Calorie burn...Is a Heart Rate Monitor really more precise?

dragonflybird

Okay, I have a problem with the whole calorie burn or potentially no burn. I put on my polar watch and HRM for swimming, which I've never done before...and swam for 85 minutes, 110 lengths. If I were to enter it here, mph will tell me I've burned approximately 1200 calories. However, my watch told me I burned 414. WTF??? I'd rather believe I was burning 1200, but what if all I'm really burning is 414??? I feel so depressed now.

Misiaxcore

Well I guess it depends how hard you were going and if you did different time intervals. But I hear chlorine affects the accuracy in water. Still waiting for my hrm so can't say for sure.

MissMaryMac33

Go by the watch -- if it has a chest strap.

MFP is guessing.


400 sounds much more possible than 1200. Unless you're about 100 lbs overweight and did 85 minutes of breast stroke -- and you're a man

jagman23

Total distance is how calories burned are calculated. Time doesn't matter, that faster you go the faster you burn the calories but if you end up going the same distance, the total calories burned are equal. Heart rate has nothing to do with it.

AZTrailRunner

You are gonna burn a whole hell of a lot more than 400 calories swimming that long!!!! I have read numerous times that the HRMs are not very effective under water. That's almost the equivalent to running the same length of time, and I know I burn 1200 cals in an hour of running.

km5dx

The water can interfer with the HRM... I have used my Polar HRM when swimming and have noticed that it drops out and misses beats .. There appears to be 2 reasons for this.. The friction of the water pulls the chest strap loose so that it doesn't make good contact to my chest. Tightening hte strap help reduce this effect. Theother problem is that the water attenuates the radio signal to the monitor (which then doesn't receive the pulse).. If you can figure out a way to move the monitor closer to the chest strap it may help reduce this problem.

You can check if this is happening by checking the average heart rate during the exercise. If it is low compared to the reading when you stop then you are likely missing quite a few beats making it to the monitor... Also if your monitor is also a recorder you can view your heart rate over time and see if it is dropping out during the exercise.

SergeantSunshine_reused

Total distance is how calories burned are calculated. Time doesn't matter, that faster you go the faster you burn the calories but if you end up going the same distance, the total calories burned are equal. Heart rate has nothing to do with it.

Uhh not true xD lol

AZTrailRunner

Total distance is how calories burned are calculated. Time doesn't matter, that faster you go the faster you burn the calories but if you end up going the same distance, the total calories burned are equal. Heart rate has nothing to do with it.

Huh? "Calories burned" are calculated by HR intensity over time, combined with your age, weight, and gender.

leomom72

1200 seems a bit high..do you have just the watch, or a chest strap as well ?

dragonflybird

1200 seems a bit high..do you have just the watch, or a chest strap as well ?

I have the chest strap too.

AZTrailRunner

1200 seems a bit high..do you have just the watch, or a chest strap as well ?

respectfully, swimming is very aerobic (and can be extremely anaerobic!!!), and 85 minutes of swimming is worth at least 1000 calories.

bugsygal89

It would be nice to assume it would be 1200 calories. Unfortunately, if you aren't getting your heart to race, 400 calories make more sense. I would recommend doing interval sprints in the water to burn more calories.

Furthermore, I know MFP tends to be inaccurate in some of the 'calorie burned' estimates. I used to be a swimmer and play waterpolo and I know that it was only in games where you could burn up to 1000 calories/hour because you were sprinting back and forth across the pool.

bugsygal89

1200 seems a bit high..do you have just the watch, or a chest strap as well ?

respectfully, swimming is very aerobic (and can be extremely anaerobic!!!), and 85 minutes of swimming is worth at least 1000 calories.

This is true but it does depend on your pace swimming :-)

AZTrailRunner

1200 seems a bit high..do you have just the watch, or a chest strap as well ?

respectfully, swimming is very aerobic (and can be extremely anaerobic!!!), and 85 minutes of swimming is worth at least 1000 calories.

This is true but it does depend on your pace swimming :-)

Competitive swimmers = more efficient = less work = less calorie burn (unless going all out).
Non-Competitive swimmers = less efficient = more work = more calorie burn.

MaryStregger

1200 would be a very extreme amount of calories to burn while swimming for 85 minutes. Because the water regulates your body temperature, your calorie burn should not be as high as if you were jogging or doing some form of cardio out of the water. 414 sounds very plausible to me - when I do laps for 40 minutes I only burn around 200. Keep in mind though, that when you swim you are resistance training and building muscle which will help you burn calories in the long run.

AZTrailRunner

Furthermore, I know MFP tends to be inaccurate in some of the 'calorie burned' estimates. I used to be a swimmer and play waterpolo and I know that it was only in games where you could burn up to 1000 calories/hour because you were sprinting back and forth across the pool.

I totally agree with this statement. I recommend everyone use a HRM since it uses more details + HR to tally the calories. MFP is a guess at best.

dragonflybird

1200 seems a bit high..do you have just the watch, or a chest strap as well ?

respectfully, swimming is very aerobic (and can be extremely anaerobic!!!), and 85 minutes of swimming is worth at least 1000 calories.

This is true but it does depend on your pace swimming :-)

Generally, I swim 15 lengths easy to moderate to warm up. 40 lengths freestyle at a moderate pace...I say moderate because I'm actually focused and pushing myself. Then I start sprinting for 35 lengths doing various strokes, butterfly, back, breast, freestyle, I sprint doing one length with a rest, then two lengths with a rest, then four lengths with a rest etc. Then I cool down with 10-20 lengths...depending on how tired I am.

AZTrailRunner

Keep in mind though, that when you swim you are resistance training and building muscle which will help you burn calories in the long run.

Resistance training + (some)hypoxia = more work for most swimmers (non-competitive).

I'm only arguing the high-end burn since for we don't know all of the factors, and it's completely plausible for someone to burn that many calories swimming.

shauna121211

Okay, I have a problem with the whole calorie burn or potentially no burn. I put on my polar watch and HRM for swimming, which I've never done before...and swam for 85 minutes, 110 lengths. If I were to enter it here, mph will tell me I've burned approximately 1200 calories. However, my watch told me I burned 414. WTF??? I'd rather believe I was burning 1200, but what if all I'm really burning is 414??? I feel so depressed now.

Okay, were you swimming 85 minutes straight without stopping? You shouldn't count any rest time towards your time spent swimming. Based on what you said your workout is with resting between sprints and such, you probably should only be logging at 50-60 minute workout. Also, when wearing your heart rate monitor in the water, check it from time to time to make sure it is actually reading your heart rate. My HRM doesn't work at my pool unfortunately because chlorine can mess up the transmission I guess so when I log, even though I'm going pretty vigorously, I log it as leisurely because for me, MFP over estimates my calorie burn. 1200 seems a bit much....

dragonflybird

Thank you so much for all of the replies. This really helped me. I've decided to log in the swimming light to moderate and to take away all my 30-45 second rest times.

Cheers.