Resting heart rate of 44 and calorie burn

AbigailClarke48

44 Beats per minute is astonishing!

BostonStrong617

TBH I don't understand how HR really works in the sense of burning calories. I don't get how someone who has a higher heart rate due to genetics or medication or something automatically burns more calories or someone who has a lower HR burns less. But caffeine is a stimulant and that will automatically raise your HR. My medication raises my HR so my HRM automatically displays higher calories burns when I run on day I take my medication, I've always wondered why I burn more calories on days my HR is higher at rest, even tho I'm doing the same level of cardio as the days I don't take it. I feel like HR can kind of be subjective as far as calorie burns. But again I have no medical knowledge. I guess you could try drinking a coffee before your work out, it should raise your HR at bit and I guess in theory that means you'll burn more calories?

erickirb

A higher HR =/= higher calorie burn. HRM's use an assumption that you are working at X% of capacity based on where your HR is relative to max HR. But, it is just an estimate, the real determinant of caloric burn is oxygen uptake durning exercise, which most HRM's just give a generic estimate, but the more fit you are the more oxygen you can take in with a lower HR, so that is an issue with HRM's that don't allow you to input your "real" V02Max.

The real caloric burn is based on amount of work performed (duration, weighed, speed, distance, etc) HR is just used as an estimate and in most cases if pretty accurate, but the more fit you are the more likely it will be to under estimate your burn, but for unfit it may be more likely to over estimate your burn.

willtrainforchocolate

Mine is naturally 40bpm and always has been. I have a heart murmur too. My cal burns can be really low. It doesn't matter as I benefit in loads of other ways as well.

cwolfman13

It's not your actual heart rate that determines your calorie burn...your heart rate is used in the equation to estimate your level of exertion and capacity of VO2 max during an aerobic activity. Also, the more fit you are, the less reliable a HRM is in RE to your estimated calorie burn because you've improved your VO2 max and most HRM's assume the average Joe/Jane.

harlanJEN

My resting heart-rate is also low - on average - 48. I'm 49 years old so I'm totally HAPPY with my fitness level.

In regard to your concern about "burning less calories", let me offer this:

Shift your focus, your thought pattern about this. Your goal for workouts should be about fitness and what it does for your body relative to body composition vs. how many calories it burns. Fitness and body composition is TOTALLY where it's at. If we workout with the goal of "burning cals" - what is our true goal? Workout to eat more? Workout to lose WEIGHT? Losing weight in and of itself is often meaningless, especially when we are already fairly lean and we are aiming to get sleeker. Losing WEIGHT doesn't necessarily get us SLEEKER. Changing our body composition is what will get us to SLEEK.

If you are in the homestretch and seeking to lose 6 pounds, then I challenge you to take a look at your goals and shift your focus away from losing weight to changing your body composition. Losing fat, gaining/developing lean body mass (muscle). You may even "gain" weight on the scale, but will be SMALLER and sleeker.

I'm in the homestretch with a final "10 pounds" to lose. However, that goal isn't the true goal. My true goal is to lose additional body fat and to be smaller / SLEEKER. That may or may not extrapolate to 10 pounds of scale loss.

I'm eating slightly below my TDEE of 2200 and am training with focused intensity - strength training. and YES, my cardio fitness is almost entirely due to strength training. I do very little "formal" cardio. My strength training is cardio in nature. I lift heavy and I frequently lift circuit style. My other primary exercise is walking and increasing my overall NEAT.

Good luck ! and CONGRATS on that resting heart rate : )

Jen

jaygreen55

Most people don't relize that there's not a direct association between heart rate and calorie burn. HRMs measure your heart rate but the calorie number is just an estimate based on formulas. As you get fitter your heart gets stronger and delivers more blood volume with every beat so even though your heart rate is lower you are still burning the same amount of calories.

If you get one of the higher end polar HRM (FT 40,60 or 80) there is a fitness test and a way to enter your VO2 max. I have 2 and one gives me a fitness level of 47 and tells me I burn 750 calories per hour at 80 percent of my heart rate. The other gives me a fitness level of 51 and tells me I burn 850 calories per hour at the same level of effort (I have worn them both simultaneously several times ) I don't kno which monitor is right but the higher number seems unrealistic to me

zlauerMom

When I was training for a marathon I used my Garmin HR monitor with GPS. When I started out my resting HR was about 68 bpm. If I did a run around a nearby pond I burned about 580 calories. As I got further along in my training my resting HR was about 48 bpm. If I did a run around a that same pond I burned about 580 calories. What changed was the second time I might have completed the run faster than the first. So I burned more calories over time. But calorie burn for the same distance, nothing changed.

Your heart is more efficient at getting blood where it needs to be. Your body is still doing roughly the same amount of work.

pjgreen0830

Well I thought it was bad to have a below normal heart rate. Mine showed 53 at the drs office once and I thought the nurse was going to stroke out over it being too low.

A lot of medical people don't have much experience with athletically-conditioned people who still look like average folks. And they often don't know any more exercise physiology than a "lay" person. So, the nurse's reaction doesn't surprise me.

I had a resting rate of 51 while at the cardiologist office. I am 55, weighing 229 at the time a couple of weeks ago. Both the nurse and the doctor thought there was something wrong with me. How funny, today it was running at 46 while they were working on me and I've only lost 2 pounds. I do believe rate has more to do with how fit your heart is than weight.