Calories Burned on HRM - Can it Really be This Low?

Kandierinc

I recently bought a HRM made by Pyle Sports (with chest strap and watch) to try and get a better idea of how much I am actually burning on my work outs. It wasn't a cheap watch and came back with really good reviews on Amazon so I bought this with confidence.

I have been repeatedly getting much lower calorie readings from this when compared to the Life Fitness machines i.e elliptical, stationary bike, treadmill etc its usually out by between 25% and as much as 50% on the elliptical.

I have just taken a body pump class for 45 mins with 5k weights minimum and the reading came back as just over 90 calories is that correct? The Les Mills website says you can expect to burn between 300 - 400 calories in a class as a woman.

I did a 45 minute intense boxing session on the weekend one on one and it read under 300!

My stats are weight 64k and height 5'9 age 29 year old woman.

So my question is - could this be accurate or should I ditch this one and get a better HRM?

Can anyone of a similar weight and height tell me how much they have burned in a pump class?

Its quite depressing when you are working really hard and don't seem to be burning anything :-(

pinklion721

That doesn't seem right at all. What does it say your heart rate is? Im 5'7 171lbs. Today I rode my bike for 50 min. And burned 508 calories. My heart rate was 147. Im sure your pump class is more intense than my bike ride.

katheern

That sounds about right for your height and weight. People who weigh more burn more calories. I'm 5'9 and about 173lbs and I'd probably burn more than you but not by much. When I started (at about 230 lbs) the same workout I do now I almost doubled my calorie burn (running about 3miles a day I used to burn ~500 calories, now it's about ~300). The ellipticals are usually wrong because they just approximate based on your age and weight (and maybe height). they usually do not ask for gender which is a huge difference (men burn more than women)

quara

I can't imagine all all that it is accurate! Can you compare your heart rate taken manually to what your HRM says? I know you do not weigh a lot, but I would definitely think you would burn a lot more than that.

Kandierinc

That doesn't seem right at all. What does it say your heart rate is? Im 5'7 171lbs. Today I rode my bike for 50 min. And burned 508 calories. My heart rate was 147. Im sure your pump class is more intense than my bike ride.

My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.

epj78

No, not accurate. 90 calories is barely more then what you'd burn if you did nothing for an hour! I'd contact the manufacturer or find the FAQ on the website. Something isn't reading right. Sounds almost like the chest strap isn't transmitting to the watch --- did you by chance glance at the watch during your workout to see where your HR was and make sure the two were "talking"?

MinnesotaManimal

when you set up this monitor, did you have to enter your height, weight, age and gender into the watch? If not, it is not going to be very accurate and you should get a better model.

That being said, did you take note of how high your heart rate was during the work out?

I have a Polar FT7 and I ran 4.6 miles at 6.5 mph last night and combined with my walking cool down of 2 more miles and some ab excercises, My HRM registered over 1,200 burned in 1 hour and 20 minutes. My heart rate averaged 175 bpm and peaked at 189 during a sprint interval.

Hope this helps....

Nick

msjac23

I have the Body Bugg to count my calories, I found out the machines calories burn was about 180 calories more than what my Body Bugg says. I alway feel the machines over estimate my burn.

katheern

That doesn't seem right at all. What does it say your heart rate is? Im 5'7 171lbs. Today I rode my bike for 50 min. And burned 508 calories. My heart rate was 147. Im sure your pump class is more intense than my bike ride.

My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.

At 110 on average that sounds right, and your run also sounds correct. My heart is at 177 on my runs and I burn a little more than that (plus I weigh 30 more lbs than you)

lovecola06

I have a Polar FT7 HRM and was SHOCKED when I first started using it for my workouts.:noway:

From everything I read online, the truth is that the exercise machines at the gym are overestimating our burns b/c it is a generic formula. The HRM is tailored to your specific stats- weight, age, height, max HR, etc. mine even adjusts my calorie burns (lower) as my heart has gotten healthier. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think that it is common to overestimate how many calories we burn...:ohwell: If you are eating back your exercise calories, at least now you will have a more accurate number..

I'm interested very in seeing how others respond. Good luck!!

Kandierinc

That sounds about right for your height and weight. People who weigh more burn more calories. I'm 5'9 and about 173lbs and I'd probably burn more than you but not by much. When I started (at about 230 lbs) the same workout I do now I almost doubled my calorie burn (running about 3miles a day I used to burn ~500 calories, now it's about ~300). The ellipticals are usually wrong because they just approximate based on your age and weight (and maybe height). they usually do not ask for gender which is a huge difference (men burn more than women)

Thanks - I feared this might be the case! I would prefer to be under on calorie rather than eating back calories I haven't actually burned, its just quite a jump down from what I thought I was burning.

AHealthierRhonda

I know my elliptical triples the amount of calories my HRM says. I believe the HRM since it fits in with what the calories burned should be and it has more info put into it to figure it out. For my Zumba class with 1 lb hand weights I burn about 500+ cals in an hour. That 90 sounds way too low for anyone!! Did you input your info into the watch (height, weigt, gender, ...)? I have the Polar FT60 and LOVE IT! Extremely accurate!

dlangenfeld

My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.

