How do you log calories burned w/ a basic HRM

AngiMoss

I see a lot of talk on these boards about how great heart rate monitors are and how it's the best way to get a read on how many calories you burn with working out. I've been feeling like I should get on the ball, so I'm doing my research. The choices are overwhelming! I've read a few different articles about how the calorie counts on HRM are an educated guess. Something about how to get a accurate read, the machine would have to take in account how much oxygen in coming in. The only HRM that seem to have this type (or close to it) technology are upwards of $400.
Since most HRM are just giving a guess, I thought maybe it wasn't worth spending the extra money on a $100 Polar since the one feature (calories burned) I want is just a good guess.

So, I thought I'd just get a plain ol' heart rate monitor and eventually upgrade to something fancier once I had a better understand of which features I want. With that comes my main question: how do I log my exercise? If my heart rate is in a certain zone for a certain amount of time, is there a way to calculate calories burned?
I don't really understand how I would benefit from having a plain HRM if I won't be logging my exercise any differently?
And I don't really understand how I would benefit from a HRM that showed me calories burned if it's all just an educated guess...I mean, myfitnesspal does that already.

Between inaccurate readings, chest straps (that I have to get wet before working out? Seriously?) and constantly having to toy with it, readjusting the settings every time you drop a little weight....I guess I'm at a loss as to why I even wanted one in the first place. Everyone seems to be going crazy for these things though, so I feel like I must be missing something. Help me understand?

Amandac6772

I just have the basic Polar FT7. Records my heart rate and calories burned....all I need to know. It was inexpensive too.

EDBENAGLIO

GE A HRM WITH CHEST STRAP AND CAL BURN COUNTER GOT MINE AT WALMART FOR $50

erickirb

I see a lot of talk on these boards about how great heart rate monitors are and how it's the best way to get a read on how many calories you burn with working out. I've been feeling like I should get on the ball, so I'm doing my research. The choices are overwhelming! I've read a few different articles about how the calorie counts on HRM are an educated guess. Something about how to get a accurate read, the machine would have to take in account how much oxygen in coming in. The only HRM that seem to have this type (or close to it) technology are upwards of $400.
Since most HRM are just giving a guess, I thought maybe it wasn't worth spending the extra money on a $100 Polar since the one feature (calories burned) I want is just a good guess.

So, I thought I'd just get a plain ol' heart rate monitor and eventually upgrade to something fancier once I had a better understand of which features I want. With that comes my main question: how do I log my exercise? If my heart rate is in a certain zone for a certain amount of time, is there a way to calculate calories burned?
I don't really understand how I would benefit from having a plain HRM if I won't be logging my exercise any differently?
And I don't really understand how I would benefit from a HRM that showed me calories burned if it's all just an educated guess...I mean, myfitnesspal does that already.

Between inaccurate readings, chest straps (that I have to get wet before working out? Seriously?) and constantly having to toy with it, readjusting the settings every time you drop a little weight....I guess I'm at a loss as to why I even wanted one in the first place. Everyone seems to be going crazy for these things though, so I feel like I must be missing something. Help me understand?

If you have your average HR you can enter your info into the following equation for an estimate of calories burned:

Calculate the calories burned if you're female. This is given by the equation calories burned = (0.074 x age in years - 0.05741 x weight in pounds + 0.4472 x average heart rate - 20.4022) x time elapsed / 4.184.

For an example calculation, a 43-year-old female weighing 143 pounds exercised for 45 minutes with an average heart rate during the session of 141 bpm: (0.074 x 43 - 0.05741 x 143 + 0.4472 x 141 - 20.4022) x 45 / 4.184 = 405 calories during your exercise session.

hedgertiger

http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/

stick your details into this and it calculates it for you

fitmom4ever

Thanks for the equation @erickirb. You have thrilled my mathematician heart!

erickirb

http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/

stick your details into this and it calculates it for you

This calculation will be an overestimate if you don't enter your VO2 Max, unless your VO@ Max is above 60, which most people are lower than. To get a better number, if you don't know your VO2 Max use 35, as this is an average number.

ebkins7

Are you asking how to log the calories burned in the exercise? If so you just change the number that MFP has all ready calculated...

