Is it me, or my HRM, or only me pretending?
Replies
-
Do you have a natural abnormally low heart rate?
No. I am at the risk group for hight blood pressure (145/90) Not taking for it any medications yet. But do taking medications for high cholesterol. Maybe that?
What are you taking for your cholesterol? Are you taking any other medications besides your cholesterol medication? Depending on what you are taking, there can be a heart rate effect, especially if your doctor was trying a combination therapy to lower your high resting heart rate at the same time.
I'm taking Crestor 5 mg every evening, and two soft gel capsules of fish oil (Omega defend). That's all.
Okay, just double checked and Crestor isn't one of the antilipidemic agents that can effect heart rate.0 -
Also, you can't use a heart rate monitor to estimate calorie burns from resistance or interval training. They are only designed for steady state cardio. We were taught to use a METs compendium for that and for anyone on medications to estimate calorie burns. And for your running, I would use the ACSM running formula to get an estimate to verify the HRM numbers. If you have an estimate of miles per hour and the % grade of your running surface, I'll be glad to do the math for you.
I dont have a problem with it while interval training. Most HRMs calculate calories burned cumulatively, so it shouldn't be an issue.
Yes, you will get a reading, but it won't be accurate. It will give you an estimate based on an average heart rate and not based on time at each level. Laboratory testing has proven that interval training actually increases the oxygen consumption of the exercise (and therefore the Calorie expenditure) to a greater level then the average heart rate estimates. It's actually almost as much as if the higher heart rate is maintained throughout the workout. This is why HIIT training is so effective because it burns more calories then HRMs are estimating because of the body having to catch up with exercise oxygen needs after the fact. Same with weight training. The difference is with weight training that people get caught up in figuring the Calorie expenditure of the exercise based on the physics of moving the resistance and forget that there is also the metabolic cost of increased EPOC (Excess Postexercise Oxygen Consumption). It's actually the oxygen usage that is most closely linked to Calorie burns and not HR, so estimating with HR when there is a higher EPOC is completely inaccurate.0 -
if it helps you to help me :flowerforyou: , (I hope photos will show up correctly):
1. this one bellow is from my interval running training few days ago (40 min, av. HR 120, max HR 157, 236 cals total) => I ran 500 m fast + 2 min rest
2. here is my HR from yesterday (2 hours, av. HR 100, max 143, 422 cals total) => first hour is weight lift, second is cardio.
0 -
And for your running, I would use the ACSM running formula to get an estimate to verify the HRM numbers. If you have an estimate of miles per hour and the % grade of your running surface, I'll be glad to do the math for you.
Last time I ran 5.6 miles per hour and the running surface was totally flat +/- 1 m. does' it help to calculate? i ran 60 min total, 5.7 miles.
Okay, here's the math.
VO2 (ml/kg/min) = (0.2)(5.6)(26.8) + (0.9)(5.6)(26.8)(0) + 3.5
= 30.016 + 0 + 3.5
= 33.516 ml/kg/min
METs = 33.516 / 3.5 = 9.576 METs
kg = 130 / 2.2046 = 58.96761317 kg
kcal/min = 0.0174 x 9.576 x 58.96761317 = 9.881792615 kcal/min
kcal/hour = 9.881792615 x 60 = 592.9075569 Calories burned from this run.
Now, I may be biased because I'm an ACSM Certified Clinical Exercise Specialist, but I trust the American College of Sports Medicine estimations over a heart rate monitor. So, based on this, I'd return your HRM because it isn't accurate for your runs.0 -
kcal/hour = 9.881792615 x 60 = 592.9075569 Calories burned from this run.
Now, I may be biased because I'm an ACSM Certified Clinical Exercise Specialist, but I trust the American College of Sports Medicine estimations over a heart rate monitor. So, based on this, I'd return your HRM because it isn't accurate for your runs.
thank you for this!
since you're an expert, i will appreciate if you spare few more moments and take a look at the graphs I posted above I got from my device, to see what is going on according to this.
you really helped me.0 -
Wow, your HR is really low! Mine's at 80-100 just getting dressed to go for a run... Resting (in the morning, before I get up) it's 50bpm, any time later it's 80-95. Running I average 150-160 at around 8km/h.
