Calories Not Accurate on HRM?

13

Replies

  • ohohraptor
    ohohraptor Posts: 205 Member
    So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.
  • RatBoyGL
    RatBoyGL Posts: 100
    So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

    Try this web site and see what it says: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    But yes, that heart rate seems high.

    Mine usually hovers in the 130's while running, and I run slow for someone with my build in the 5 MPH range.
  • MissTomGettingThin
    MissTomGettingThin Posts: 776 Member
    Just to support the FT4 :laugh:

    I have one and have found it to be good.
    I eat my calories back based on this monitor and have lost loads!
  • JohnnyNull
    JohnnyNull Posts: 294 Member
    They are not accurate.
  • ohohraptor
    ohohraptor Posts: 205 Member
    So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

    Try this web site and see what it says: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    But yes, that heart rate seems high.

    Mine usually hovers in the 130's while running, and I run slow for someone with my build in the 5 MPH range.

    I would imagine mine would be closer to that too, considering at 4 mph I can walk... 166 seems way high.
  • robertf57
    robertf57 Posts: 560 Member
    So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

    I don't know your age, so I don't know your heart rate max; but those are pretty high heart rates, meaning you were working. I believe the HRM is probably fairly accurate.
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

    Heart rate while working out is an individual thing. The more fit you are, the lower your heart rate will be while you are working out. So, you can't compare your heart rate to anyone else's heart rate doing the same exercise. After several months of regular exercise, your heart rate will be lower doing the same thing. If you are getting the same heart rate manually as the monitor is getting, then it's fine and as accurate as you can get for an estimate of calorie burns as long as there isn't another reason besides exercise that your heart rate would be effected (meds, caffeine, etc.) so i would trust it.
  • ohohraptor
    ohohraptor Posts: 205 Member
    So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

    I don't know your age, so I don't know your heart rate max; but those are pretty high heart rates, meaning you were working. I believe the HRM is probably fairly accurate.

    I'm 23. Maybe I'm just really out of shape? :/
  • ohohraptor
    ohohraptor Posts: 205 Member
    So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

    Heart rate while working out is an individual thing. The more fit you are, the lower your heart rate will be while you are working out. So, you can't compare your heart rate to anyone else's heart rate doing the same exercise. After several months of regular exercise, your heart rate will be lower doing the same thing. If you are getting the same heart rate manually as the monitor is getting, then it's fine and as accurate as you can get for an estimate of calorie burns as long as there isn't another reason besides exercise that your heart rate would be effected (meds, caffeine, etc.) so i would trust it.

    Alright. Thanks Tonya. I suppose I just am really out of shape! I didn't think I was working that hard. And no caffeine or meds, just birth control, but I don't know if that would change it.
  • mikeyml
    mikeyml Posts: 568 Member
    Your heart rate sounds pretty accurate to me. You just can't tell when your heart is out of shape unless you are monitoring it all the time. You can be skinny and have an out of shape heart. I'm sure that you will see your HR drop over time with regular exercise.
  • ohohraptor
    ohohraptor Posts: 205 Member
    Your heart rate sounds pretty accurate to me. You just can't tell when your heart is out of shape unless you are monitoring it all the time. You can be skinny and have an out of shape heart. I'm sure that you will see your HR drop over time with regular exercise.

    I've been running for about a year now, but I guess not seriously until a couple of months ago. I went on another run this evening just because this HRM thing has been driving me crazy. Ran 2.81 miles, burned 340 cals or something, my average heart rate was about the same. I guess I'll stick with the HRM from now on! I'm surprised my heart is so out of shape, however I'm not complaining about the extra 100 cals burned!
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    Your heart rate sounds pretty accurate to me. You just can't tell when your heart is out of shape unless you are monitoring it all the time. You can be skinny and have an out of shape heart. I'm sure that you will see your HR drop over time with regular exercise.

    I've been running for about a year now, but I guess not seriously until a couple of months ago. I went on another run this evening just because this HRM thing has been driving me crazy. Ran 2.81 miles, burned 340 cals or something, my average heart rate was about the same. I guess I'll stick with the HRM from now on! I'm surprised my heart is so out of shape, however I'm not complaining about the extra 100 cals burned!

    The secret to training is that the effects only last as long as you are consistent. So, you may have been running for a year, but if you weren't consistent with it then the results (IE: lowered heart rate) won't be there. It only takes 2 weeks to lose training adaptations. So, you could run regularly for 6 months and see a drop in training heart rate of 10 bpm, but then take 2 weeks off and the next time you run you will have a training heart rate somewhere between the initial training heart rate and the new lowered training heart rate. You wouldn't keep that full effect. When looking at clients and trying to assess their cardiac risk factors, exercise doesn't count as decreasing their risk factors until it has been consistent for 6 months.

    But, don't get discouraged by that. You have been consistent for 2 months and that is a good thing. Now that you have the tool to see the adaptations of your heart, you will be even more motivated to be consistent for the rest of your life. Especially after you start seeing that heart rate improve in a couple more months. :wink:
  • grenier317
    grenier317 Posts: 9
    .
  • grenier317
    grenier317 Posts: 9
    ohohraptor, You need to finish the article: after the 6 statements it says none of these are true....

    4. HRMs can be used to accurately count calories expended during strength training and during rest and 24-hour activity periods.

