HRM Cals so low!

minburke

Ok so I'd heard that using a HRM for the first time can be a shock as the cals estimated by gym equipment are a bit high but my hrm showed half the number of cals that the gym equipment did on a bike ride today. Could that be right?

helenium

Can you give examples of calories burned on each device? (Including your weight and height to get an idea of what you should be burning). Does your HRM take into account your fitness level?

minburke

Hmm that might be it. I entered these details into the HRM:

Weight: 70.4kg (155lb)
Fitness: Below Average (maybe should have put fair?)

I was doing 10km bike ride got it done in 19.05. RunKeeper said that was an average of 1:54 / km and quoted a lot higher cal than the HRM also..

I had an average of 133bpm apparently and my height is 168cm (5'6").

Hmm..

Zuznana

RunKeeper over estimates my calories a lot when I'm running. Sometimes even over 100 calories.

So I use it for the distance and pace and my HRM for my calories.

thysduque

At 133 bpm for 19 minutes you can expect to burn 250 calories or less.

Gym machines often overestimate the calories burned in a section, bicycle and ellipticals are the ones that overestimate more often.
However, if you biking at a very heavy resistance, and very slowly, your heart rate won't got that high, but you will burn calories reasonably well, in that case you HRM might underestimate.
My personal policy is to use the overestimation or underestimation based on how healthy I eat in a given day. If I have eaten very lean food, with a lot of vitamins and protein, and I am sure I had appropriate nutrition, I will allow myself to use the overestimation. If I have eaten badly I will use the underestimation. In the latter case, my calorie count for the day will be very high, which will prompt me to eat healthier and exercise more the next day...

minburke

Oh ok? The bike said about 280 and Run Keeper 261..

bigalfantasy2004

I use this website to give me an idea of what my calorie burn is. I've read that calorie burn is a function of average heart rate, gender, weight, age, duration, and VO2 max (if you know it). That's what most of the major HRM manufacturers use to calculate it, and this website intends to do that calculation for you.

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

snookumss

With those values being so close to each other, I would just go with 270

minburke

Yeah was just so weird that the HRM was 100+ lower.. I don't know my VO2

helenium

Maybe you ought to try and work out your fitness level. http://www.brianmac.co.uk/gentest.htm - this should allow you to work out an estimate of your VO2 Max, and from that, the fitness level you enter into your device.

minburke

Maybe you ought to try and work out your fitness level. http://www.brianmac.co.uk/gentest.htm - this should allow you to work out an estimate of your VO2 Max, and from that, the fitness level you enter into your device.

Thanks for that! By rough calculations I am just below average with running pace. So that must be set right. Oh well. Just eat less than my cals to make sure!

korgscrew

Ive stopped counting exersise altogether now as i was getting obsessed.

I now do my work outs and then stick to me daily goal, safe in the knowledge ive done a workout

Danny

minburke

That's a good idea korgscrew! But as my daily goal is 1200 I don't want to be netted under that.. I'm eating but trying to be honest about cals and food

Lauriek70

Calorie burn is also dependent on the amount of muscle vs fat that you have. Muscle burns calories faster than fat. The machines don't know how much fat you have compared to muscle so that can account for the differences. After all weight does not reveal the differences in body make-up.