If I understand correctly, you just got this HRM? Have you double checked its measurements by counting or using another means to measure your HR? Maybe exchange it and see if it is a defective unit?0 -
I've got the same issue and also use a Garmin Forerunner. But I had the same issue when I used a Polar too. I always assumed it's because I'm not that heavy to begin with. Sometimes, I still wonder if the calorie readings are low, but I figure that's better than having readings that are too high.0
-
I have two things to say to the OP.
One: some people that are burning mega calories are extremely overweight and therefore it burns at a much higher rate. Some people log that they burn 800+ calories doing Zumba. According BOTH my Fitbit and my HRM, I only burn around 325. But I only weigh 135.5
Two: Most people are full of *kitten* when they say they burned these incredible numbers and are only fooling themselves. They overestimate or rely upon the treadmill only to tell them what they've burned, which is notoriously WRONG.
Thank you! This is exactly what I have been thinking. I see people posting 800-100 calories for like cooking dinner or something and then I go and work my *kitten* off doing cardio and srtength training for the same amount of time and get like 375 calories. My Fitbit and HRM are pretty close in their calculations so I go with what the fitbit gives me 99% of the time.0 -
if it helps you to help me :flowerforyou: , (I hope photos will show up correctly):
1. this one bellow is from my interval running training few days ago (40 min, av. HR 120, max HR 157, 236 cals total) => I ran 500 m fast + 2 min rest
2. here is my HR from yesterday (2 hours, av. HR 100, max 143, 422 cals total) => first hour is weight lift, second is cardio.
Okay, looking at the first graph, this looks like a standard HR response to interval training, with the exception of the drop at the 8:20 mark. I'm guessing here, but it looks to me like there was some interference in the monitor reading your heart rate at that point. If it is having trouble reading a heart rate at one point, then the other data become questionable. If we were to superimpose an oxygen consumption graph over the top of it, the oxygen consumption would be more stable and have fewer hills and valleys because it is interval training. A HRM is really inaccurate for Calorie estimation of interval training because of that.
Looking at graph 2, you can clearly see the delineation between the weight training and cardio, although you can also see some places where it clearly drops out and isn't accurately reading the heart rate, most notably at about 5 minutes, 1 hour 30 minutes, and 1 hour 56 minutes. The sharp saw tooth pattern is typical of the weight training where heart rate goes up and down with each set. The oxygen consumption graph overlaid on this part of the graph would demonstrate working above your VO2 max and creating a very high oxygen deficit that is made up for after the exercise is completed. The latter part of the graph demonstrates that you were either doing another interval type cardio workout or the HRM was dropping out and not reading your heart rate about half the time. Either way, it makes it impossible to get an accurate Calorie expenditure estimate.
Personally, instead of using this HRM, I'd use the METs compendium and estimate the Calories based on the activity and duration. You can find the compendium we used in my classes at: http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf
To estimate Calories, you multiply your weight in kilograms by 0.0175 and the MET level to get Calories per minute. Then multiply by the number of minutes to get the Calories for your workout.
So, as a guide, saying you were weight training for 60 minutes and it was standard weights not heavy enough to be considered body building, then I would use the MET level for weight lifting, light or moderate effort, which is 3 METs. Followed by 60 minutes of interval training, which is on the compendium as circuit training and 8 METs.