If I don't run before Body Pump and get my heart rate up, I usually burn less than 300 calories, but you definitely should burn more than 90! I am 5-7 and weigh 138. But I do find that I burn way more calories if I run before hand...sometimes up to 500!!

katheern

That sounds about right for your height and weight. People who weigh more burn more calories. I'm 5'9 and about 173lbs and I'd probably burn more than you but not by much. When I started (at about 230 lbs) the same workout I do now I almost doubled my calorie burn (running about 3miles a day I used to burn ~500 calories, now it's about ~300). The ellipticals are usually wrong because they just approximate based on your age and weight (and maybe height). they usually do not ask for gender which is a huge difference (men burn more than women)

Thanks - I feared this might be the case! I would prefer to be under on calorie rather than eating back calories I haven't actually burned, its just quite a jump down from what I thought I was burning.

Yeah it was extremely depressing for me as well, but it's certainly better knowing the more accurate number so you don't overeat. Also at your weight I wouldnt even be worrying as much about how much you burn but more about how good your workout is. For example you want to make sure you are getting enough strength training (which burns less than cardio) because then your muscles are burning more when you are just sitting around which at your weight counts more than any actual workout. It sounds like you are doing that though with body pump which I am guessing is circuit training of some kind which is the best kind!

lotuslion

Every manufacturer uses a different method to calculate calories burned based on HR. First off, I'd check your HRM to make sure it's taking accurate readings of your HR (you can do this by seeing what the HRM says, and then manually taking your HR to compare.) I found an online calculator for calories burned on HR that I really like, which is here: http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/ (Be sure to read her notes about VO2 max - I use 35 to calculate mine.)

I ran your numbers through that calculator using an HR of 110 for the body pump workout, and it came back with 192. I know that lower weight people have lower calorie burns, but 90 cals for a 45 min workout seems really low to me.

The key thing is to compare apples to apples - pick a method and use that to compare workouts consistently. Regardless of what the machine says, your body will tell you if you're doing enough/too much.

(Edited to put in your actual HR, which I saw you give in a comment after I originally posted this.)

katheern

I know my elliptical triples the amount of calories my HRM says. I believe the HRM since it fits in with what the calories burned should be and it has more info put into it to figure it out. For my Zumba class with 1 lb hand weights I burn about 500+ cals in an hour. That 90 sounds way too low for anyone!! Did you input your info into the watch (height, weigt, gender, ...)? I have the Polar FT60 and LOVE IT! Extremely accurate!

If I am doing purely strength training with no cardio at all (which it sounds like she was doing since her HR averages about 110 which is not even considered "cardio zone") then I would probably only burn about 90 in an hour as well, but either way HRMs are not accurate for calorie counting below the cardio/fat burning zone.

Kandierinc

I can't imagine all all that it is accurate! Can you compare your heart rate taken manually to what your HRM says? I know you do not weigh a lot, but I would definitely think you would burn a lot more than that.

When I'm on the machines at the gym the heart rate is pretty spot on with the HRM, which makes me think it may be correct.

AlsDonkBoxSquat

That doesn't sound right, I burn 100 calories per hour just breathing.

pa_jorg

That does seem awfully low. However, I've heard that as a general rule you will burn fewer calories doing the same exercises the fitter you become.

quara

To me, your heart rate seems quite low (or maybe mine is just high - mine is over 110 when I'm walking, and 170 on the elliptical!) If your heart rate is that low, maybe you are burning less calories. If you're sure it's measuring your HR correctly, then maybe it's not too far off?

AlsDonkBoxSquat

I can't imagine all all that it is accurate! Can you compare your heart rate taken manually to what your HRM says? I know you do not weigh a lot, but I would definitely think you would burn a lot more than that.

When I'm on the machines at the gym the heart rate is pretty spot on with the HRM, which makes me think it may be correct.

are you breathing heavy? what does it say your hr is getting up to? max, min, average?

Kandierinc

I have a Polar FT7 HRM and was SHOCKED when I first started using it for my workouts.:noway:

From everything I read online, the truth is that the exercise machines at the gym are overestimating our burns b/c it is a generic formula. The HRM is tailored to your specific stats- weight, age, height, max HR, etc. mine even adjusts my calorie burns (lower) as my heart has gotten healthier. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think that it is common to overestimate how many calories we burn...:ohwell: If you are eating back your exercise calories, at least now you will have a more accurate number..

I'm interested very in seeing how others respond. Good luck!!

Thanks, I think this is the case, it is shocking but as you say this HRM does have all my personal stats. I was just having trouble believing.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to comment! :-)

AlsDonkBoxSquat

That doesn't seem right at all. What does it say your heart rate is? Im 5'7 171lbs. Today I rode my bike for 50 min. And burned 508 calories. My heart rate was 147. Im sure your pump class is more intense than my bike ride.

