Calorie burn showing on HRM...can this possibly be right?

Stacyanne324

Hi all! I am new to MFP and on the advice on these boards I decided to purchase a HRM so I could better tell how many calories I am burning. I work out at home and do the Leslie Sansone Walk Fit DVD's.

A little background about me first: I am 37 years old, 5'11" tall, and currently weigh 172 pounds (down from 176 when I started a couple weeks ago..woohoo!). I have had a rapid heart rate my whole life and for a time saw a cardiologist about it. I was officially diagnosed with sinus tachycardia and it was suggested that if I exercised I could help my conditon. I don't have any symptoms from it and I underwent many stress tests over the years just to check on it but other than the fast beat I'm healthy.

So, that said today I got my new HRM delivered, entered my info to set it up, and strapped it on. I did Leslie's 5 Fat Burning Miles which is pretty fast paced (the miles are all 12 minute miles with jogging boosts for the last two minutes of each and a warm up and cool down). The total workout ran 65 minutes. During the easiest warm up parts of the workout my HR was in the low to mid 160's, for the majority of the time my HR was in the low to mid 170's (probably about 35 minutes of the workout, and during the boosts and higher intensity parts it was around 180 (probably about 20 minutes or so of the workout).

I finished up and hit the button to see my calories burned over the 65 minutes and it said 1327. Is that possible? It just seems crazy high. Before the monitor I'd been guessing her miles as burning about 125 each so I normally would enter 625 for this and entering double that is making me a bit nervous.

If anyone has any input I'd really appreciate the help. If I really am burning that much I want to enter it properly so I can eat to compensate and not send my body into starvation mode. But, if the HRM is overestimating I don't want to set myself up for failure by eating that much over what I should. So what to do?

Thanks!!

ATT949

1327 for 5 miles. Unless you were pulling a truck, that's way too high.

Check out Runner's World for a formula on calories required to run a mile

Here it is:

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/1,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

That's an approximation but I'd think that it's pretty close, knowing the source.

I use a Garmin 305 set for my weight yesterday (191) and it gave me 152 cal/mile vs this formula which yields 143. 9 cals/mile is an acceptable variance to me.

BTW, the Garmins that end in -10 are the only Garmins that base calorie consumption on heart rate instead of doing an estimate based on age (maybe) and weight.

Insofar as "starvation mode". Oy.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. I consumed 800 to 1k net cals/day for 7 months and had a superb weight loss experience. While I read posting after posting with admonitions of not going below 1200 calories per day, I also know that many, many people have a weight loss experience at well under that level.

My advice - our bodies have a mechanism called "hunger" that tells us when we need food and a mechanism called "thirst" when we need water. Listen to your body. It worked for me - I lost 95 pounds in 7 months, was hungry a total of 5 times, and the only time I felt tired was when I did my 1500 miles in 24 hours motorcycle ride on New Years Day weekend. I was losing 0.75 pounds per day, at the time as you can see from this data:

http://cbeinfo.net/weight.htm

HTH.

cmriverside

If it has a chest strap....that helps.

Recheck your user input. Sounds like your input numbers are wrong.

HMonsterX

The most important part of a HRM is that a) It takes your resting heartrate, and (b) it has a chest strap/other device for a constant Heart rate monitoring. It compares your resting heartrate to your current, and works out from that the calories burned. If it doesn't take your resting heartrate when you first set it up, be wary.

rlwzgd

Yeah, I think that's crazy high... I burn fewer calories during races (running races and triathlons)... I don't know much about HRMs though. I would just pick walking and select the speed and call it good enough, but I am a bit lazy at this

Stacyanne324

Thanks everyone! I think I figured out the problem. My HRM does have a chest strap and has an input for weight but not age or gender. My SIL who participates in triathalons pointed me to a calculator she uses that is specific to age, weight, gender, and average HR during the workout. It seems that given my average the number they are giving me is for an older male and not a female of my age. When I adjusted it to my correct info it estimated the 65 minutes burned me about 774 calories which is more realistic I think. From now on I'm going to use the HRM just to get my average and then input it into the calculator for a better estimate of the calorie burn.

