my HRM hates me, help required please

knothead76

The difference is. The heartrate monitor is measuring your heartrate. It does not measure the muscle groups (which is what is actually burning the calories). When you walk, even if you have the same heartrate as running, you will not have the same calorie burn as if you are running. When you run, you put forth more energy, work your muscles more, etc...which in turn gives you more of a calorie burn. Same goes for cycling. When cycling, you are primarily using your lower body, vs. whole body for running. More muscles you use, the more calories you burn.

clioandboy

So, are you saying your heart rate monitor doesn't tell you the calories your burned? I have a Polar Heart rate monitor and it tell me my heart rate as I exercise. Usually I am between 130 bpm (low exertion like biking at a moderate rate) and 160 (High exertion like climing a 10% grade on that same bike).

Once I'm done exercising, it shows me waht my highest bpm were, lowest bpms were and average bpm. And it also tells me how long I exercised and how many calories I burned. I use that number in the MFP exercise journal not what pops up when I say i biked for 75 minutes (Usually that number is at least 20% higher).

BTW, 60 bpm seems really low to me if you are exercising. That is my resting heart rate!!

Hi there, I too have hy heart rate showing thru my session, my highest, lowest and average too , how long I exercised and how much time I am in my pre determined zones. Then I attach my hrm to my computer bu USB and I get all my data up it defaults to running and gives me cals burned for that and estimates fat burn. If I have cycled and not run I then change the exercise to cycling and it gives me a lower number for cycling but using the same data, so if I run I get 175 if I walk I get 65 if I cycle I get 98 all based on the same duration and heart rate info....

clioandboy

@ Michele Grayson my resting hr is between 50-60 so when I start exercising 60 is not unusual, it doesn't stay there long lol!!!!! That is not my average hr, that was 130 ish this morning!!!!

@knothead I like this idea and it kinda makes sense....cycling is certainly easier on joints etc so .....

thumper44

Hi there, I too have hy heart rate showing thru my session, my highest, lowest and average too , how long I exercised and how much time I am in my pre determined zones. Then I attach my hrm to my computer bu USB and I get all my data up it defaults to running and gives me cals burned for that and estimates fat burn. If I have cycled and not run I then change the exercise to cycling and it gives me a lower number for cycling but using the same data, so if I run I get 175 if I walk I get 65 if I cycle I get 98 all based on the same duration and heart rate info....

I know it sounds confusing.
What if you took the heartbeat thing out of it.
30 mins of jogging is going to burn more calories than 30 mins of walking....... so 175 if you run and 65 if you walk.

Now add in the average heartbeat. The software uses some formula, where the intensity is more on the body (more muscles used as someone mentioned) compared to the intensity of walking(less muscles being used)

What confuses me..
If someone had average heart beat of 130/min and they only burned 65 calories in 32 mins, something's wrong.

clioandboy

Good morning all

@ thumper my hrm hates me is the title of this thread!!!! 109 cals burned I booked yesterday for a sweaty walk jog session how stingy is that? I don't know how it calculates the cals but every day it mocks me lol!!!! I love it's functions it is a great toy and in every other regard I think accurate but with the cals I don't get many to eat back!!!!!

The only consolation has to be that it has got to be better to err on the side of caution than to overestimate the cals burned.... ?