Weight Training:
kcal/min = 0.0175 x 3 x 58.96761317 = 3.095799692 kcal/min
kcal/hour = 3.095799692 x 60 = 185.7479815 kcal
Interval Training:
kcal/min = 0.0175 x 8 x 58.96761317 = 8.255465844 kcal/min
kcal/hour = 8.255465844 x 60 = 495.3279507 kcal
185.7479815 + 495.3279507 = 681.0759322 Calories burned for the whole workout.0 -
Is there a way you can also set your WEIGHT on the Garmin......I bet that is what it is......I weigh about 155.... I burn about 500 - 600 calories per hour when I am in the red zone, really sweating my butt off. Also, a trick. I set my weight LOWER on my heart rate monitor, so I see a smaller number on my watch. I have found that the MFP calorie counter is spot on accurate with my HRM!!!!!0
-
And for your running, I would use the ACSM running formula to get an estimate to verify the HRM numbers. If you have an estimate of miles per hour and the % grade of your running surface, I'll be glad to do the math for you.
Last time I ran 5.6 miles per hour and the running surface was totally flat +/- 1 m. does' it help to calculate? i ran 60 min total, 5.7 miles.
Okay, here's the math.
VO2 (ml/kg/min) = (0.2)(5.6)(26.8) + (0.9)(5.6)(26.8)(0) + 3.5
= 30.016 + 0 + 3.5
= 33.516 ml/kg/min
METs = 33.516 / 3.5 = 9.576 METs
kg = 130 / 2.2046 = 58.96761317 kg
kcal/min = 0.0174 x 9.576 x 58.96761317 = 9.881792615 kcal/min
kcal/hour = 9.881792615 x 60 = 592.9075569 Calories burned from this run.
Now, I may be biased because I'm an ACSM Certified Clinical Exercise Specialist, but I trust the American College of Sports Medicine estimations over a heart rate monitor. So, based on this, I'd return your HRM because it isn't accurate for your runs.
Tonya where you been hiding? How did you pull Vo2Max from that? I don't see where you would get the mL of oxygen to calculate the VO2 max...
I'm not hiding. I'm just up to my eyeballs in books because I still have the NSCA CSCS test this month.
And that isn't the VO2 Max. That is the VO2 (volume of oxygen consumed) for this particular exercise. VO2 Max can't be extrapolated from this because it is not a standardized test, just a workout. This is an estimation of the volume of oxygen that is used during this activity. From that you can get the Calories by dividing by 3.5 ml/kg/min to get the MET level and then plugging the MET level into the kilocalories per minute formula of 0.0175 x METs x weight in kilograms.0 -
How much you burn also depends on what you weigh. The more a person weighs the more calories they burn doing the exact same exercise as a much smaller person. People that you see burning 800 calories in an hour are probably much larger than you.
this is true, wife and i did our own study, i was at about 230 which is obese, and she was at 150 which for her height is classed as over weight. I could burn 20+ calories a minute with barely an effort, she would work her tail off and burn about 12 cals per minute. i reduce my weight on my HRM and now that i have lost 41 pounds and am at 205 lbs, on a good day i can burn 14 calories per minute. and she hasn't changed much. as i get closer to being "normal" status i expect my calorie burn will be same or less than my wife. at that point i will not be able to over indulge in cookies anymore, takes to long to burn it off. now that i have jsut realized this i am going to reduce the weight on my HRM by 15lbs less than i weigh, it will make me work out longer/more, becuase my workouts are all based on calorie burn only. if i can reach 600-800 calories per workout, i am happy.0 -
I have two things to say to the OP.
One: some people that are burning mega calories are extremely overweight and therefore it burns at a much higher rate. Some people log that they burn 800+ calories doing Zumba. According BOTH my Fitbit and my HRM, I only burn around 325. But I only weigh 135.5
Two: Most people are full of *kitten* when they say they burned these incredible numbers and are only fooling themselves. They overestimate or rely upon the treadmill only to tell them what they've burned, which is notoriously WRONG.
agree0 -
Do you have a natural abnormally low heart rate?
No. I am at the risk group for hight blood pressure (145/90) Not taking for it any medications yet. But do taking medications for high cholesterol. Maybe that?Just curious, what is your resting heart rate?
It was 100, a year ago, I mention that in my upper comment. Now it's 60-65.