So, while the 1300 calorie burn would have been nice.... lol I feel better now. Thanks to everyone who tried to help!

Stacyanne324

Insofar as "starvation mode". Oy.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. I consumed 800 to 1k net cals/day for 7 months and had a superb weight loss experience. While I read posting after posting with admonitions of not going below 1200 calories per day, I also know that many, many people have a weight loss experience at well under that level.

My advice - our bodies have a mechanism called "hunger" that tells us when we need food and a mechanism called "thirst" when we need water. Listen to your body. It worked for me - I lost 95 pounds in 7 months, was hungry a total of 5 times, and the only time I felt tired was when I did my 1500 miles in 24 hours motorcycle ride on New Years Day weekend. I was losing 0.75 pounds per day, at the time as you can see from this data:

http://cbeinfo.net/weight.htm

HTH.

Thanks! I think all the starvation mode talk on these boards has gotten to me. lol But, I will eat back at least some of those calories.

CMmrsfloyd

I think your 774 number from that site that uses average heartrate sounds much more reasonable, and I think your plan to use the HRM average heartrate in conjunction with the site that takes all your stats into account is a good one.

SafireBleu

What HRM are you using? I'm looking to buy one. Just curious. Thanks

Stacyanne324

What HRM are you using? I'm looking to buy one. Just curious. Thanks

I got a Timex from Amazon.com. I know everyone here loves Polar ones but they were a bit over what I wanted to spend at least for now. I may upgrade later. The one I got was originally something like $70 but on sale in one color for $28.50 (the gray one...black was still $70). It got great reviews, had a chest strap, and showed cals burned so I went with it but I should have gotten one that let me input more than just my weight.

SafireBleu

Thanks for the info. I'm looking to get a polar one. Hopefully it will be a good choice for me. Good luck on your WLJ!

cmriverside

What HRM are you using? I'm looking to buy one. Just curious. Thanks

I got a Timex from Amazon.com. I know everyone here loves Polar ones but they were a bit over what I wanted to spend at least for now. I may upgrade later. The one I got was originally something like $70 but on sale in one color for $28.50 (the gray one...black was still $70). It got great reviews, had a chest strap, and showed cals burned so I went with it but I should have gotten one that let me input more than just my weight.

If it only lets you input weight, how does it account for your height, your gender, and your age? A 6'2" teenage boy and a 5'1" 60 year old woman burn significantly different calories! In addition, if it doesn't ask you for your resting heart rate (RHR), it can't tell if you are fit or unfit. I burn far fewer calories now than I did three years ago when I was a complete couch potato.

dad106

What HRM are you using? I'm looking to buy one. Just curious. Thanks

I got a Timex from Amazon.com. I know everyone here loves Polar ones but they were a bit over what I wanted to spend at least for now. I may upgrade later. The one I got was originally something like $70 but on sale in one color for $28.50 (the gray one...black was still $70). It got great reviews, had a chest strap, and showed cals burned so I went with it but I should have gotten one that let me input more than just my weight.

Timex is crap.. Return it ASAP and get a Polar.. I'm begging you!
I had a TImex and it told me for 30 minutes of walking on the treadmill that I burned 580 calories.. um, no.. I think not! Reason why it does that is it doesn't include age or gender.. so it assumes you are a male and thus gives you the calorie burn of one.

I would not trust it at all.. nor use it. Your better off using MFP.

Stacyanne324

What HRM are you using? I'm looking to buy one. Just curious. Thanks

I got a Timex from Amazon.com. I know everyone here loves Polar ones but they were a bit over what I wanted to spend at least for now. I may upgrade later. The one I got was originally something like $70 but on sale in one color for $28.50 (the gray one...black was still $70). It got great reviews, had a chest strap, and showed cals burned so I went with it but I should have gotten one that let me input more than just my weight.

If it only lets you input weight, how does it account for your height, your gender, and your age? A 6'2" teenage boy and a 5'1" 60 year old woman burn significantly different calories! In addition, if it doesn't ask you for your resting heart rate (RHR), it can't tell if you are fit or unfit. I burn far fewer calories now than I did three years ago when I was a complete couch potato.

