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

Givemewings

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.

The running cals sound ok to me. I have found as I have got fitter it is more difficult to burn calories.

n_unocero

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.

just because it's weights with some cardio doesn't mean you can't burn more than on your run. you say your HR is only 150 on your runs...but in this class if you can get your heart rate up to about 180 during the cardio, and then let it recover during the weights you will probably burn more cals (and fat!) than on your runs. Long cardio is good, but try switching it up and doing intervals where you go as hard as you can to get your HR up high (180-190), and then relax and let your HR come down (to about 120-130). keep your body guessing and you'll burn more cals!

chedges9090

You are getting lots of good advice. My personal trainer set up my HRM for me. We did what was called Heart Rate training.. and I needed to stay in that range to see the best calorie burn. He asked my age, weight.. and my resting HR to figure out that number. I was very very suprised at what level of excercise I needed to be at .. and stay at.. to get that calorie burn. I wish I could remember my numbers.. but, I don't. Also, I am on blood pressure medicine.. so, it skewed my numbers a little.

However, you get the picture Good Luck

JamesBurkes

I really think HRMs are only VERY broad guesstimates at best. I wore mine for an hour while typing at the computer and it said that if I had only typed for 24 hours I would have burned 7000 calories! Similarly, for an RPM (similar to spinning) class where my heart rate was very high (between 80 and 90%% for much of it, I was panting hard all the way through and was exhausted by the end), my HRM said I had burned 700 calories in 45 minutes whereas the bike computer said I had burned 550. Yet when I pedalled at an easy 65% of my max heart rate the next day, it said I had burned 600 for the same time period, and the bike said 450. They really are all over the place.

In addition, some use algorithms which limit them - mine is based on heart rate, age, gender and weight but the algorithm it uses is based on "moderately fast running." My experiments with it seem to show that unless you are doing moderately fast running (or something similar, like a steady bike ride) it has real issues and conjures up all sorts of numbers - especially if the activity isn't constant or includes rests (such as weight training). After all, your heart rate isn't what is burning the calories - it is the supposed exertion it represents while you are supposedly using your body. If you are resting somewhere, your heart rate may be sky high but your calorie burn is actually quite low as all you are doing is leaning forward and gasping. I do a lot of things on the exercise bike, and the bike computer's numbers are consistently lower than the HRM, so I normally use the lower figure. (This is also why I don't think they are very good for measuring calories burned during interval training as they take no account of the rests, or the metabolic increase afterwards etc etc).

Then again, 90 is very low for a body pump class - you'd burn a similar amount just watching TV! However, it also has to be said that 110 beats per minute is low for Body Pump, considering you're 29. Are you maybe just "going through the motions" a bit? It could be worth pushing yourself a bit more......

SueInAz

I really think HRMs are only VERY broad guesstimates at best. I wore mine for an hour while typing at the computer and it said that if I had only typed for 24 hours I would have burned 7000 calories! Similarly, for an RPM (similar to spinning) class where my heart rate was very high (between 80 and 90%% for much of it, I was panting hard all the way through and was exhausted by the end), my HRM said I had burned 700 calories in 45 minutes whereas the bike computer said I had burned 550. Yet when I pedalled at an easy 65% of my max heart rate the next day, it said I had burned 600 for the same time period, and the bike said 450. They really are all over the place.

Most HRMs don't measure calorie burns very well if your heart rate isn't elevated. They aren't designed to. Sitting at a computer won't get you an accurate calorie burn, as a result. I think a better measure of an HRM's effectiveness is to run or walk for a mile. It's pretty standard that running above 4.5 MPH or walking below 4.5 MPH for one mile will burn around 100 calories. If your HRM is giving you a result around that number, it's doing a good job.