Heart rate monitor and calories burned

laurae

I just got a heart rate monitor, Reebok FitWatch, and used it this morning while doing step aerobics (The FIRM). According to it, I burned about 650 calories in 45 min. How can that be? It seems way too much? This monitor does not have a chest strap. You need to touch two fingers to the metal contacts for a reading. I checked my heartrate about every 5 minutes to be sure I was in the target heart rate zone. Any thoughts? I did enter my age and sex properly (44 - female).

laurae

I just got a heart rate monitor, Reebok FitWatch, and used it this morning while doing step aerobics (The FIRM). According to it, I burned about 650 calories in 45 min. How can that be? It seems way too much? This monitor does not have a chest strap. You need to touch two fingers to the metal contacts for a reading. I checked my heartrate about every 5 minutes to be sure I was in the target heart rate zone. Any thoughts? I did enter my age and sex properly (44 - female).

singfree

WAY too much! I have a HRM with chest strap and I work out far above the "zone" HR. I average about 700 cals per hour. If I were "in the zone" I'm sure it would be in the 500 cals per hour range. Your HRM is indicating 975 cals per hour, far too high IMO. The problem probably is wearing a watch-only HRM, without chest strap.

chrissyh

I would agree - sounds high.

I burned less than 500 yesterday in 45 minutes of jogging on the tread mill

I average about 700 per hour normally.

Chiny

I've never had a heart monitor WITH a chest strap, mine is just a watch and it showed I burned 253 calories in 30 minutes. That seems reasonable (although it is higher than the site said). My Sportline SOLO 910 says to only put 1 finger on the sensor, I'm not sure if that makes a difference.

laurae

I bought another heart rate monitor - this time I got a Timex with a chest strap. My first workout with it was about a 4 minute warm-up followed by a 50 minute weight workout. I was suprised that it told me I burned 465 calories. My minimum rate was 85 (probably when I hit "start" just before warming up) and my maximum rate was 135. The average was 116 and I was in Zone 2 (60%-70% of MHR) for 37 minutes. Does this sound accurate? I'm a 44 year-old female, 5'4'', and 149 lbs. It is the strap-style monitor Timex T5J983 (I already wasted money on the Reebok Fitwatch which did not give a continuous reading). The next workout I did with it was about an hour and I was in zone 3 & 4 for most of the aerobic workout (The Firm 500 Calorie Workout). The monitor calculated I burned 751 calories. Do you think this is an accurate calorie count? It seems so much higher than what myfitnesspal calculates.

pettmybunny

I have a timex with a chest strap. I do know that it tracks my heart rate correctly, but I think that the formula they use to show the burned calories is high. Invariably, my HRM shows that I burn double, sometimes triple what the machines give me. Now I know that people say the machines aren't accurate, but I have a hard time believing that I am burning 1200 or more calories in an hour!

There are sites on the web, where you can enter your weight, exercise and average heart rate, and it will calculate your calories burned. Sorry, but I can't list any off the top of my head... But I bet someone here can!

*edit* Ok... I just found one for you... http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/?page_id=483

fitzfour

Laurae-

The HRM is going to be an accurate count based on your heartrate. I have a SportLine HRM, which is just like your Reebok one was (I think), and I have taken the time a few times to manually check my heartrate, and the HRM is right. I am like you, I burn a lot more calories than any online calculator will figure. I am always in the 70-80% of max heartrate, unless I'm warming up or cooling down. I would believe what the HRM tells you!

Erika

laurae

Thanks for the tip about the website. I entered my information for today's workout and it stated a few calories more than my heart rate monitor said, so I guess my new monitor is accurate.

arewethereyet

I am glad you got one with a strap. I think that is key, because it stays close to your heart and gets every beat. I like that mine syncs with the machines at the gym and I can see my HR on the display.

My HRM made me kick up my exercise. I would be at 259 cals at the end of my sched workout, and I like round numbers. So then I would go for 275 and miss it at 279. I ended up with 300-400 calories burned!! :laugh: :laugh:

Yesterday I burned 800 calories with 60 min interval training and 60 minutes of continueous weight training (in between sets, I work unused muscles. Doing tricep, in break I do squats and such)

For the first time in my life I feel comfortable a the gym, and even answered someones question about form the other day:noway:

All from a Polar F6:laugh: :laugh:

Skeen903

I got a sportline HRM with a chest strap. Does anyone know if the calorie consuming bit is based per hour or per workout/lap? I'm trying to figure out if I burned 151 or closer to the 400 it lists? this was for 20 mins on an elliptical heart rate about 140-150 the whole time.

dad106

In short, you bought two crappy HRM's.

First mistake, buying one without a strap.. Second, buying a Timex.

Ditch both and buy a Polar... You'll save yourself a major headache when it comes to estimating calories burned.