How accurate is continuous heart rate burn?

nytrifisoul

Ive posted a few times about how my hrm is giving me lowcal burn results randomly. Its a suunto t3c with realtime continuous heart rate monitoring via chest strap.

Today for example. I ran 8 mph non stop for 100 minutes. I used hand weights to swing my arms keeping my heart rate between 168-180. It not drop below 165 at any point. After all was said and done i got a cal burn of 1185. This is clearly wrong for a 34 year old male 145/lbs.

I was checking some online calculators going by my age/sex/weight and the average hr (i picked the lowest 168) and all of them say i should have burned around 1700. Is this correct given the assumption that a heart rate was a constand 168 for 100 minutes using my stats?

Really want some input before i start replacing/repairing my suunto parts. I ALREADY CHANGED THE BATTERYS IN BOTH WATCH AND CHEST STRAP.

Sorry for the caps.

omma_to_3

Well, for me, a HR in that range for 100 minutes would have about 900 to 1000 calories. You're a guy, a bit younger, and slightly lighter so would have burned a bit more. But not sure that 1700 would be right. I would tend to think that 1185 is in the ball park. You're really cruising at that speed (and I certainly can't run that fast) but your HR didn't get that high (kudos on the fitness level!)

nytrifisoul

Well, for me, a HR in that range for 100 minutes would have about 900 to 1000 calories. You're a guy, a bit younger, and slightly lighter so would have burned a bit more. But not sure that 1700 would be right. I would tend to think that 1185 is in the ball park. You're really cruising at that speed (and I certainly can't run that fast) but your HR didn't get that high (kudos on the fitness level!)

For a woman 39, you said your slightly heavier, i figured atleast 150lb, all calculators say you would burn atleast 1100 @ 168bpm for 100 minutes. I checked like 5 online calculators.

And yes my heart rate spiked even as high as my max (184 ) and my hrm wanted to update my max hr to 185. I can tell when im around 180 because i get a bit of chest pain that goes away when i slow down a bit to stay in the 175bpm range.

And thanks for the compliment.

QuietBloom

Try plugging your numbers into this calculator:

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

And be sure to calculate both your gross and then your NET burn. You might be confusing the two. What you should log is your net only. Your BMR burn is already accounted for.

Oh, and just a word of caution about the hand weights - it's an easy way to overstress your shoulders and elbows!

nytrifisoul

Try plugging your numbers into this calculator:

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

And be sure to calculate both your gross and then your NET burn. You might be confusing the two. What you should log is your net only. Your BMR burn is already accounted for.

Oh, and just a word of caution about the hand weights - it's an easy way to overstress your shoulders and elbows!

Thanks for the info about gross vs net. According to my stats and bpm, I burned 1571 calories. This number is actually what my hrm "normally" gives me. But lately my hrm has been randomly giving me very low calorie numbers like today giving me only 1185 calories. If i was only exercising for 30 min i would not care, but when you bust your @ss for 100 minutes and get a estimate of 300-400 below actual, thats a bit depressing.

And yes those weights were killing me the first few weeks i used them. I been using them for almost a year and can shadow box while running with them.

omma_to_3

Well, for me, a HR in that range for 100 minutes would have about 900 to 1000 calories. You're a guy, a bit younger, and slightly lighter so would have burned a bit more. But not sure that 1700 would be right. I would tend to think that 1185 is in the ball park. You're really cruising at that speed (and I certainly can't run that fast) but your HR didn't get that high (kudos on the fitness level!)

For a woman 39, you said your slightly heavier, i figured atleast 150lb, all calculators say you would burn atleast 1100 @ 168bpm for 100 minutes. I checked like 5 online calculators.

And yes my heart rate spiked even as high as my max (184 ) and my hrm wanted to update my max hr to 185. I can tell when im around 180 because i get a bit of chest pain that goes away when i slow down a bit to stay in the 175bpm range.

And thanks for the compliment.

I track net burn, so gross would be a bit higher. Now that I think about it though, my average HR is usually a bit lower - 155 to 165 depending on my pace for the run. Tonight's run was for 72 minutes, average of 165 and I burned (net) about 670 calories. My max HR however, is quite high. I have estimated it at about 202 last year based on some peaks I saw during races and how I felt (over 200 = yucky). My HRM does have a setting for max HR, so that probably explains the difference over the calculators.

QuietBloom

Try plugging your numbers into this calculator:

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

And be sure to calculate both your gross and then your NET burn. You might be confusing the two. What you should log is your net only. Your BMR burn is already accounted for.

Oh, and just a word of caution about the hand weights - it's an easy way to overstress your shoulders and elbows!

Thanks for the info about gross vs net. According to my stats and bpm, I burned 1571 calories. This number is actually what my hrm "normally" gives me. But lately my hrm has been randomly giving me very low calorie numbers like today giving me only 1185 calories. If i was only exercising for 30 min i would not care, but when you bust your @ss for 100 minutes and get a estimate of 300-400 below actual, thats a bit depressing.

And yes those weights were killing me the first few weeks i used them. I been using them for almost a year and can shadow box while running with them.

It sounds like your HRM is a lemon! :grumble: