Calorie counts from HRMs

rocketdreams

Hi all, wondering if any of you might have opinions on this ...

I bought a Timex Ironman Triathlon Heart Rate Monitor the other day and was super excited to use it to figure out calorie counts for my workout. I don't use a gym but just do walking or DVDs at home.

Well today I did the 30 Day Shred and according to my HRM I burned 700 calories!!!!! This seems absurd. I do weigh 235lbs, so I know I burn a bit more calories than a smaller person, but surely not this much??? I do work out hard to that DVD (like, sweat dripping in my eyes hard, lol).

Afterwards I found this website which has a calculator you can use to figure out calories burned, if you know your average heart rate for the workout. (http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/?page_id=483) This gave me a calorie count of 449. Myfitnesspal gives me about 330 if I select "high impact aerobics".

These numbers just all seem so variable! I feel like the HRM *should* be the most accurate, but it seems the most far off!

Any thoughts on this? What numbers should I trust? Should I maybe just buy a new HRM?

rocketdreams

Hi all, wondering if any of you might have opinions on this ...

I bought a Timex Ironman Triathlon Heart Rate Monitor the other day and was super excited to use it to figure out calorie counts for my workout. I don't use a gym but just do walking or DVDs at home.

Well today I did the 30 Day Shred and according to my HRM I burned 700 calories!!!!! This seems absurd. I do weigh 235lbs, so I know I burn a bit more calories than a smaller person, but surely not this much??? I do work out hard to that DVD (like, sweat dripping in my eyes hard, lol).

Afterwards I found this website which has a calculator you can use to figure out calories burned, if you know your average heart rate for the workout. (http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/?page_id=483) This gave me a calorie count of 449. Myfitnesspal gives me about 330 if I select "high impact aerobics".

These numbers just all seem so variable! I feel like the HRM *should* be the most accurate, but it seems the most far off!

Any thoughts on this? What numbers should I trust? Should I maybe just buy a new HRM?

Kimono

700 seems way too high. I don't have a HRM but I was just thinking about this today. Wondering how it could really know how much you burn. Did you have to program it with your resting heart rate, and body weight, age and all that stuff first?? Maybe someone who owns one could answer that for us.

shannahrose

i also am a new HRM user. i have been using the biggest loser workouts at home, and the power sculpting one (all levels, a 50 minute workout) gave my over 500 calories, and i am a 5'6" 160 lb. female. i guess since you input all of your body data, it should be the most accurate, right??

it definitely is a great workout, so i think it's pretty accurate. sweet deal, right?

bonniejo

I was wondering that too! My HRM seems to be...overestimating my heart rate? My fitness instructor and I both have the Polar F6, and hers said 470 cals and mine 560. My high HR was 198! I have a minor cold... Could that be elevating my heart rate? :huh:

athlete4christ

A minor cold would not elevate your heart rate. However, you should check to see if you had to input all your data such as Kimono had mention.

Since you described yourself as being 235 and working out pretty hard (sweat dripping in your eyes), it wouldn't be too absurd to think you burned a lot of calories. However, you have to take into account how long you did the step aerobics. If it was for 60 mins (hour) then yes, 700 calories is correct. If you only did it for 30 mins, then about 350-400 calories would be expected.

jdelot

Hi all, wondering if any of you might have opinions on this ...

I bought a Timex Ironman Triathlon Heart Rate Monitor the other day and was super excited to use it to figure out calorie counts for my workout. I don't use a gym but just do walking or DVDs at home.

Well today I did the 30 Day Shred and according to my HRM I burned 700 calories!!!!! This seems absurd. I do weigh 235lbs, so I know I burn a bit more calories than a smaller person, but surely not this much??? I do work out hard to that DVD (like, sweat dripping in my eyes hard, lol).

Afterwards I found this website which has a calculator you can use to figure out calories burned, if you know your average heart rate for the workout. (http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/?page_id=483) This gave me a calorie count of 449. Myfitnesspal gives me about 330 if I select "high impact aerobics".

These numbers just all seem so variable! I feel like the HRM *should* be the most accurate, but it seems the most far off!

Any thoughts on this? What numbers should I trust? Should I maybe just buy a new HRM?

I found this on a message board...Give it a try...

Brendon said...

Here's some propriotary info for you...

I came across a posting from someone with the same confusion.

http://www.thedailyplate.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=111941&sid=78802b2b48abcd0033e10a7e35554045

He emailed the company (he didn't specify) who makes his HR monitor and asked them for the calculation behind the calories burned, here's what they gave him:

=(1+0.0276*(HR-100))*(3.5+0.0887*(W-40))*T

HR = Average Heart Rate for workout
W = Weight in KG
T = Time of workout in minutes

(You can copy that into Excel and substitute your values.)

