion.

At the end of the day, HRM's aren't perfect and they are oftentimes misused for applications they are ill-suited for (e.g., estimating the caloric burn of weight training), but they're still the lesser of evils if you want to estimate your caloric burn for a particular steady state cardio activity.

baileyang33

I have the Polar FT4 & I have learned that I love, love, love it!!!!! MFP way over estimates my activities so I feel like it has to be a more accurate for calories burned. My 2 cents!

thirstyflea

I love my HRM! I got the Polar FT7 a little over a month ago. While I like seeing my calories burned, I pay most attention to how much time my cardio or strength training workout was "Fat burn" as opposed to "Fitness". I would much rather have a higher fat burn and fewer calories than more fitness, too high a HR, and not a lot of fat burn.

I also love seeing the results of my trainer sessions with strength training- it's fantastic! I can burn anywhere from 200-700 calories in 50 minutes! I did heavy lifts the other day, my HR got to around 172 at the top, and I burned over 600 calories. Almost all of which were fat burn! Last night, I just did basic strength training for an hour with machines, and I only burned just under 300 calories. All of them fat burn, no fitness (my HR didn't get above 117 I believe). I usually have great calorie burns with my cardio classes, but I try not to let me HR stay above 170 for more than a couple minutes as that's my max HR and will just turn into sugar burn after that, no fat burn. I usually average about 150 hr during cardio classes. If they're good- I have a horrible zumba instructor at my gym and my HR barely reaches 125 with a cal burn of about 300...

I am not obsessed with the numbers, it's just interesting to see, and check out patterns!

birdiecs

I learned that no matter what the HRM says, I will take an hour of heavy lifting over an hour of flapping around doing Zumba :laugh: Once I got out of the mindset that pursing a high calorie burn means nothing in my overall body composition I've been much happier.

IsisRosa

I learned that my heart rate shoots up with very little effort. That worries me.

pinkraynedropjacki

Should have also pointed out that using a HRM is brilliant to measure your fitness changing . When I started out I found my HR got up high s anything, as my fitness level changed & I got better at it I found I had to work harder in order to get my HR unto the same level..... meaning my fitness had improved & I would never have been able to see that side of things without my HRM.

summertime_girl

That taking Sudafed before running a half marathon is no good. Like just walking my heart rate was up around 190. Running was over 200. Still finished that damn race though. Never take Sudafed before doing a cardio workout.

tigersword

i learned that HRMS are more or less useless

This. No more or less accurate than any other method of guessing calorie burns. In fact, since HRMs are only designed for a very small window of exercise types (steady state cardio, going at the same pace the entire time with no changes or breaks,) they are pretty much useless for the exercise the average person does.

Debbe2

I'm going to be brave and say that I learned that just because I bought a heart rate monitor doesn't mean I have learned how to use it (and I haven't yet) and that fact doesn't or hasn't impacted my workouts, fitness or weight loss... I think :blushing:
When logging, I use less then half the calorie burn numbers listed on MFP and gym's treadmill, class averages etc. However I've wondered which activities I'm challenged most in besides lifting weights so this post may be just the spark for me to get out my shiny heart rate monitor and it's instructions and learn how to use the darn thing

parkscs

i learned that HRMS are more or less useless

This. No more or less accurate than any other method of guessing calorie burns. In fact, since HRMs are only designed for a very small window of exercise types (steady state cardio, going at the same pace the entire time with no changes or breaks,) they are pretty much useless for the exercise the average person does.

Actually, that sounds quite accurate for what the typical person does when grinding out cardio at the gym on a cardio machine such as an elliptical machine.

mreeves261

I love my HRM! I got the Polar FT7 a little over a month ago. While I like seeing my calories burned, I pay most attention to how much time my cardio or strength training workout was "Fat burn" as opposed to "Fitness". I would much rather have a higher fat burn and fewer calories than more fitness, too high a HR, and not a lot of fat burn.

I also love seeing the results of my trainer sessions with strength training- it's fantastic! I can burn anywhere from 200-700 calories in 50 minutes! I did heavy lifts the other day, my HR got to around 172 at the top, and I burned over 600 calories. Almost all of which were fat burn! Last night, I just did basic strength training for an hour with machines, and I only burned just under 300 calories. All of them fat burn, no fitness (my HR didn't get above 117 I believe). I usually have great calorie burns with my cardio classes, but I try not to let me HR stay above 170 for more than a couple minutes as that's my max HR and will just turn into sugar burn after that, no fat burn. I usually average about 150 hr during cardio classes. If they're good- I have a horrible zumba instructor at my gym and my HR barely reaches 125 with a cal burn of about 300...

I am not obsessed with the numbers, it's just interesting to see, and check out patterns!

1 - Heart Rate Monitors are meant for STEADY STATE CARDIO, not lifting. Be very careful believing you are actually burning 600 calories in 50 minutes of heavy lifting.

2 - Heart Rate Zones are debunked 1980's junk science.

3 - If your MAX heart rate is truly 170 you will not be able to exceed that number. MAX heart rate is the fastest possible rate at which your heart can pump blood before it FAILS.

4 - I might suggest you do a little research before believing the latest trends in the world of fitness. For every article you can find backing one point, an article backing a different point can be found. Thus the reason we have so MANY diet trends, Paleo, Vegan, Vegetarian, Low Carb, Low Sugar, Low Fat, etc, they are all right for someone, just not everyone.

just_Jennie1

That contrary to what people think I really do have a heart.:laugh:

gonesewing

That contrary to what people think I really do have a heart.:laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Me too (my kids especially )!

tigersword

i learned that HRMS are more or less useless

This. No more or less accurate than any other method of guessing calorie burns. In fact, since HRMs are only designed for a very small window of exercise types (steady state cardio, going at the same pace the entire time with no changes or breaks,) they are pretty much useless for the exercise the average person does.

Actually, that sounds quite accurate for what the typical person does when grinding out cardio at the gym on a cardio machine such as an elliptical machine.

Not really, people on cardio machines are constantly changing settings. Also, on a machine like the elliptical or stationary bike they are constantly changing speeds, most times without realizing it.