I am 45, 172 cm (5'6), 58 kg (130 lbs) and i'm feet, but not THAT feet, far from that :-)
your probably just very fit. I have similar stats as you and I burn far less calories then a lot of people as well. My resting HR is 65-67, height 5'5 and CW 123lbs. I run alot and I average about 400-450 cals an hr. Anyone who does 800cal an hr is probably very out of shape. In 2hr of running I will burn about 900.0 -
Since I got my HRM (Garmin Forerunner 110, I think the good one), I noticed that actually I burn far less than I thought.
But not THAT less:
Yesterday I did almost two full hours of very heavy exercises (1 hour of workout with all of the squats, side and walking lounges with weights, 30 pushups and back pushups, etc + 1 hour of cardio interval training), I was socking wet, didn't give my self rest, I mean it was REALLY hard workout for a day, and I got ONLY 422 burned calories for that???
My highest HR was 148, average is 100. But, only 422 cals for two hours?!
Few days ago I was running for an hour, with highest HR 154, average was 120, and got only 234 cals... What is wrong with me? Am I just pretending that I workout hard?
or it is just my HRM?
I see people are burning up to 800 for one hour, geez, I should do 4 heavy hours for that...
What do you think? can you see anything from these data about my HR?
one more thing, is that you in the photo? if so why do you really care? YOU ARE SKINNY!!!0 -
one more thing, is that you in the photo? if so why do you really care? YOU ARE SKINNY!!!
yes, this is me from last summer, 120 lbs, so called skinny fat.
What I do now is trying to figure out what to do and how much to eat to bulk my muscles without getting new fat. I hope that my goal is not unreal. But I need to know my body first. This topic helping me in this and people were very helpful.
From the other side, I have the issues with my high blood pressure, so I need to be more focused on my HR not just because of the fat burn.0 -
I am 45, 172 cm (5'6), 58 kg (130 lbs) and i'm feet, but not THAT feet, far from that :-)
your probably just very fit. I have similar stats as you and I burn far less calories then a lot of people as well. My resting HR is 65-67, height 5'5 and CW 123lbs. I run alot and I average about 400-450 cals an hr. Anyone who does 800cal an hr is probably very out of shape. In 2hr of running I will burn about 900.
fit, not feet (my written english could be more improved). I'm still laughing, thank you all for ignoring the stupid mistake.0 -
That can't be right. I know you don't burn a lot of calories lifting, but the run estimate has to be low. I am not familiar with Garmin, but I do have to wash my Polar chest strap after every 5 uses because the salt in it from sweating throws off the readings.0
-
Okay, looking at the first graph, this looks like a standard HR response to interval training, with the exception of the drop at the 8:20 mark. I'm guessing here, but it looks to me like there was some interference in the monitor reading your heart rate at that point. If it is having trouble reading a heart rate at one point, then the other data become questionable. If we were to superimpose an oxygen consumption graph over the top of it, the oxygen consumption would be more stable and have fewer hills and valleys because it is interval training. A HRM is really inaccurate for Calorie estimation of interval training because of that.
Looking at graph 2, you can clearly see the delineation between the weight training and cardio, although you can also see some places where it clearly drops out and isn't accurately reading the heart rate, most notably at about 5 minutes, 1 hour 30 minutes, and 1 hour 56 minutes. The sharp saw tooth pattern is typical of the weight training where heart rate goes up and down with each set. The oxygen consumption graph overlaid on this part of the graph would demonstrate working above your VO2 max and creating a very high oxygen deficit that is made up for after the exercise is completed. The latter part of the graph demonstrates that you were either doing another interval type cardio workout or the HRM was dropping out and not reading your heart rate about half the time. Either way, it makes it impossible to get an accurate Calorie expenditure estimate.
Personally, instead of using this HRM, I'd use the METs compendium and estimate the Calories based on the activity and duration. You can find the compendium we used in my classes at: http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf
To estimate Calories, you multiply your weight in kilograms by 0.0175 and the MET level to get Calories per minute. Then multiply by the number of minutes to get the Calories for your workout.
