HRM says I burned a huge amount of calories - can this be co

DopeItUp

For some background info I am a large male, approximately 6'4" and 270lbs. Age 31. Fat (computer geek). ~60 resting heart rate and ~190 max HR. BMR is ~2300, with a sedentary lifestyle brings me up to ~2750.

On weekends I typically spend 4-8 hours each day doing work on the house, yardwork, car work, work in the workshop, you name it.

I decided to buy a Timex HRM (with chest strap) to see how many calories I am burning when I do this work since it's hard to calculate. Sometimes I am just sitting at my workbench and fiddling with things, other times I am doing hard labor in the yard, etc so it varies a lot.

Today I wore my HRM and logged 4hrs and 15 minutes of work. It was general low-impact work on my car. I disassembled the driver's side seat in my car, then I worked on fabricating a new gas pedal, nothing special. Lots of walking inside and out since my workshop is in the basement where the car isn't. Decent sweat and I'm a bit sore but honestly nothing special.

So my HRM says I burned 2848 calories. Low HR was 62, highest was 148, average was about 105.

Is this even remotely possible? Even if I calculate for my normal metabolism (see above), let's just call it 100 cals an hour, that's still ~2400 extra calories burned. Just doesn't seem like I did that much work. For reference, if I walk for 30 mins at 4mph (2 miles), I burn ~300 calories. So 4:15 of walking would be only 1275 calories. So by doing general low-impact work I burned over 2x the rate of walking 4mph?

Something has to be wrong, but how? Are HRMs only for when doing constant exercise versus a variety of moderate work over a long period of time? If so, is there any accurate way of calculating the calories expended by the work that I am doing?

realme56

Looks like it could be close....

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

brandihutchinson

bump

Jemmuno

Well if its in the basement u must be walking a lot of stairs which burn the calories. Then bending and twisting in and out of your car is a lot of work as well. I would think this is pretty accurate.

MaryEffingPoppins

I'm having the exact same problem with my Bodymedia Fit armband :-(

Jade_Butterfly

The thing that you need to be thinking about is the rate with which you are burning those calories. . Are you within your target heart rate. . That is where you are going to burn fat and lose weight. .. . .

DopeItUp

Looks like it could be close....

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

Interesting, when I entered the exact numbers from the HRM it says I burned 2396. A bit lower but still a huge amount of calories. Looks like I'm gonna have to eat a lot more on the weekends. No wonder I'm always ravenous after I'm done with the work.

Dope

DopeItUp

The thing that you need to be thinking about is the rate with which you are burning those calories. . Are you within your target heart rate. . That is where you are going to burn fat and lose weight. .. . .

It definitely varied a lot. Half the time I was outside working harder, and for the other half the time I was sitting at my workbench and just fiddling with some parts. My "time in zone" was 1:42 out of this 4:15 period. Which makes sense to me.

rileysowner

The thing that you need to be thinking about is the rate with which you are burning those calories. . Are you within your target heart rate. . That is where you are going to burn fat and lose weight. .. . .

Target heart rate makes no difference. While you burn more calories from fat in the fat burning zone, you burn very few calories. At a higher intensity and higher heart rate you burn a smaller percentage of calories from fat, but you burn a lot more calories including more fat calories total. Google the myth of the fat burning zone to find out more.

To the original poster, it is possible that you burned this much if you were doing a lot of going up and down the stairs. That burns a lot, especially if you weigh a lot. Having said that, I have heard that Timex HRMs tend to over estimate calories burned from several people who have them. Are the calories you mentioned for walking based on the HRM as well?

rachelleahsmom

My Timex would overestimate, too. During a 45 minute Spin class, it would read over a 1000 calories. I think it's probably closer to 400. The other thing is (and this is something I have read here but don't have personal technical knowledge) that heart rate monitors are designed to work best when you are actually exercising. Some people here have tried just wearing theirs all day in order to see how many calories they burn doing just regular stuff and their results were not accurate. I don't know why that is, but that's what they say. So, your number could be inflated due to technical issues. Either way, it sounds like you're working hard, so keep it up. Have a great day!

dad106

You can throw that number right out the window.. The Timex is not accurate.

I had a TImex and if you have the one I had, you can only put weight,age(I think) and max/lower heart rate in there. In order to get an accurate estimate of calories burned, you need to have all info(age, weight, height, gender and Vo2Max if applicable).

Timex's are geared towards males since you can't set gender, so it may be a little bit accurate but I highly doubt it's what's the HRM said.

Also as the poster above me said, HRM's are only meant to be worn durning purposeful exercise(like running, walking etc) not doing normal day to day activities. If you want it for that, you need to look into bodybugg/body media fit.

DopeItUp

Are the calories you mentioned for walking based on the HRM as well?

Negative, those numbers are from my pedometer and from MFP (both are very close to each other).

Dope

seniorfaye

I have a timex and I find it is pretty accurate. I just do walking and for 30 min. MFP says I burn a 100. My monitor says I burn just a little over a 100. So, I am pleased with mine. I have read a lot of comments about them being over estimated, but have not had that problem at all. In fact when I first got mine the numbers were low. I have to get my HR up there to burn any.

rileysowner

Are the calories you mentioned for walking based on the HRM as well?

Negative, those numbers are from my pedometer and from MFP (both are very close to each other).

Dope

Well why don't you compare the HRM to those for a walk and see what you see.

DopeItUp

Are the calories you mentioned for walking based on the HRM as well?

Negative, those numbers are from my pedometer and from MFP (both are very close to each other).

Dope

Well why don't you compare the HRM to those for a walk and see what you see.

Finally got a chance to do my walk today and compare. Results:

2 miles in 33.5 minutes. Average heart rate was 125 (peaked at 153 when I was pushing it at the end).

HRM: 615 calories
Pedometer: 250
MFP: 316
Online calculator: 458 (http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/)

Who the F knows I guess. I'd have better luck just picking a number out of a hat I guess.

Anyone know of any method that is actually remotely reliable for calculating calories burned? It'd be nice to know how many calories I can eat.

dad106

Are the calories you mentioned for walking based on the HRM as well?

Negative, those numbers are from my pedometer and from MFP (both are very close to each other).

Dope

Well why don't you compare the HRM to those for a walk and see what you see.

Finally got a chance to do my walk today and compare. Results:

2 miles in 33.5 minutes. Average heart rate was 125 (peaked at 153 when I was pushing it at the end).

HRM: 615 calories
Pedometer: 250
MFP: 316
Online calculator: 458 (http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/)

Who the F knows I guess. I'd have better luck just picking a number out of a hat I guess.

Anyone know of any method that is actually remotely reliable for calculating calories burned? It'd be nice to know how many calories I can eat.

Polar FT4 or FT7.. most reliable HRM that you can get.

I'd return the TImex if you can, so your not eating the cost of both.

DopeItUp

Thanks!

bachooka

Another aspect of this is that if you are burning that on a daily basis... I would up your activity level to active and not count those cals. Your body is a very efficient machine. It has probably adjusted.

DopeItUp

Another aspect of this is that if you are burning that on a daily basis... I would up your activity level to active and not count those cals. Your body is a very efficient machine. It has probably adjusted.

I thought about that, but this is just a weekend hobby. 1-2 days a weekend if the weather is nice enough. The rest of the week I work in IT which entails sitting at a desk for the entirety of the day. Then I go home and watch the DVR with the wife. So sedentary is about as high as I'm willing to go!