HRM calories vs calories calculated with average heart rate

kmillers

So I have been working out very hard doing the second month of Insanity. My HRM says I only burn 400-500 calories for a 55-60 minute workout. This seemed so low to me because there is sweat everywhere and I'm so exhausted afterwards that I can't go anymore. I noticed that when I am doing push-ups, planks, push-up jacks, ski abs, etc... any position where I am in a prone position, my HRM says my heart rate drops about 20bpm. Can this be? I am breathing hard doing these things.

anyways, I put my average HR along with the amount of time doing the workout (along with gender, weight, age) into a calorie calculator and it said I was burning about 15-20% more calories for the exercise. Which is correct? BTW my HRM is a polarFT4.

sculley

I am wondering the same thing because last night I worked out for an hour and burned less than 400 doing crossfit. And I own a ft4 as well...

So I'm bumping hoping someone could help us out

2hungariangirls

Just bought a HRM so I'm bumping. I haven't thought about the non-moving or less moving actions.

bizco

If all of your inputs into the Polar are correct, I would say the HRM is more accurate.

kmillers

bump

rileysowner

I would tend to go with the HRM. Realize that nothing other than being hooked up to a bunch of testing machines in a lab is going to be 100% accurate, but 400-500 calories seems reasonable for Insanity. If you want to go with the higher number you can as the difference is not huge especially if you are running a 500 calorie a day deficit it won't take you out of that deficit.

BigCat175

If all of your inputs into the Polar are correct, I would say the HRM is more accurate.

This is true. I researched a bit in the past can quickly came to this conclusion. In the health and fitness world, the best known coaches won't work with you unless you have a HRM. While it is not perfect, as stated earlier, it is the better method.

KellyBurton1

I have a polar ft4 as well, and my inputs are correct! And I also dont get the calorie burn as I think I should. And no Im not in fantastic shape and yes I have been excerising for a few years now.

minnesota_deere

my wife and i compared our HRM i have polar a5 and she has ft4, the HR on both were the same however when we compared calories burned over 1 minute she was walking on the treadmill at the time and her HR was at 153, on my a5 calories burned was 20, on hers it was 11, we dug in deeper and apparently females do not burn calories anywhere near men. its harder for women to lose weight than men, however when she is at 145 for HR she is hardly breaking a sweat, for me, i am working my butt off and drenched in sweat. it is important to stay under your max heart rate, when your above your max, you burn carbs, than muscle and very little fat. the lower your heart rate the more efficient your fat cell burn is. it takes longer but its less painful in the long run. before my wife got her HRM she would be injured all the time and gasping for air it was horrible to see her on the treadmill, just a mess, since i purchased the HRM for her she has no longer injured herself and his happy when she is done exercising, 45 minutes she burns about 500 calories. slow down, spend more time mastering a good diet. the more and harder you workout the bigger your muscle will be and the more you will need to eat. is this what you want? i believe weight loss is 95% diet and 5% exercise.

heybales

my wife and i compared our HRM i have polar a5 and she has ft4, the HR on both were the same however when we compared calories burned over 1 minute she was walking on the treadmill at the time and her HR was at 153, on my a5 calories burned was 20, on hers it was 11, we dug in deeper and apparently females do not burn calories anywhere near men. its harder for women to lose weight than men, however when she is at 145 for HR she is hardly breaking a sweat, for me, i am working my butt off and drenched in sweat. it is important to stay under your max heart rate, when your above your max, you burn carbs, than muscle and very little fat. the lower your heart rate the more efficient your fat cell burn is. it takes longer but its less painful in the long run. before my wife got her HRM she would be injured all the time and gasping for air it was horrible to see her on the treadmill, just a mess, since i purchased the HRM for her she has no longer injured herself and his happy when she is done exercising, 45 minutes she burns about 500 calories. slow down, spend more time mastering a good diet. the more and harder you workout the bigger your muscle will be and the more you will need to eat. is this what you want? i believe weight loss is 95% diet and 5% exercise.

Correct on differences, because women for equal age have higher HR's. The difference in your weight delta over healthy also determines how easily you'll be running high, and how aerobically fit you are.

In other words, don't even worry about comparing, it's worthless.

And don't worry, you can't go over your max HR. It is your max because you can't go over it, hence the term max. In fact if you reach your estimated MHR and are not feeling like coughing up a lung - that is not your real max.
Which is genetically set, and once you are a tad aerobically fit, is as high as it will be, can't improve it.

heybales

So I have been working out very hard doing the second month of Insanity. My HRM says I only burn 400-500 calories for a 55-60 minute workout. This seemed so low to me because there is sweat everywhere and I'm so exhausted afterwards that I can't go anymore. I noticed that when I am doing push-ups, planks, push-up jacks, ski abs, etc... any position where I am in a prone position, my HRM says my heart rate drops about 20bpm. Can this be? I am breathing hard doing these things.

anyways, I put my average HR along with the amount of time doing the workout (along with gender, weight, age) into a calorie calculator and it said I was burning about 15-20% more calories for the exercise. Which is correct? BTW my HRM is a polarFT4.

Yes, your body has less weight to support in prone position, and therefore less effort is needed, so HR is less, and yes, calories is less. Breathing can be just as much though normal though.

The Polar is taking your stats and estimating your MHR (right or wrong) and your VO2max (right or wrong), and using all that in a formula to estimate calories.

Those websites are using a formula based on NOT knowing your VO2max, but still estimating your MHR.
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm - study link on the page.

For women - the Polar can be up to 33% off depending on how much it is guessing, that study formula can be off too.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

Net effect, at least get your MHR known so you can enter that into the Polar yourself, and if you can nail your VO2max, you can use the online calculators to more accuracy.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466973-i-want-to-test-for-my-max-heart-rate-vo2-max

GoMizzou99

Here is the equation I use with my ancient Polar FT1...
>>> http://www.livestrong.com/article/78365-estimate-calories-burned-heart-rate/#ixzz1L8GRJNbH


If you search on Livestrong.com there are equations for many of the insanity workouts - like pure cardio:
>>> http://www.livestrong.com/article/420795-how-many-calories-do-you-burn-on-insanity-pure-cardio/