HRM calories burned seems too high

BrendaLee

To maybe help somebody help me figure out what I'm doing wrong or if this is right, my stats are: 37 yo, 267lbs, 5'4". MHR calculated at 175 which the monitor says makes my target zone between 103 and 122. Average heart rate during the workout was 131 for most of the 15 minutes.

I'd say it's quite high, and it probably has to do with your max heart rate/target zone settings. On my Polar FT4, my max heart rate is set to 182, and my zone is 118-155 (default). My burn is much, much lower than yours, and I weigh more (290/38/5'5"). In 10 minutes with an average heart rate of 138 and a max of 159, I burned 52 calories. I think you have to get your heart rate up pretty high to get the big burns.

erickirb

10 calories a minute for fairly moderate exercise seems to be my normal. If I go all out for 15 minutes .. 268 seems possible.
Did you start the HRM at the same time you started the workout and stopped the HRM right when you finished? I usually let my hrm keep counting till my heart rate is back down to resting heart rate.

I'm so glad to know i'm not the only one who does this! it takes me a good ten minutes to get down to around 103bpm and i usually burn a good 30-40 more calories in that time.

Don't keep your HRM running when you are done. HR is used to gauge intensity only, a high HR itself does not mean calories are being burned. So if you are not exercising and you HR is up and you leave you HR on it will grossly over estimate you burn as the HRM thinks you are still working out at that intensity of your max, and that you oxygen uptake would be what it would be if you HR was that high is you were still working out.

Please stop leaving the HR running when you are done if you want an accurate burn.

erickirb

yes I burn around 300 calories with the 15 minute shred! sounds about right.

20 cals/minute is quite high I would double check you burn with the other sites provided earlier. A normal burn depending on intensity and size of an individual is 8 to 16 cals/minute, unless you are going at a crazy intensity.

cPT_Helice

I really want to be sure I'm doing this properly, so I got a HRM to track calories burned, to be accurate since I work out at home and don't have the machines to tell me my average calories burned. I got a Timex T5J031 and input all my stats and did the max hear rate tests to set the right zone and everything. Except I tried it for the first time today and it told me my 15 minutes of Jillian Michaels 30 minutes shred (15 minutes was all I could handle lol) burned 268 calories. !!! That seems super high.

To maybe help somebody help me figure out what I'm doing wrong or if this is right, my stats are: 37 yo, 267lbs, 5'4". MHR calculated at 175 which the monitor says makes my target zone between 103 and 122. Average heart rate during the workout was 131 for most of the 15 minutes. I mean, I'm ridiculously out of shape, but that calories burned number just doesn't seem right. But if it's not then ugh, I just wasted 100 bucks on a HRM that doesn't record my HR properly, so I dunno.

Does anyone have any idea what I ought to do or if it's right? I'm so confused and I don't want to over-estimate and end up disappointed on the scale because my monitor is fibbing to me lol.

That sounds right, based on your stats.

erickirb

Honestly, return the Timex ASAP.. They are known for over-calculating calories.. ESP for women.

The reason why is Timex does not take all info needed(age, weight, height gender and Vo2max) and because of that I suspect it assumes you are a male and thus gives off the calorie reading of one.

Polar is a much better and more reliable brand... i've had both a FT7 and now the FT60, and my calorie estimations seem pretty spot on.

I'm looking at purchasing a HRM for my wife. Can you tell me the differences between the FT7 and FT60? Do you have a preference? My wife will use it mostly for a full body aerobic type workout and spinning.

Thanks

FT60 allows you to adjust the V02Max and has more memory (not sure of the other differences) but the V02Max can have a big difference in the amount of cals you actually burn.

I cannot find the link but studies have been done that show around 70% of the calorie burn can be accounted for using age, weight, gender, duration, HR. If you have the correct V02Max the amount that can be accounted for increases to 85% so only 15% vs. 30% of the burn will be an estimate.

nanegan

I suggest you spend some more money & get your HR zones evaluted by a trainer. I had the New Leaf testing done & it was an eye opener. The calories according to the New Leaf website & my Garmin match pretty closely. If I go by what MFP says, I would get an extra 100 calories for each 30 minutes.

cPT_Helice

yes I burn around 300 calories with the 15 minute shred! sounds about right.

20 cals/minute is quite high I would double check you burn with the other sites provided earlier. A normal burn depending on intensity and size of an individual is 8 to 16 cals/minute, unless you are going at a crazy intensity.

There's no such thing as a "normal" burn. There is an average burn for a specific population based on average stats for that population. You have to take into consideration sex, age, height, weight, and most importantly RHR to get an estimated value for kcals burned based on HR. The most I have EVER burned, based on HR, has been ~725 Kcals in an hour and that was when totally maxing out my speed and intensity as much as possible WHILE teaching a Spin class. I normally do not burn a ton, being a bit older, at my ideal weight, being a runner, and having a RHR of around 40 bpm. That said.... do I think that someone who is 10 years younger than me and much heavier than me and not at top CV and CR fitness levels could burn 60 or 70% more than me, based on HR?? Absolutely and I see it every day.

cPT_Helice

To maybe help somebody help me figure out what I'm doing wrong or if this is right, my stats are: 37 yo, 267lbs, 5'4". MHR calculated at 175 which the monitor says makes my target zone between 103 and 122. Average heart rate during the workout was 131 for most of the 15 minutes.

I'd say it's quite high, and it probably has to do with your max heart rate/target zone settings. On my Polar FT4, my max heart rate is set to 182, and my zone is 118-155 (default). My burn is much, much lower than yours, and I weigh more (290/38/5'5"). In 10 minutes with an average heart rate of 138 and a max of 159, I burned 52 calories. I think you have to get your heart rate up pretty high to get the big burns.

The FT4 is not very accurate because it doesn't take into consideration RHR or activity level of any kind. Still, for your stats, if you are getting up to 159 bpm (with a device that doesn't consider RHR), your kcals burned should be much higher than 52.

BrendaLee

To maybe help somebody help me figure out what I'm doing wrong or if this is right, my stats are: 37 yo, 267lbs, 5'4". MHR calculated at 175 which the monitor says makes my target zone between 103 and 122. Average heart rate during the workout was 131 for most of the 15 minutes.

I'd say it's quite high, and it probably has to do with your max heart rate/target zone settings. On my Polar FT4, my max heart rate is set to 182, and my zone is 118-155 (default). My burn is much, much lower than yours, and I weigh more (290/38/5'5"). In 10 minutes with an average heart rate of 138 and a max of 159, I burned 52 calories. I think you have to get your heart rate up pretty high to get the big burns.

But it allows you to input your max heart rate, which is related to resting heart rate, isn't it?

(Holy quote fail, Batman)