As for the HRM... even tho they are a "guess" they are more accurate than MFP's "guess" and certainly more accurate than what ever cardio machine you choose to use. I've been on a machine that says (for instance) 300 cal/hr burned but my HRM was more like 600... I trust my HRM because it's EXACTLY set for me. height, wieght, age and even gender (most machines don't do that). Becuase I'm heavier, I'm going to burn more because there's more to move around.

Any HRM is going to be better than just trusting the machine in my personal opinion - because it's taking into account more of your own personal stats... Is it a bother to have to keep re-entering information - not really if what you are looking for is accuracy. And the chest strap... doesn't bother me at all!!! I never even have to adjust it when I'm working out... It becomes part of you, just like your bra! Having to "wet" it isn't even that big of a deal... a drop of water is really all it needs and you just apply that with a wash cloth when you put it on.

Hope this helps...

erickirb

HRM's are not a guess they are based on an equation. Studies have shown that over 70% of calories burned relate to Age, weight, gender and HR combined. HRMs use a linear equation taking this info into account to estimate calories burned and should be very close to actual burn. If you know your V02 Max or have one that calculates it, it will be even more accurate and over 80% of calories burned can be attributed to the above if you add in V02 Max.

Because actual calories burned relate to the inputs in the calculation HRM's do a very good job getting close to your actual burn.

MistyMtnMan

I just got the Polar FT4 and I LOVE IT! It has a chest strap and you enter all your info on the watch like height, weight, age...etc.
It is nice and simple and gives you your heart rate, target zone, and calories burned. It's all I needed and it was just $80.

AngiMoss

http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/

stick your details into this and it calculates it for you

THANK YOU! This was exactly the kind of thing I was after!

I was looking at the fan favorite, the Polar FT7...I just wasn't sure it was worth the extra money if the calorie counter was simply an educated guess. Spend $100 for the HRM to show me my calories burned on the screen? Or a $30-$50 basic model and input the info into the calculator mentioned above and have my computer show me?

Thank you everyone for your input. I'm definitely leaning towards getting one, I just wanted to make the best informed decision beforehand. Your answers helped.

TabiHerbalifeCoach

I see a lot of talk on these boards about how great heart rate monitors are and how it's the best way to get a read on how many calories you burn with working out. I've been feeling like I should get on the ball, so I'm doing my research. The choices are overwhelming! I've read a few different articles about how the calorie counts on HRM are an educated guess. Something about how to get a accurate read, the machine would have to take in account how much oxygen in coming in. The only HRM that seem to have this type (or close to it) technology are upwards of $400.
Since most HRM are just giving a guess, I thought maybe it wasn't worth spending the extra money on a $100 Polar since the one feature (calories burned) I want is just a good guess.

So, I thought I'd just get a plain ol' heart rate monitor and eventually upgrade to something fancier once I had a better understand of which features I want. With that comes my main question: how do I log my exercise? If my heart rate is in a certain zone for a certain amount of time, is there a way to calculate calories burned?
I don't really understand how I would benefit from having a plain HRM if I won't be logging my exercise any differently?
And I don't really understand how I would benefit from a HRM that showed me calories burned if it's all just an educated guess...I mean, myfitnesspal does that already.

Between inaccurate readings, chest straps (that I have to get wet before working out? Seriously?) and constantly having to toy with it, readjusting the settings every time you drop a little weight....I guess I'm at a loss as to why I even wanted one in the first place. Everyone seems to be going crazy for these things though, so I feel like I must be missing something. Help me understand?

If you have your average HR you can enter your info into the following equation for an estimate of calories burned:

Calculate the calories burned if you're female. This is given by the equation calories burned = (0.074 x age in years - 0.05741 x weight in pounds + 0.4472 x average heart rate - 20.4022) x time elapsed / 4.184.

For an example calculation, a 43-year-old female weighing 143 pounds exercised for 45 minutes with an average heart rate during the session of 141 bpm: (0.074 x 43 - 0.05741 x 143 + 0.4472 x 141 - 20.4022) x 45 / 4.184 = 405 calories during your exercise session.