So, as a guide, saying you were weight training for 60 minutes and it was standard weights not heavy enough to be considered body building, then I would use the MET level for weight lifting, light or moderate effort, which is 3 METs. Followed by 60 minutes of interval training, which is on the compendium as circuit training and 8 METs.
Weight Training:
kcal/min = 0.0175 x 3 x 58.96761317 = 3.095799692 kcal/min
kcal/hour = 3.095799692 x 60 = 185.7479815 kcal
Interval Training:
kcal/min = 0.0175 x 8 x 58.96761317 = 8.255465844 kcal/min
kcal/hour = 8.255465844 x 60 = 495.3279507 kcal
185.7479815 + 495.3279507 = 681.0759322 Calories burned for the whole workout.
thank you very much again!
just because I was put in a high risk group for heart disease, i also did resistance test (not sure do you call it this way, it is the test you do to see how fit you are and how much your blood pressure go up during resistance training, and, also, recovery time). so, I got really good marks for the test, and my recovery time was surprisingly quick (doctor said so). Maybe these interruptions you see are when I meet someone during running and slow down to say hi. It happens. and, i'm never out of breath during long run.
but, anyways, looking to your formulas, it seems to me that my HRM is not accurate in my case.0 -
I wouldn't say your HR is inaccurate too much. What is the MET's tonya used based on? On formulas, how accurate are they? BMR is used often to calculate a lot of this stuff, how accurate is that? plus what method does your HRM use??? How accurate is that??
The HRM can be dead on, and the formulas off. Or it can be the other way, your HRM wrong, and the formula's spot on. You really don't know.
How accurate is the MFP tool to determine caloric intake? What about scales how accurate those? How accurate are the food per calories??? Is your body normal or do you have a faster HR??? what about metoblic issues???
There are inaccuracies EVERYWHERE. The only thing that really matters for weight loss is your weight is going down. That's all. Even if you really weigh 120, but the scale says you weigh 400... the point is the numbers need to go down.
The most important thing for performance is finding your LT(Lactate threshold) this can be done with a talk test. This will determine your 3 zones for cardiovascular exercise. Doesn't matter if the HRM says 200bpm, as long as you're in your zone that's what matters.
I guess the point I am trying to make is don't get too caught up with the numbers most of the time they're inaccurate. People need to find their maintenance calories. This is done through trial and error and work from that, not off some calculator.
True, the formulas could be completely wrong. But, at least the ACSM will site the research where their formulas were derived and will give you the formulas to determine your own numbers. Not so of heart rate monitor manufacturers who site them as "proprietary". Proprietary is suppose to mean that it is their own special formula that no body else can use, but in actuality it ends up being a secret that no body else can verify as accurate. Speaking of accuracy, the talk test is notoriously inaccurate. It's a general estimation for when there are no other methods to estimate intensity. For example, I did a metabolic test in our Ex Phys lab where I was having VO2 and respiratory exchange ratio measured and was at the lactate threshold while still at an RPE of 8 on the 6-20 scale (RPE being the standard scale used to estimate intensity level similarly to the ability to talk). Not only could I still talk, I could have still sung had I not had the mouthpiece for measuring O2 and CO2 in my mouth. I wasn't out of breath or having even the slightest loss in ability to talk until after I had surpassed the 2nd lactate threshold. If they had gone by the talk test, I wouldn't have been at my 1st lactate threshold until I was almost at my VO2 Max.
