Could my fitness level be responsible?

UltraRunnerGale

I got my HRM last Tuesday and have been wearing it while exercising. It is a Polar FT7. The burns I am actually getting are WAY lower than what this site estimates. Could it be because of my fitness level?

For example, today I was on the treadmill and did 56 minutes. MFP estimated my burn to be over 500 calories (whjich I know is a crazy number for what I did) and my actual burn was 199 (which seems more in line to me, anway). Does anyone see this kind of difference? If so, what do you think? I really think it's because of my fitness level but let me know what you all think. :flowerforyou:

gail2207

I agree. MFP reckons on a 25 min run I burn over 250 cals, yet I feel a lot more worked when i'm on the stationary bike for 30 min and that only burns 200! I think it's only an estimate and I would trust your HRM as that effectively monitors YOU which is something MFP cannot do.
Good luck x

SHBoss1673

I can see large differences as well. But 199 cals for 56 minutes means either you were at a very low intensity, or the watch isn't reading right. Remember, polars don't remove RHR calories from the estimate, so assuming you're Resting calorie burn is about 100, that means you only burned 99 calories in that hour. That's the equivalent of a moderate walk or very light jog. If you worked harder than that, something's wrong.

Put it this way, I can do a moderate distance run (about 7 miles in just under an hour) and my cal burn is about 750 for it, that's not me pushing myself, that's a medium pace. Granted, your burn will be different, but not by THAT much.

SmashleeWpg

What was the distance you covered on the treadmill in that 56 minutes?? General consensus is that 1 mile/1.6 km (walking or jogging or running) is roughly equivalent to 100 calories. This of course will vary slightly, dependant on your weight, but it's a rough estimate.

I agree that MFP can be a bit on the high side estimating calorie burns, however, 56 minutes on a treadmill and I would think that you burned more than 199 calories.

fteale

I don't think HRMs are necessarily that accurate in terms of calories burned because of this. The fitter you are the more efficient your heart is, but that doesn't mean your muscles are working less hard.

Wimpey

Hi,

what was your average HR for the session? Age?What effort were you working at? Most of the Ultrarunners I know can cruise for hours at a moderate speed without braking in a sweat!

For an ultrarunner I would expect your HR to be quite low (the HR)? Have you had your "Zones" tested in the lab or do you work with a % or your max HR? (226-age for a lady) etc...?

May be it would be easier to work that out by repeating the run and manually checking your HR from time to time to see if it is coming close to what the monitor says?

Azdak

If your HRM is set up correctly, your "fitness level" will not significantly affect the calorie readings. At any given workload, a fit person and an unfit person who weigh the same will burn roughly the same number of calories. It's just that the workload will be a lower percentage of maximum for the more fit person.

The only reason why people get lower calorie burn numbers on their HRMs as they become more fit (if weight is unchanged) is because they do not update their HRM settings (or the HRM cannot be updated).