Plugging in the numbers from a few of my workouts, gives pretty much the same calories burned as my TIMEX watch.

chandhole

I just got a Mio Ultimate today and set it up with all my body stats. Just circuit trained for an hour, chest and back, which included running and rowing in between exercises and I burned 527 calories. I averaged 138 bpm and was in my target zone of 70-80% of max for 16 min and above max for 8 min, below 70% for 16 min. Had I been in or above for longer then I would have had a higher average heart rate and therefore burned more calories.

It sounds like your workout was pretty intense so your heart rate was probably above or near above your specified target zone which would get you up in that range of 600-700 cals. I would say it works if you set it up right.

p.s. For those who don't have a HRM I recommend this one. Works with or without a strap.

Cheers!:drinker:

Heather7

I bought a Polar F4 yesterday and used it for the first time this morning doing the 30 Day Shred video. I had been logging the 30 Day Shred as Circuit training for my weight which is 170. That was estimating 206 calories for the 20 some minutes the video takes. When I used the my new HRM this morning, it gave me total calories burned as 182, which is a lot lower than I thought, I thought I was underestimating it at 206 before.... so i can't imagine how it could be 600-700 calories! I was kinda bummed that it was so few when I did it, because I really work at it hard, get sweaty and want to fall on the floor when I'm done! I wore the chest strap and entered all my starting information. ???

pettmybunny

Hi, I have a Timex HRM. And it calculates high as well, about 3 times as much as machines say. I know positively I can not be burning that much! So, now, when I exerciese, I take the numbers given to me by the HRM and just divide by 3 and use that as what I enter as calories burned.

My DH (lovely math minor that he is!) plugged my resting heart rate into that calculation, figured for the whole day, and according to the timex calculation... Daily, by doing nothing, I burn over 4400 calories. Well gee, if that was the case, I wouldn't be pudgy, now, would I? But you take that 4400 calories, divide by 3 and get 1366 calories. Hmmmm.... I'm eating 1300 plus exercise calories.... works pretty well!

Sorry if this is confusing... I'm rereading it, but can't come up with a better way to put it. Other than my Timex calculates my calories burned about 3 times as high as it should....

mrsyac2

I have a polar F4 and it works great- I love it- I keep my heart rate up the entire time we even compared it to the gym machines (which were off) my husband is now looking in getting one-

mrsyac2

I bought a Polar F4 yesterday and used it for the first time this morning doing the 30 Day Shred video. I had been logging the 30 Day Shred as Circuit training for my weight which is 170. That was estimating 206 calories for the 20 some minutes the video takes. When I used the my new HRM this morning, it gave me total calories burned as 182, which is a lot lower than I thought, I thought I was underestimating it at 206 before.... so i can't imagine how it could be 600-700 calories! I was kinda bummed that it was so few when I did it, because I really work at it hard, get sweaty and want to fall on the floor when I'm done! I wore the chest strap and entered all my starting information. ???

when I did 30 day shred I burned 200-230 calories a session it has alot to do about gettin in your target zone and staying there.

mrsyac2

i also am a new HRM user. i have been using the biggest loser workouts at home, and the power sculpting one (all levels, a 50 minute workout) gave my over 500 calories, and i am a 5'6" 160 lb. female. i guess since you input all of your body data, it should be the most accurate, right??

it definitely is a great workout, so i think it's pretty accurate. sweet deal, right?

that seems about right 10 calories a minute

mrsyac2

I was wondering that too! My HRM seems to be...overestimating my heart rate? My fitness instructor and I both have the Polar F6, and hers said 470 cals and mine 560. My high HR was 198! I have a minor cold... Could that be elevating my heart rate? :huh:

how tall is your fitness instructor and how fit is she?

the fitter she is the harder it is for her to burn alot of calories she may just have to work harder.


to answer your question I never heard of a cold makin your heart rate go higher.

Also the higher your heart rate the more calories you burn. so kudos for you for burning 560 calories

pettmybunny

I have a polar F4 and it works great- I love it- I keep my heart rate up the entire time we even compared it to the gym machines (which were off) my husband is now looking in getting one-

Oh, my Timex is accurate with my heart rate. I just think their calculation is funky...

bonniejo

I was wondering that too! My HRM seems to be...overestimating my heart rate? My fitness instructor and I both have the Polar F6, and hers said 470 cals and mine 560. My high HR was 198! I have a minor cold... Could that be elevating my heart rate? :huh:

how tall is your fitness instructor and how fit is she?

the fitter she is the harder it is for her to burn alot of calories she may just have to work harder.


to answer your question I never heard of a cold makin your heart rate go higher.

Also the higher your heart rate the more calories you burn. so kudos for you for burning 560 calories

I think she's my height (about 5 4) and pretty fit. She's only a year older than me. I'm just concerned that it recorded a high of 198 BPM.

pettmybunny

If your chest strap wasn't connecting right, it could account for the weird number, or if you were picking up someone else's monitor. And you might have blipped up there, and dropped, what was your average? I generally have an average of 167 or 168, but will have a high of 183 or even 186. Doesn't mean it was up there for long, just that I spurted for a bit.... could even have been only a second or two...

I'd keep an eye on it for then next couple of times you work out.

Kimono

I still fail to completely understand. If you take a very fit person with a lot of muscle mass, and have them do the 30 day Shred (20 min) and they are working up a serious sweat and they have lots of muscle and muscle burns more calories than fat-right?? So maybe their heart rate isn't very high, because they are very fit. But the heart rate monitor would assume they are not burning many calories because their heart rate is lower, would they be right??

rocketdreams

Thanks for the thoughts everyone! My average for the workout was pretty high (161), and my peak heart rate was 198 (YIKES!) My low was 81 but that was from when the warm-up started. I guess it makes sense the I burned a lot of calories but I still don't think 700 sounds right.

I think today I'm going to go buy a Polar HRM (either the F4 or F6) and do a comparison. Then I'll keep whichever one seems more accurate and return the other one.

SHBoss1673

I was wondering that too! My HRM seems to be...overestimating my heart rate? My fitness instructor and I both have the Polar F6, and hers said 470 cals and mine 560. My high HR was 198! I have a minor cold... Could that be elevating my heart rate? :huh:

That sounds right. Your instructor SHOULD be burning less. As for them the workout isn't as physically intense as it is for you (more in shape muscles work more efficiently and burn less calories, and a more in shape cardiovascular system, more efficiently delivers oxygen and glycogen, reducing your heart rate and increasing the efficiency of muscles)

SHBoss1673

Thanks for the thoughts everyone! My average for the workout was pretty high (161), and my peak heart rate was 198 (YIKES!) My low was 81 but that was from when the warm-up started. I guess it makes sense the I burned a lot of calories but I still don't think 700 sounds right.

I think today I'm going to go buy a Polar HRM (either the F4 or F6) and do a comparison. Then I'll keep whichever one seems more accurate and return the other one.

I missed it, how long is this workout?

rocketdreams

The workout in total lasts 28 min, but that includes a couple minutes for warm-up and cool down.

SHBoss1673

The workout in total lasts 28 min, but that includes a couple minutes for warm-up and cool down.

Yeah, there's almost no way you could be doing 700 calories in 28 minutes including warm up. You might want to check and make sure you put all your numbers in correctly.

Kimono

That sounds right. Your instructor SHOULD be burning less. As for them the workout isn't as physically intense as it is for you (more in shape muscles work more efficiently and burn less calories, and a more in shape cardiovascular system, more efficiently delivers oxygen and glycogen, reducing your heart rate and increasing the efficiency of muscles)
[/quote]

I didn't realize this. So a 150 lb person who is all muscle and very fit would burn less calories than a 150 lb person who has more body fat and is not fit? I was thinking that if muscle burns more calories than fat that they would burn more calories.

SHBoss1673

That sounds right. Your instructor SHOULD be burning less. As for them the workout isn't as physically intense as it is for you (more in shape muscles work more efficiently and burn less calories, and a more in shape cardiovascular system, more efficiently delivers oxygen and glycogen, reducing your heart rate and increasing the efficiency of muscles)

I didn't realize this. So a 150 lb person who is all muscle and very fit would burn less calories than a 150 lb person who has more body fat and is not fit? I was thinking that if muscle burns more calories than fat that they would burn more calories.
[/quote]

Probably not a lot more, because the person who is out of shape doesn't have as much muscle to deliver oxygen too. But if the trainer is about the same "size", that doesn't mean they weigh the same.
The other thing to factor in is muscle memory, if the trainer does the activity on a regular basis, their muscles will become more efficient at that particular activity, and burn less calories. This is a big reason why you should switch up your exercises every 6 weeks or so.

Kimono

That sounds right. Your instructor SHOULD be burning less. As for them the workout isn't as physically intense as it is for you (more in shape muscles work more efficiently and burn less calories, and a more in shape cardiovascular system, more efficiently delivers oxygen and glycogen, reducing your heart rate and increasing the efficiency of muscles)

I didn't realize this. So a 150 lb person who is all muscle and very fit would burn less calories than a 150 lb person who has more body fat and is not fit? I was thinking that if muscle burns more calories than fat that they would burn more calories.

Probably not a lot more, because the person who is out of shape doesn't have as much muscle to deliver oxygen too. But if the trainer is about the same "size", that doesn't mean they weigh the same.
The other thing to factor in is muscle memory, if the trainer does the activity on a regular basis, their muscles will become more efficient at that particular activity, and burn less calories. This is a big reason why you should switch up your exercises every 6 weeks or so.
[/quote]

I see. I had been thinking about this some recently. Just because of the BMR on this site and wondering how accurate it really is. For example I weight 130 lbs but have pretty muscular built. I have a friend who weighs 130 lbs also. She is small frame but doesn't carry as much muscle as me, she would be considered thin, but not fit or in shape. So how is it that we would have the same BMR? I mean wouldn't I be burning more calories than her? And if we were to do the same work out, wouldn't I be burning more calories than her? I always assumed this because of the fact that muscle burns more calories than fat. I realize that the only way to get a exact BMR is by a doctor. But I don't think I will be doing that anytime soon.

rocketdreams

Thanks for everyone's insight on this -- just to give a little update, today I went and picked up a new Polar F6 HRM and did the exact same workout -- this one reported that I burned 365 calories which seems MUCH more reasonable to me.

I'm very happy with the new polar one -- with the timex one my HR seemed to fluctuate as much as 60 or 70 bpm even when I wasn't doing anything, and this one seems much more consistent and ACCURATE. I will definitely be keeping the polar one and returning the Timex.

shannahrose

I bought a Polar F4 yesterday and used it for the first time this morning doing the 30 Day Shred video. I had been logging the 30 Day Shred as Circuit training for my weight which is 170. That was estimating 206 calories for the 20 some minutes the video takes. When I used the my new HRM this morning, it gave me total calories burned as 182, which is a lot lower than I thought, I thought I was underestimating it at 206 before.... so i can't imagine how it could be 600-700 calories! I was kinda bummed that it was so few when I did it, because I really work at it hard, get sweaty and want to fall on the floor when I'm done! I wore the chest strap and entered all my starting information. ???

Did you check and make sure the battery was not going dead? I did a 45 minute elliptical workout the other day and my HRM said i burned only 21 calories which is rediculous because that usually burns about 450 or so. I got a new battery from the hardware store, and then worked out yesterday and the calories were right on! Just an idea...

songbyrdsweet

I still fail to completely understand. If you take a very fit person with a lot of muscle mass, and have them do the 30 day Shred (20 min) and they are working up a serious sweat and they have lots of muscle and muscle burns more calories than fat-right?? So maybe their heart rate isn't very high, because they are very fit. But the heart rate monitor would assume they are not burning many calories because their heart rate is lower, would they be right??

A very fit person just has to work harder to get their HR higher. If they're really working super hard, their HR will still be elevated. They can reach the same % of MHR as an un-fit person, it just takes more work. They have become really efficient at moving oxygen throughout the body, so the heart doesn't have to beat as rapidly. If they were to do everything at the same speed and intensity as the unfit person, they'd burn fewer calories.

hmo4

I have found that as hard as I work at it, I roughly burn 10 cals/min. Sometimes more, depending on the intensity. :happy:

Kimono

I still fail to completely understand. If you take a very fit person with a lot of muscle mass, and have them do the 30 day Shred (20 min) and they are working up a serious sweat and they have lots of muscle and muscle burns more calories than fat-right?? So maybe their heart rate isn't very high, because they are very fit. But the heart rate monitor would assume they are not burning many calories because their heart rate is lower, would they be right??

A very fit person just has to work harder to get their HR higher. If they're really working super hard, their HR will still be elevated. They can reach the same % of MHR as an un-fit person, it just takes more work. They have become really efficient at moving oxygen throughout the body, so the heart doesn't have to beat as rapidly. If they were to do everything at the same speed and intensity as the unfit person, they'd burn fewer calories.

ok-seems strange but I know you have a lot of knowledge in this stuff. The part that seems strange is that someone with more muscle would burn less than someone with not as much muscle. In my hypothetical sitiuation above I should have said that the person with a lot of muscle and the one with less are the same weight. This is all so very interesting. Thanks.