    5. HRMs are always more accurate than the readout from exercise machines.

    6. If your heart rate response becomes lower when doing a certain activity, it means you are burning fewer calories.

    None of these are true. HRMs only indirectly estimate calories expended during certain types of exercise. Unless they are set up properly and the profile information updated regularly, they can have significant inaccuracies. And not all HRMs are the same.
  • Lanfear
    Lanfear Posts: 524
    Your heart rate sounds pretty accurate to me. You just can't tell when your heart is out of shape unless you are monitoring it all the time. You can be skinny and have an out of shape heart. I'm sure that you will see your HR drop over time with regular exercise.

    I've been running for about a year now, but I guess not seriously until a couple of months ago. I went on another run this evening just because this HRM thing has been driving me crazy. Ran 2.81 miles, burned 340 cals or something, my average heart rate was about the same. I guess I'll stick with the HRM from now on! I'm surprised my heart is so out of shape, however I'm not complaining about the extra 100 cals burned!

    The secret to training is that the effects only last as long as you are consistent. So, you may have been running for a year, but if you weren't consistent with it then the results (IE: lowered heart rate) won't be there. It only takes 2 weeks to lose training adaptations. So, you could run regularly for 6 months and see a drop in training heart rate of 10 bpm, but then take 2 weeks off and the next time you run you will have a training heart rate somewhere between the initial training heart rate and the new lowered training heart rate. You wouldn't keep that full effect. When looking at clients and trying to assess their cardiac risk factors, exercise doesn't count as decreasing their risk factors until it has been consistent for 6 months.

    But, don't get discouraged by that. You have been consistent for 2 months and that is a good thing. Now that you have the tool to see the adaptations of your heart, you will be even more motivated to be consistent for the rest of your life. Especially after you start seeing that heart rate improve in a couple more months. :wink:

    I find this interesting - I have been cycling to/from work 5 days a week for 6 months. However my heart rate is consistently high - for instance on Friday my average was 137 max 166 (way home) and average 138 max 164 (way in). I would have thought it would be starting to drop by now? I also horse ride once a week and have been doing 30 DS so I would have thought I was getting a bit fitter by now but that doesn't seem to be the case...
  • gogophers
    gogophers Posts: 190 Member
    Maybe I'm missing something, but how could you ever know whether it's accurate or not. There doesn't seem to be a way (except maybe in some experimental setting, and even then...) to determine actual calories burned. What are you comparing it too?
  • dave4d
    dave4d Posts: 1,155 Member
    It's my understanding that a treadmill will use a simple physics formula of Work= mass x distance to calculate your caloric burn. If you do a mile on the treadmill, you should get around the same caloric burn as a mile on the street(as long as that mile is level). You might try an experiment, where you try it out to compare. If nothing else you could do 4 laps around the track at your local high school with your HRM, and at the same pace do a mile on the treadmill. See how close they are to each other.
  • ohohraptor
    ohohraptor Posts: 205 Member
    Your heart rate sounds pretty accurate to me. You just can't tell when your heart is out of shape unless you are monitoring it all the time. You can be skinny and have an out of shape heart. I'm sure that you will see your HR drop over time with regular exercise.

    I've been running for about a year now, but I guess not seriously until a couple of months ago. I went on another run this evening just because this HRM thing has been driving me crazy. Ran 2.81 miles, burned 340 cals or something, my average heart rate was about the same. I guess I'll stick with the HRM from now on! I'm surprised my heart is so out of shape, however I'm not complaining about the extra 100 cals burned!

    The secret to training is that the effects only last as long as you are consistent. So, you may have been running for a year, but if you weren't consistent with it then the results (IE: lowered heart rate) won't be there. It only takes 2 weeks to lose training adaptations. So, you could run regularly for 6 months and see a drop in training heart rate of 10 bpm, but then take 2 weeks off and the next time you run you will have a training heart rate somewhere between the initial training heart rate and the new lowered training heart rate. You wouldn't keep that full effect. When looking at clients and trying to assess their cardiac risk factors, exercise doesn't count as decreasing their risk factors until it has been consistent for 6 months.

    But, don't get discouraged by that. You have been consistent for 2 months and that is a good thing. Now that you have the tool to see the adaptations of your heart, you will be even more motivated to be consistent for the rest of your life. Especially after you start seeing that heart rate improve in a couple more months. :wink:

    This makes sense. I tend to get lazy for a week weeks to month and have not been consistent throughout. We will see what happens in a month or two.
  • ohohraptor
    ohohraptor Posts: 205 Member
    ohohraptor, You need to finish the article: after the 6 statements it says none of these are true....

    4. HRMs can be used to accurately count calories expended during strength training and during rest and 24-hour activity periods.

    5. HRMs are always more accurate than the readout from exercise machines.

    6. If your heart rate response becomes lower when doing a certain activity, it means you are burning fewer calories.

    None of these are true. HRMs only indirectly estimate calories expended during certain types of exercise. Unless they are set up properly and the profile information updated regularly, they can have significant inaccuracies. And not all HRMs are the same.

    I read the rest of the article, and apologized earlier for my blab.
  • ohohraptor
    ohohraptor Posts: 205 Member
    Maybe I'm missing something, but how could you ever know whether it's accurate or not. There doesn't seem to be a way (except maybe in some experimental setting, and even then...) to determine actual calories burned. What are you comparing it too?

    I was more concerned about it not getting my heart rate accurately. It seemed too high for how I felt. 166 is terribly high, and I didn't feel like I was working that hard.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories