HRM and Calories Burned

dad106

Just want to point out that HRM's are not meant for strength training and are meant for steady state cardio only(even then they are only 80% accurate at estimating calories... with strength training, it's even less.)

I'd take that number with a grain of salt if I were you.

Dave198lbs

Just want to point out that HRM's are not meant for strength training and are meant for steady state cardio only(even then they are only 80% accurate at estimating calories... with strength training, it's even less.)

I'd take that number with a grain of salt if I were you.

hmmmm...I have never heard that HRM is for steady state cardio only. I do HIIT and other things and use my HRM. where did you get this info? thanks

ShannonMpls

Just want to point out that HRM's are not meant for strength training and are meant for steady state cardio only(even then they are only 80% accurate at estimating calories... with strength training, it's even less.)

I'd take that number with a grain of salt if I were you.

hmmmm...I have never heard that HRM is for steady state cardio only. I do HIIT and other things and use my HRM. where did you get this info? thanks

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

This is why "eating exercise calories" seems inherently flawed to me. MFP's estimates are often ludicrous, and HRMs are not always accurate. I wear mine during every workout (and I love it!) but I certainly wouldn't base my calorie intake on what my HRM says, especially for circuit training or intervals.

AmoreCouture

It sounds right to me. An 80 minute workout will usually burn around 800+ calories as long as it's keeping your heart rate up high. Which strength training and running will definitely do.

Dave198lbs

Just want to point out that HRM's are not meant for strength training and are meant for steady state cardio only(even then they are only 80% accurate at estimating calories... with strength training, it's even less.)

I'd take that number with a grain of salt if I were you.

hmmmm...I have never heard that HRM is for steady state cardio only. I do HIIT and other things and use my HRM. where did you get this info? thanks

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

This is why "eating exercise calories" seems inherently flawed to me. MFP's estimates are often ludicrous, and HRMs are not always accurate. I wear mine during every workout (and I love it!) but I certainly wouldn't base my calorie intake on what my HRM says, especially for circuit training or intervals.

thanks Shannon...and I agree re the exercise calorie eating. I do increase my calories on days I work out but I rarely eat all of my estimated calories in case the number isn't accurate.

ShannonMpls

thanks Shannon...and I agree re the exercise calorie eating. I do increase my calories on days I work out but I rarely eat all of my estimated calories in case the number isn't accurate.

No problem - and I do the same. Typically, I set a fairly small deficit (about 500 cals a day) and eat a bit more when I work out and (100-200 calories extra). I still lose around two pounds a week on average.

Prefessa

Guys:

I could be totally off base here...but! Anyone ever think of subtracting base calories from workout calories??

OK...so yor HRM says you burned 900 cals for 90 minutes of exercise....does that INCLUDE the 200 odd calories you would have burned if you watched TV in Bed for the duration?? or is that number above an beyond? Remeber TDEE is the sum of all caloreies burned while exercising, at work, at rest, and while sleeping. This is why the Biggest Looser contestants wear the Bodybug Armband all day long to get a true energy balance, not an estimated one.

OK so your TDEE is say 2400 for the day...that means if you did NO EXERCISE you would burn ~100-200cals/hr. So if your workout burns 900 calories, you are effectively counting your base calories twice for the duration. Am I correct?? A HRM is not like the BodyBug, you wear it when you train...theoretically you could wear it all day, but it may be fristrationg because the chest strap needs to be damp to pick up your heartbeat, so if your not sweating you will miss data.

With a HRM it may pay to do an assessment of calories burned while awake and sedentary as well as calories burned while sleeping to get an accurate assesment of the BMR. or what you would burn in 24hrs if you just goofed off and slept.

I way toying around with the idea myself of getting the FT4....i would have no problem with a better device like the bodybugg, but
i don't like the idea of plunking down big bucks and still paying a fee to download the data.

cNhobbes

i'm 5'7" and 130lbs. i've found that when i'm working hard i burn about 100 cla per 10 minutes. i think that sounds accurate for you.

jrich1

I have a Ft7.. sounds right to me.

970Mikaela1

Guys:

I could be totally off base here...but! Anyone ever think of subtracting base calories from workout calories??

OK...so yor HRM says you burned 900 cals for 90 minutes of exercise....does that INCLUDE the 200 odd calories you would have burned if you watched TV in Bed for the duration?? or is that number above an beyond? Remeber TDEE is the sum of all caloreies burned while exercising, at work, at rest, and while sleeping. This is why the Biggest Looser contestants wear the Bodybug Armband all day long to get a true energy balance, not an estimated one.

OK so your TDEE is say 2400 for the day...that means if you did NO EXERCISE you would burn ~100-200cals/hr. So if your workout burns 900 calories, you are effectively counting your base calories twice for the duration. Am I correct?? A HRM is not like the BodyBug, you wear it when you train...theoretically you could wear it all day, but it may be fristrationg because the chest strap needs to be damp to pick up your heartbeat, so if your not sweating you will miss data.

With a HRM it may pay to do an assessment of calories burned while awake and sedentary as well as calories burned while sleeping to get an accurate assesment of the BMR. or what you would burn in 24hrs if you just goofed off and slept.

I way toying around with the idea myself of getting the FT4....i would have no problem with a better device like the bodybugg, but
i don't like the idea of plunking down big bucks and still paying a fee to download the data.

I took my bmr divided it by 24 (as in 24 hours per day) and subtract the hourly bmr ( i know its a pretty rough idea) for each hour spent exercising. And i do this for every workout. My HRM tells me in a 2 hour fast paced walk i burn about 1100 calories and then i take of around 200 to get a closer count.

Prefessa

Yup....I think this is a good idea.....I also would get up one morning, before you had your coffee or breakfast, and wear it while clicking the remote. You burn more calories "At rest" then you do sleeping, you will burn a tad more....will also giver you a true assessment of the BMR.

So lets say you wear it to bed and sleep 8 hrs burn 800 cals.....but watching TV awake 1 hr you burn 115, so yor BMR is (115 x 16) plus 800.

I am not a big fan of canned formulas...like McKardle-Ketch or Harris-Bennedict....too many variables that can go on with your own body. I like the McKardle Formula the best....It takes into account LBM (I took his class when I was an Undergrad at CUNY.)

If those formulas were dead on, the folks in the Biggest Looser would be wearing 300 dollar BodyBuggs 24/7. I am willing to bet you will see a 30% discrepancy in BMR in those folks after they loose all that weight if you use formulas due to Adaptive Thermogenesis, and to some degree a shift in thyroid hormones. There was a paper published in J, Clinical Obesity in 2008 that states that while the BMR doesn't change much with weight loss, calorie ex[penditure with exercise drops with every loss of bodyweight of 10% or more. This was identical for healthy atheletes as well as ordinary folks, and is due to Leptin Downregulation.

Kinda makes sense....I mean guys like Lance Armstrong cycle 20,000 miles a year. If you think of the amount of calories typically estimated for intense cycling....he would have to eat constantly or dissapear.

minnesota_deere

I think my max heart rate was around 190 (yikes, I know) and low was around 120 or so (during warm up and cool down)? Average was around 165 I believe. I would need to double check those numbers once I get home.

if your average HR was 165 you would be hitting well over 1800 calories in that amount of time. somethings not right, you will have to figure it out. according to my HR if i am at 155ish for heart rate i burn 20 calories per minute. so at bare minimum you would be burning 1600 calories in that time, so please check it, let me know what yours comes in at, mine could be wrong also.

ezramedic

Average was around 165 I believe. [/quoute]

That's my average, too. Around 155-165.