nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

HRM..Does this seem correct?

pannacottayum

Okay, so i went for a 44 minute trail run today and my HRM told me I burned 1143. This seems like A LOT. MFP gave me 624. I could see if the two figures were off by a couple hundred, but nearly double?

Tell me what you think, here are some stats:

I'm 5'8" 222lbs. 39 yrs old
run was 44:01 on a blue square/moderate rated MTB trail
avg HR 169
peak HR 190
HRM is a Timex model with chest strap, calibrated to my weight and gender.

your opinion please!
thanks.

Replies

withchaco

169 average sounds really, REALLY high for a 39 year old individual. That must be why the HRM thinks you burned 1143.

And peak HR 190...!? Either your heart naturally just beats a loooot faster than most people (unlikely but possible), or there's something wrong with the heart rate count!

ageros

at 160 I start to sweat like crazy, and at 180 I become fatigued very very quickly. I can't imagine how you could have run that long with a heart rate that high.

PoeRaven

I have to agree. 169 average is really, really high and 190. well, that is just unreal. I would have the HRM checked out or return it.

pannacottayum

I believe the accuracy of the HRM.
My regular elliptical workout, according to the machine, my HR is about the same 150-175 hitting into the 190's during my "push" intervals.
Also it jives with my last HRM which was a polar.
I've just never used it to estimate my calories.

(edit) Just to clarify, i believe the heart rates that the HRM is giving me. What I'm unsure of is if the calories burned seem accurate (given the HR numbers).

ghoztt

Something seems odd about your heart rate monitor's numbers. According to this site I use to double check my own HRM's numbers: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm someone with your gender, weight, age and average heart rate for that run comes out to about 835 calories.

silveryflutterby

my HR is always very high when i work out. when I jog it gets up to 188-190 by the end. always at least 175...when doing other cardio it is usually 160ish...i sweat hard and am tired when i'm done. i didn't realize it was abnormally high...i have been working out for a while too and it still gets high. my resting HR is like 62-64 i think...i usually get pretty good calorie burns because my HR stays high, but i thought that was good? i jog intervals and for an hour i'm usually at around 700-something calories.

rebysue

If your heart rate is accurate, then your burn seems pretty accurate. I wouldn't say that your heart rate is that out of the ball park though. The average maximum heart rate for a 39 year old is 181 BUT that is only an average, meaning that some people are higher and some are lower depending on their fitness level.

mumma2boyz

My doctor says listen to your body. If you feel good while maintaining that heart rate...then do it. If you feel faint or exhausted, slow down. I often reach 190 frequently during my workout, with a low of 165. I do hiit training and my body has experienced a complete trasnformation. I have lost weight, lost fat, and gained muscle. I am living proof that its okay to push your body. Just make sure you are providing proper fuel and hydration.

bizco

Doesn't sound right to me. If you're 39, your maximum heart rate is roughly 181bpm (220-age). If your avg. HR was 169bpm that means you were training at 93%. Hardly sustainable for 44 minutes. Plus your peak of 190 is ABOVE your maximum HR. I think you would have passed out or at least vomited.

Not sure which model you have but I have a Timex Zone Trainer HRM (with chest strap) and it requires that I enter my maximum HR and weight only, not age or gender. I'm pretty confident in the number it shows me for calories burned because it's close to what the treadmill shows when I use that machine.

NikkisNewStart

Have you calculated your resting heart rate into the equation? My Polar's fitness test includes this... it may have your resting heart rate calculated too low... therefore your "calories burned" calculation is so high... redo the fitness test on your hrm or check the resting heart rate setting and see if that corrects the issue.

LewisBirchenough

Doesn't sound right to me. If you're 39, your maximum heart rate is roughly 181bpm (220-age). If your avg. HR was 169bpm that means you were training at 93%. Hardly sustainable for 44 minutes. Plus your peak of 190 is ABOVE your maximum HR. I think you would have passed out or at least vomited.

See rebysue's answer above referring to averages (except that I don't think actual MHR depends on fitness, but rather is genetic). The 220-age is a guestimate which can be way out: e.g. my MHR at age 30 was at least 205.