I had a polar and now I have the body bug how both give me a read out on calories burn but both include the calories you burn just living which are already calucateled in MPF. So what I did was calculate how many calories i burn a minute just breathing living etc (that number for me is 1.3) I take that number multplie it by the number of minutes i exercise and subtract that number from the total calories burned to get my actual work out burn: For example

MPF says Calories Burned
From Normal Daily Activity 1,770 calories/day so I take 24 (hours in a day) *60 (minutes in an hour) = 1440 then 1770/1440 which equals 1.229 just for ease I round up to 1.3

So now say I work out for 60 minutes and burn 400 calories I take 60*1.3 (cause I worked out for 60 minutes) = 78 that gives me the number of calories i would have burned just sitting around (which is already calculated into mpf) I subtract 78 from 400 = which gives me 322 my actual calorie burn in workout.

Now for picking a regular HRM I agree with a lot of people posted here, you must get one with a chest strap. Body Buggs don't use a chest strap cause it measures in a different way.

erickirb

http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/

stick your details into this and it calculates it for you

THANK YOU! This was exactly the kind of thing I was after!

I was looking at the fan favorite, the Polar FT7...I just wasn't sure it was worth the extra money if the calorie counter was simply an educated guess. Spend $100 for the HRM to show me my calories burned on the screen? Or a $30-$50 basic model and input the info into the calculator mentioned above and have my computer show me?

Thank you everyone for your input. I'm definitely leaning towards getting one, I just wanted to make the best informed decision beforehand. Your answers helped.

Just put a number like 35 in VO2 Max if you are not very fit or 50 if you are fit, it will be much more accurate with that info, as the calculator assumes 62 if left blank and 62 is quite high.

erickirb

I see a lot of talk on these boards about how great heart rate monitors are and how it's the best way to get a read on how many calories you burn with working out. I've been feeling like I should get on the ball, so I'm doing my research. The choices are overwhelming! I've read a few different articles about how the calorie counts on HRM are an educated guess. Something about how to get a accurate read, the machine would have to take in account how much oxygen in coming in. The only HRM that seem to have this type (or close to it) technology are upwards of $400.
Since most HRM are just giving a guess, I thought maybe it wasn't worth spending the extra money on a $100 Polar since the one feature (calories burned) I want is just a good guess.

So, I thought I'd just get a plain ol' heart rate monitor and eventually upgrade to something fancier once I had a better understand of which features I want. With that comes my main question: how do I log my exercise? If my heart rate is in a certain zone for a certain amount of time, is there a way to calculate calories burned?
I don't really understand how I would benefit from having a plain HRM if I won't be logging my exercise any differently?
And I don't really understand how I would benefit from a HRM that showed me calories burned if it's all just an educated guess...I mean, myfitnesspal does that already.

Between inaccurate readings, chest straps (that I have to get wet before working out? Seriously?) and constantly having to toy with it, readjusting the settings every time you drop a little weight....I guess I'm at a loss as to why I even wanted one in the first place. Everyone seems to be going crazy for these things though, so I feel like I must be missing something. Help me understand?

If you have your average HR you can enter your info into the following equation for an estimate of calories burned:

Calculate the calories burned if you're female. This is given by the equation calories burned = (0.074 x age in years - 0.05741 x weight in pounds + 0.4472 x average heart rate - 20.4022) x time elapsed / 4.184.

For an example calculation, a 43-year-old female weighing 143 pounds exercised for 45 minutes with an average heart rate during the session of 141 bpm: (0.074 x 43 - 0.05741 x 143 + 0.4472 x 141 - 20.4022) x 45 / 4.184 = 405 calories during your exercise session.

I had a polar and now I have the body bug how both give me a read out on calories burn but both include the calories you burn just living which are already calucateled in MPF. So what I did was calculate how many calories i burn a minute just breathing living etc (that number for me is 1.3) I take that number multplie it by the number of minutes i exercise and subtract that number from the total calories burned to get my actual work out burn: For example

MPF says Calories Burned
From Normal Daily Activity 1,770 calories/day so I take 24 (hours in a day) *60 (minutes in an hour) = 1440 then 1770/1440 which equals 1.229 just for ease I round up to 1.3

So now say I work out for 60 minutes and burn 400 calories I take 60*1.3 (cause I worked out for 60 minutes) = 78 that gives me the number of calories i would have burned just sitting around (which is already calculated into mpf) I subtract 78 from 400 = which gives me 322 my actual calorie burn in workout.

Now for picking a regular HRM I agree with a lot of people posted here, you must get one with a chest strap. Body Buggs don't use a chest strap cause it measures in a different way.