It does let you set your resting HR but yeah all the other things it doesn't ask about. So, I'm just using it to get my average HR per workout and going online to do the correct calculation. It's way less than the HRM is estimating.

Stacyanne324

Thanks for the info. I'm looking to get a polar one. Hopefully it will be a good choice for me. Good luck on your WLJ!

My pleasure! And yes, I kind of wish I had listened to everyone and just gotten a Polar to begin with. But, for now I'll make the Timex work. Good luck to you too!

Stacyanne324

What HRM are you using? I'm looking to buy one. Just curious. Thanks

I got a Timex from Amazon.com. I know everyone here loves Polar ones but they were a bit over what I wanted to spend at least for now. I may upgrade later. The one I got was originally something like $70 but on sale in one color for $28.50 (the gray one...black was still $70). It got great reviews, had a chest strap, and showed cals burned so I went with it but I should have gotten one that let me input more than just my weight.

Timex is crap.. Return it ASAP and get a Polar.. I'm begging you!
I had a TImex and it told me for 30 minutes of walking on the treadmill that I burned 580 calories.. um, no.. I think not! Reason why it does that is it doesn't include age or gender.. so it assumes you are a male and thus gives you the calorie burn of one.

I would not trust it at all.. nor use it. Your better off using MFP.

Yes, lesson learned. I ordered it from Amazon and besides already using it a few times I've thrown out all the packaging so I'm afraid I'm stuck with it. I am totally ignoring the calories it estimates and only using it to get my average HR during each workout session so I can input the specific info online with a calculator and using that much lower number.

jhardenbergh

my suggestion like others have said is to check your input, make sure you set your resting HR correctly. Basically it said your burning about 20 calories a minute, and with your hr where it was at throughout the exercise if could very well be if your resting heartrate is around 50-60. Your max heartrate is 183 for your age 220-37. I know I can burn anywhere from 15-20 calories per minute jogging and my average hr be in the 150's. My resting HR is 50. I am 34, 5'7" and weigh 198 lbs.

bert16

BTW, the Garmins that end in -10 are the only Garmins that base calorie consumption on heart rate instead of doing an estimate based on age (maybe) and weight.

I see this on here a lot and found evidence to the contrary on a Runners World forum, I wanted to share that this statement is inaccurate (not meaning to be argumentative; just trying to share info I learned recently). Several Garmins not ending in -10 (including my Garmin 405CX) use Firstbeat technology to calculate calorie burn, which includes HR and max HR in the calculation.

For a list of Garmin products with this technology:
http://www.firstbeat.fi/consumers/heart-rate-monitors/garmin-heart-rate-monitors

For an explanation of Firstbeat technology:
http://www.firstbeat.fi/consumers/heart-rate-monitors/firstbeat-intelligence-in-heart-rate-monitors

Just wanted to share this since I found it recently! All this being said, I find the estimates from my Garmin 405CX to be very low (like, 1,184 kcal for an 18 mile run; I'm 5'7" and 139 lb).

Here's another online calculator for calories burned based on HR (particularly useful if you know your VO2 max, but if you don't, the instructions suggest one to enter... just don't leave it blank!)

BobbyClerici

It seems a bit high, and before I hit the KFC drive thru I'd log it in and just monitor for a few days for validation. I'd eat back 700 of those calories and just watch my weight over a period of days. If it trended down faster than 1 lb a week, you know the number was right.

Here's my deal when it comes to calories burned or consumed. I check it out before just accepting what's presented as true and correct. Each person's burn rate is different, and we all need to find that sweet spot representing expended calories based on our intensity, duration and work load.

Once we have this right, the real fun begins!

engineman312

i have a timex, and i love mine. it does seem to give me higher then normal calories burned, but i also really push myself. also, when you're new to this, your heart rate will be higher because you're just not used to working out. after working out for a while, my heart rate has dropped a little while i exercise.

kellyb63

That sounds too high. Maybe your user profile is incorrect? 700 calories is more consistent. I use a Sportline watch with a chest strap. I bought it used off of Ebay dirt cheap, I can't afford a Polar. I have been happy with it and use a website calculator to double check the figures.