LewisBirchenough

P.S. MHR is not some target rate you are aiming to stay below, but is the absolute highest heart rate that it is physically possible to achieve. If your heart rate exceeds your supposed MHR at any time, then the figure you have for your MHR is wrong by definition.

dad106

See I had a timex once and for 30 min of walking on a treadmill at a speed of 3.0 with an incline of 15% it told me i burned 580 calories.. the treadmill said 300 something and now my polar says between 250 and 300.

From what I can gather from other posts, Timex tends to overestimate calories really bad. So I'd go with it, but not eat all of your calories back.

vixi76

i would go with your HRM. The numbers on MFP are nowhere near accurate, neither are treadmills (for those thinking their HRM is accurate if close to that number). My HRM is always higher than MFP and my treadmill, but I believe my HRM is accurate too. If you are eating back your calories and find that your are not losing weight, then I would consider looking into the HRM further.

blobby10

That average heart rate doesn't seem overly high to me - when I used a HRM my heart rate always shot up but then came down really quickly once I slowed down. If you were doing hills on your trail as well then it would bump up your average quite a bit.

Azdak

I believe the accuracy of the HRM.
My regular elliptical workout, according to the machine, my HR is about the same 150-175 hitting into the 190's during my "push" intervals.
Also it jives with my last HRM which was a polar.
I've just never used it to estimate my calories.

(edit) Just to clarify, i believe the heart rates that the HRM is giving me. What I'm unsure of is if the calories burned seem accurate (given the HR numbers).

Yes, your HRM numbers are way off. Your weight is approx 100 kg. You don't mention the length of the run, but if you can sustain a pace of 6mph (10:00/mile) on the flat for 45 minutes, that would be about 750 calories, so you can use that for a comparison.

Because you max HR is higher than average (not abnormal, just a normal variation) the HRM is assuming you are working at 100+% of your maximum--and it's probably overestimating your maximum aerobic capacity as well.

In planning your food intake, I would just use about 1/2 of the MFP number and see how that works. Most HRM calorie numbers are so dependent on the quality of the device (and very few are of high quality) and on user setup that the numbers have some pretty big error factors.

BTW--some pretty good workouts. Keep it up!

pannacottayum

P.S. MHR is not some target rate you are aiming to stay below, but is the absolute highest heart rate that it is physically possible to achieve. If your heart rate exceeds your supposed MHR at any time, then the figure you have for your MHR is wrong by definition.

heard and concurred...
i've actually had a stress test, they took me to 185+ and were satisfied. i still had "gas in the tank".

pannacottayum

Something seems odd about your heart rate monitor's numbers. According to this site I use to double check my own HRM's numbers: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm someone with your gender, weight, age and average heart rate for that run comes out to about 835 calories.

thanks for that link!

pannacottayum

I believe the accuracy of the HRM.
My regular elliptical workout, according to the machine, my HR is about the same 150-175 hitting into the 190's during my "push" intervals.
Also it jives with my last HRM which was a polar.
I've just never used it to estimate my calories.

(edit) Just to clarify, i believe the heart rates that the HRM is giving me. What I'm unsure of is if the calories burned seem accurate (given the HR numbers).

Yes, your HRM numbers are way off. Your weight is approx 100 kg. You don't mention the length of the run, but if you can sustain a pace of 6mph (10:00/mile) on the flat for 45 minutes, that would be about 750 calories, so you can use that for a comparison.

Because you max HR is higher than average (not abnormal, just a normal variation) the HRM is assuming you are working at 100+% of your maximum--and it's probably overestimating your maximum aerobic capacity as well.

In planning your food intake, I would just use about 1/2 of the MFP number and see how that works. Most HRM calorie numbers are so dependent on the quality of the device (and very few are of high quality) and on user setup that the numbers have some pretty big error factors.

BTW--some pretty good workouts. Keep it up!

the run was probably around 3 1/4 miles so my speed was more like 13.5 minute miles/ 4.5mph(?). That said, it was a hilly, technical, singletrack MTB trail so....

thanks for the encouragement though!