Great post. Most people don't realize that you must back out maintenance calories to get calories burned from exercise alone, this is really important for longer workouts and if are eating your exercise calories as you should be.

MistyMtnMan

http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/

stick your details into this and it calculates it for you

THANK YOU! This was exactly the kind of thing I was after!

I was looking at the fan favorite, the Polar FT7...I just wasn't sure it was worth the extra money if the calorie counter was simply an educated guess. Spend $100 for the HRM to show me my calories burned on the screen? Or a $30-$50 basic model and input the info into the calculator mentioned above and have my computer show me?

Thank you everyone for your input. I'm definitely leaning towards getting one, I just wanted to make the best informed decision beforehand. Your answers helped.

The Polar FT4 that I have was only $80 and it shows you calories burned and does everything for you. It gives you your duration also. I like the target heart rate function of it too because it keeps me from slacking. It's very nice.

anniebananie89

In my opinion, almost everything is an estimate unless you cook and measure everthing yourself. Nothing is ever really exact. I have a $50 watch I got from wal-mart that based on my age an heart rate will tell me my calories burned. However, when I used the formula for " calories burned", the formula gave me a much higher result (by 30 calories) than the watch. So its all about personal preference, I have it so I can tell if im in the fat burning or cardio strengthening zone. and it also gives me encouragement to let me know im on the right track ( granted that I'm eating properly). Some people step on the scale daily or weekly; i use my monitor. It's whatever you prefer. this is your journey so do what you see fit.

MissingMinnesota

http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/

stick your details into this and it calculates it for you

THANK YOU! This was exactly the kind of thing I was after!

I was looking at the fan favorite, the Polar FT7...I just wasn't sure it was worth the extra money if the calorie counter was simply an educated guess. Spend $100 for the HRM to show me my calories burned on the screen? Or a $30-$50 basic model and input the info into the calculator mentioned above and have my computer show me?

Thank you everyone for your input. I'm definitely leaning towards getting one, I just wanted to make the best informed decision beforehand. Your answers helped.

Just so you know I recently upgraded from the lowest polar that only gave the average heart rate to the FT4 and it is worth the extra money to go for the FT4. One thing it saves more then one file so I can see how much I burn strength training vs the cardio I do in the same day. Also it saves time as I don't have to go to the link above to calculate the amount. Also I like to see the calories burned as I am going since I set how much I want to burn for the day and set out to meet it but if I can't caluclate it until after I am done then I don't know if I made it or not.

AngiMoss

Just so you know I recently upgraded from the lowest polar that only gave the average heart rate to the FT4 and it is worth the extra money to go for the FT4. One thing it saves more then one file so I can see how much I burn strength training vs the cardio I do in the same day. Also it saves time as I don't have to go to the link above to calculate the amount. Also I like to see the calories burned as I am going since I set how much I want to burn for the day and set out to meet it but if I can't caluclate it until after I am done then I don't know if I made it or not.

Good point. I usually do a little quicky work out first thing in the morning on my old Nordic Track ski machine, then I walk 4 miles or so on my lunch breaks, then I usually hit the gym 4-6 nights out of the week. So, being able to hold more than one file would be helpful and was not even a feature that had occurred to me. The little work outs during the day are just a given, so if I burn some calories...great. But when I'm at the gym at night, having the calories on display would actually be very helpful. So, I know when I've burned enough for the day.

Thanks again to everyone who responded...you've all been a great help. I think I'm liking the sound of the Polar F4 or the F7 (still need to research the differences), but I might poke my head into Walmart & Target to look those options over.

hedgertiger

http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/

stick your details into this and it calculates it for you

THANK YOU! This was exactly the kind of thing I was after!

I was looking at the fan favorite, the Polar FT7...I just wasn't sure it was worth the extra money if the calorie counter was simply an educated guess. Spend $100 for the HRM to show me my calories burned on the screen? Or a $30-$50 basic model and input the info into the calculator mentioned above and have my computer show me?

Thank you everyone for your input. I'm definitely leaning towards getting one, I just wanted to make the best informed decision beforehand. Your answers helped.

my wife has a really cheap polar HRM that basically times her workout and gives her the average heartrate - she use the equation to give approx. cals

I spent £170 on a Garmin watch for myself that does it all for me

that prob explains the difference between men and women in general lol