My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.

this does seem about right. Lift more weight in pump class to get your hr up and you'll burn more. You shouldn't really get to the end of a track and think "yeah, I could do that again."

SueInAz

That doesn't seem right at all. What does it say your heart rate is? Im 5'7 171lbs. Today I rode my bike for 50 min. And burned 508 calories. My heart rate was 147. Im sure your pump class is more intense than my bike ride.

My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.

It sounds to me like it might be accurate. I'm a bit smaller than you, but I'm 45. When I run, my HR gets up to about 170 and I burn around 110 calories per mile. That would put me at around 300 calories for 35 minutes.

It seems like you might be in the same situation as my sister. Her resting HR is really low (in the 40s) and when working out her HR never gets very high and her calorie burns are lower as a result. She finds it frustrating but she'll probably outlive me by a decade with a heart that strong.

JohnSerra

Hi, yes, its about right on the exercise machine. I have a spinning bike which is very similar. The real way to burn calories is to get your heart rate up a little. I am 57 and a good rate for me is 128 beats per minute (BPM) after I have warmed up (about 10 minutes cycling). It will increase as you become tired during the time you are on the machine, but if mine wanders above 135BPM I take tension off the bike to bring it down again. I burn about 180 calories in about 30 minutes. P.S you are going to need water and a towel near the machine. I also use a cheap tall fan (cycling on a real bike burns more 280 - 350 per 30 mins) All the best John..

Kandierinc

That sounds about right for your height and weight. People who weigh more burn more calories. I'm 5'9 and about 173lbs and I'd probably burn more than you but not by much. When I started (at about 230 lbs) the same workout I do now I almost doubled my calorie burn (running about 3miles a day I used to burn ~500 calories, now it's about ~300). The ellipticals are usually wrong because they just approximate based on your age and weight (and maybe height). they usually do not ask for gender which is a huge difference (men burn more than women)

Thanks - I feared this might be the case! I would prefer to be under on calorie rather than eating back calories I haven't actually burned, its just quite a jump down from what I thought I was burning.

Yeah it was extremely depressing for me as well, but it's certainly better knowing the more accurate number so you don't overeat. Also at your weight I wouldnt even be worrying as much about how much you burn but more about how good your workout is. For example you want to make sure you are getting enough strength training (which burns less than cardio) because then your muscles are burning more when you are just sitting around which at your weight counts more than any actual workout. It sounds like you are doing that though with body pump which I am guessing is circuit training of some kind which is the best kind!

Thanks again - pump is a weights based class with a bot of cardio thrown in so I know its not going to burn as much as a run but its still quite a hard work out.

I definitely plan to keep doping these classes as you say strength class is great for you.

Kandierinc

Every manufacturer uses a different method to calculate calories burned based on HR. First off, I'd check your HRM to make sure it's taking accurate readings of your HR (you can do this by seeing what the HRM says, and then manually taking your HR to compare.) I found an online calculator for calories burned on HR that I really like, which is here: http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/ (Be sure to read her notes about VO2 max - I use 35 to calculate mine.)

I ran your numbers through that calculator using an HR of 110 for the body pump workout, and it came back with 192. I know that lower weight people have lower calorie burns, but 90 cals for a 45 min workout seems really low to me.

The key thing is to compare apples to apples - pick a method and use that to compare workouts consistently. Regardless of what the machine says, your body will tell you if you're doing enough/too much.

Thanks very much for the link and advice - that is really useful!

(Edited to put in your actual HR, which I saw you give in a comment after I originally posted this.)

Nomomush

Here's a couple of things to do before you get another:

1. Make sure your chest strap is not losing connection.
2. Make sure your watch that is doing the calculation starts your calorie count and a good signal is reached before starting the exercise.
3. Get on a stationary machine and see what you get for a reading. Some/most machines will read your chest strap readings and compare it to your watch.
4. Verify your input into the watch (age, gender, height,) etc is correct.
5. Last but not least-- if the above are correct, it's most likely that your level of perceived exertion is not in line with heart rate exertion.

Hope that helps

epj78

That doesn't seem right at all. What does it say your heart rate is? Im 5'7 171lbs. Today I rode my bike for 50 min. And burned 508 calories. My heart rate was 147. Im sure your pump class is more intense than my bike ride.

My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.

At 110 on average that sounds right, and your run also sounds correct. My heart is at 177 on my runs and I burn a little more than that (plus I weigh 30 more lbs than you)

My HR Is always much higher. So if yours is around that, then, yep, it is probably accurate. I'm usually up in the 170's also on my runs. And burn around 300 calories in 35 minutes ---- and I weigh a lot more then you! So, it seems right in that perspective. The body pump class I would think your HR would get higher though.

jacksonpt

My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.

My initial thought was no, it didn't sound right. But with this info, it does sound reasonable.

Kandierinc

I think I under cut myself on the running/ high intensity hear rate I think its more in the 160s but it was definitely around 110 average today during pump so I guess it must be pretty accurate.

I guess I am just going to have to work a bit harder!

Thanks everyone.