I totally agree with saying that whatever measure you use (scale, body fat, etc.), you should stick with the same method and track the changes to verify that whatever plan you choose is working for you. With all of our research, there are definitely people who don't respond the same as the average population, so there is a chance you could be an outlier and not get close with the research based formulas. But since 98-99% of the population falls within 3 standard deviations from the average, I will trust the science based formulas and tests that are based on research that can and has been reproduced multiple times.0 -
True, the formulas could be completely wrong. But, at least the ACSM will site the research where their formulas were derived and will give you the formulas to determine your own numbers. Not so of heart rate monitor manufacturers who site them as "proprietary". Proprietary is suppose to mean that it is their own special formula that no body else can use, but in actuality it ends up being a secret that no body else can verify as accurate. Speaking of accuracy, the talk test is notoriously inaccurate. It's a general estimation for when there are no other methods to estimate intensity. For example, I did a metabolic test in our Ex Phys lab where I was having VO2 and respiratory exchange ratio measured and was at the lactate threshold while still at an RPE of 8 on the 6-20 scale (RPE being the standard scale used to estimate intensity level similarly to the ability to talk). Not only could I still talk, I could have still sung had I not had the mouthpiece for measuring O2 and CO2 in my mouth. I wasn't out of breath or having even the slightest loss in ability to talk until after I had surpassed the 2nd lactate threshold. If they had gone by the talk test, I wouldn't have been at my 1st lactate threshold until I was almost at my VO2 Max.
I am confused by this...as you know Lt zone boils down to the ability to use oxygen. When Lactate can't fully be buffered it starts to build up, which also increases the the need for O2. This as you know is your LT. If you're not in oxygen debt you're not in your LT zone. That's really the difference from aerobics and anerobics. If you can sing, you have enough oxygen, you're not really in oxygen debt so you're not really in your LT zone. You'd probably tell me about some physiological adaptation, but I can't see that working either.This will probably end up in to a kreb cycle discussion. So i'll start it now...
Fatty acid's require oxygen for break down to pyruvic acid, then the kreb cycle converts the pyruvic acid to CO2 and H2O. Fatty acid's won't break down without oxygen as you increase your intensity more glucose will be used oxygen will be limited and the glucose converts to pyruvic acid and turns in to lactic acid if there is no oxygen. So as I said to produce Lactate acid oxygen won't be available.
Not saying the test is wrong, what i am saying, RPE is your own perception... it could easily be misperceived. The Lt test you did was it based on CO2, or actual blood work? If it was based on CO2 you could be well adapted to oxygen consumption, work well with limited oxygen, but that doesn't mean you're in oxygen dept which implies you're not at your LT.
If the test was based on blood work, then... i really don't know what to say, maybe you can explain that.
The first lactate threshold was estimated based on the respiratory exchange ratio, which is an estimation of substrate usage based on the ratio of VCO2/VO2. At 0.7 the primary substrate is fat and at 1.0 the primary substrate is carbohydrate. Therefore, an RER of 1.0 is the lactate threshold because it is where the body is burning primarily carbohydrate for the exercise and carbohydrate is the only substrate that can be burned anaerobically. It's not necessarily the amount of oxygen that you have (IE: ability to breathe) but the amount of oxygen that the cells are using (VO2) for substrate conversion to ATP. At the beginning of cardiovascular exercise, the body switches over from primarily fatty acid oxidation to primarily anaerobic glycolysis (The first Lactate Threshold) because the increased intensity will require faster ATP production then waiting on the Kreb's cycle. With adequate warm-up prior to the high intensity exercise, the body will not have a lack of ability to breathe, but the muscle cells won't be using the oxygen because of working anaerobically. After a while then it will switch again, backing down the anaerobic glycolysis and ramping up the fatty acid oxidation, which is when the Kreb's cycle plays a bigger part. Because this was a maximum effort test, the Kreb's cycle doesn't come into play because the intensity is too high and the duration too short.0 -
HRM calorie burn readings tend to be misleading because numerous factors go into an accurate calculation. Usually, these devices overestimate the number of calories burned. As at least one person has already said, the heavier you are, the more calories you burn.0
-
... I do have to wash my Polar chest strap after every 5 uses because the salt in it from sweating throws off the readings.
The instructions on my Polar say to rinse the band after every use and to remove the transmitter because the presence of moisture causes it to run down.0 -
Hey! I borrowed Polar HRM from friend for today's cardio at gym: and here is what it says: 1h20min => 450 cals. Before I did setup for my profile.
