Heart rate monitor calories question:

jenslife82

I am wondering again about heart rate monitor calories. If my heart rate monitor says I burn 500 calories during a work out how accurate is that and is it what I should be logging? Your body will burn a certain number of calories sitting and doing nothing just using the energy it needs to for breathing, keeping your heart beating, eyes blinking.. Should those calories be subtracted?? How do others do it and who eats the calories back from all recorded calories and still lose?

Pebble321

You'll get different responses to this question.

Subtracting the cals you would have burnt just sitting around is very logical and probably a good idea - but I never bothered to do this and it didn't affect my weight loss (and yes, I did "eat my exercise calories").

I work on the theory that everything we log (food and exercise) is an estimate anyway, all you can do is pick something that makes sense to you, try it out for a month of so and see how your body responds.

kimmieyr1

Your base needed calories (1200, 1500 or whatever it is) is already figuring your BMR. Beside we all gained weight burning those daily calories why would you count them now.

jenslife82

Your base needed calories (1200, 1500 or whatever it is) is already figuring your BMR. Beside we all gained weight burning those daily calories why would you count them now.

Right. I'm just wondering if adding in all hrm calories is counting them twice. If I dont turn off my hrm it still continues to count calories burned even though I'm not doing anything. I'm sure part of it is "after burn" but how much of it is already counted in with the bmr calculation?

jenslife82

..

jenslife82

You'll get different responses to this question.

Subtracting the cals you would have burnt just sitting around is very logical and probably a good idea - but I never bothered to do this and it didn't affect my weight loss (and yes, I did "eat my exercise calories").

I work on the theory that everything we log (food and exercise) is an estimate anyway, all you can do is pick something that makes sense to you, try it out for a month of so and see how your body responds.

Ty. This makes sense to me.

tigerblue

I figure I burn about 50 cals an hour just existing, so I subtract that from my exercise calories.

sortin

My assumption is that the calories it calculates are for your heart rate being above resting, so it would all count.

You could try wearing your HRM for an hour of sleep, and see what it says. Then subtract that from every hour of exercise, if you're so inclined.

kmoore02

You're not counting them twice because like you said, you burn calories just breathing, but you burn more calories being active working out. So the HRM will calculate the calories burned in addition to your "just breathing" calories.

Pebble321

My assumption is that the calories it calculates are for your heart rate being above resting, so it would all count.

You could try wearing your HRM for an hour of sleep, and see what it says. Then subtract that from every hour of exercise, if you're so inclined.

My understanding is that an HRM isn't the right tool for this - you need a Body.... bug/media/fit? I forget what they are called, but there are better tools for this than an HRM.

Or you could just divide your BMR by 24, that would give you an hourly estimate of what you are burning just to stay alive without doing anything.

hablondi

I take my TDEE number on MFP and divide it by 1440. I get 1.25 calories a minute. I then multiply that by the number of minutes I worked out and subtract that from the reading on the HRM. I then log that number for my exercise calories.

I run long distances and sometimes the calorie difference can be near 200 calories. It would make a big difference in my weight loss progress if I double counted those calories.

If you are only working out for 30 minutes or so, I don't think it would make a huge difference.

Mokey41

A HRM doesn't deduct your BMR from the number, it's giving you the whole number of calories burned for the time you were working out so in theory you would need to deduct your BMR calories from the total number to be more accurate especially if you want to eat those calories. Counting the whole thing would be double dipping.

It is correct that wearing a HRM while just sitting around or sleeping would be inaccurate. The math they use is meant for an elevated HR and it gives exaggerated numbers when you are at rest.

geebusuk

I suspect it depends on the HRM.

Apparently my motoactv actually does give a figure that doesn't include BMR.

However, I merely use the 'end of day figure it gives me, then subtract 2350 (1350 calories + 1000 deficit) and add that figure to MFP to cover all the calories not already in considered in MFP.

(The motoactv works as a pedometer as well as tracking other exercise like running and cycling.)

Mokey41

I suspect it depends on the HRM.

Apparently my motoactv actually does give a figure that doesn't include BMR.

However, I merely use the 'end of day figure it gives me, then subtract 2350 (1350 calories + 1000 deficit) and add that figure to MFP to cover all the calories not already in considered in MFP.

(The motoactv works as a pedometer as well as tracking other exercise like running and cycling.)

I just did some reading on the MotoActv and it's no different than any other HRM in the HRM aspects. It's meant for dedicated exercise, not wearing all day. Only a BodyBugg or FitBit type device are designed for 24 hour use and they use different formulas for determining burn but aren't meant for exercise like lifting or cycling.