And, it was really hard, interval training (30 min on inclined treadmill running at level 8 + lounges at level 12 + fast walk level 10 ... max is 15) all x3. Than really hard, advanced 20 min intervals on elliptical trainer, followed by 20 min stair treadmill intervals. I was socking wet, but still, only 450 cals for more than an hour.
So, it's obviously me. Not my or any HRM :-)) I simply don't burn :ohwell:0 -
Not wishing to shove the broscience aside too heavily in favour of, you know, actual science, but.... :-)
There's at least some evidence that the rosuvastatin you're taking has a depressing effect on HR, and it certainly impacts on BP. Apart from being used to reduce cholestrol, it's also used to prevent heart attacks and strokes in people at risk. You might want to get some proper advice from the prescribing medical practitioner on the impact these meds might have on your exercise, particularly on your heart rate. For people who are taking, for instance, beta blockers and similar meds, it's likely that HRMs aren't a good measure of calorie burn at all, and that you're better off relying on things like distance travelled and estimates based on effort.
I found that when I was on beta blockers, it was hell getting my heart rate over 125-130. I suspect you might be having the same issues.
I hope that's genuinely helpful.0 -
PS that's based on a quick read through of the first few scholarly articles I found published since 2009, which mentioned 'heart rate'.. Obviously this isn't exhaustive so please do ask your doctor. (I'm not a medic.)0
-
Meerkat,
There's at least some evidence that the rosuvastatin you're taking has a depressing effect on HR, and it certainly impacts on BP. Apart from being used to reduce cholestrol, it's also used to prevent heart attacks and strokes in people at risk. You might want to get some proper advice from the prescribing medical practitioner on the impact these meds might have on your exercise, particularly on your heart rate.
yes, you're probably right, that was my idea too, but after tonya said earlier:Okay, just double checked and Crestor isn't one of the antilipidemic agents that can effect heart rate.
=> I took it for granted.
But, still, I will ask my doctor next time about your these findings
I found that when I was on beta blockers, it was hell getting my heart rate over 125-130. I suspect you might be having the same issues.
I hope that's genuinely helpful.
... when I found out that having high blood pressure caused by hypercholesterolemia (genetic type) I was prescribed to take Presolol, beta blocker along with this antilipidemic, since I was in danger of serious heart decease. And after a while, my cholesterol got in normal range, and then I went to see my cardiologist to see what's next with beta blockers. He gave me to wear EKG and blood pressure monitor for 24 hours, and it turned out that during sleeping time I was having extremely low blood pressure, and heart rate (pulse) was just over 35 :-)) So it was obvious that my high blood pressure was related to my cholesterol, and, as soon as I got lipids in normal range, my blood didn't need any further medications.
Unfortunately, my genetic chol. type doesn't allow me to live without pills for it, since I can not lowering it down only with clean eating and proper life style.
I am so eager to meet my chol. doctor to learn more about my metabolism under this specific medication.
thank you for going deeper whit this.0 -
Hey! I borrowed Polar HRM from friend for today's cardio at gym: and here is what it says: 1h20min => 450 cals. Before I did setup for my profile.
And, it was really hard, interval training (30 min on inclined treadmill running at level 8 + lounges at level 12 + fast walk level 10 ... max is 15) all x3. Than really hard, advanced 20 min intervals on elliptical trainer, followed by 20 min stair treadmill intervals. I was socking wet, but still, only 450 cals for more than an hour.
So, it's obviously me. Not my or any HRM :-)) I simply don't burn :ohwell:
That's good, glad i was right :-O
I am glad that you're glad ;-)
edit: because I lost you in your conversation with tonya, didn't have a clue what were you two talking about. :laugh:0 -
Yeah, right. Don't bother with the doctor. Listen to Pu.... It's very, very important that he be right.0
-
To be clear, rather than snitty - heart rate is an expression of a process, it isn't the process itself.
I wouldn't pretend to have a full understanding of how burn might be affected by a suppressed heart rate, as many medics don't. However, I do understand that heart rate can give an estimate of burn - it is not a determinant of it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions