Walking and HRM

Sarah_LM

Hi! I bought a new heart rate monitor and decided to try it out for the first time today. I took my dog to some woods near my mums and walked for 27 minutes. Some of it was uphill, some flat and some downhill. When I checked my heart rate on the monitor it calculated that I had burned 209 calories. Now I know I'm a big girl and the more you weigh the more you burn but that still seems a lot! What does anybody else think? Does this seem like too much for such a short walk?

Thanks!

courtney_love2001

Well, if it is any comparison, I just ran 2.2 miles at 6 mph and it told me on MFP that I only burned 250 calories. Ain't that some crap?? I weigh 166 and I don't have a HRM.

I hope that you did burn that many in your walk...that would be so awesome!! It does seem high, though. Those HRM seem to be pretty accurate, though, so maybe you got a tougher workout than you thought with those hills! :happy:

timeforchange

hey!
I posted a similar prob last week..
I walked for 2hrs and burned 930 cals! all of my results since then have been similar. so if mine is correct, so is yours!!! awesome isn't it!?! :P

JNC87

where do u buy HRMs? i think i should invest in one.

timeforchange

sportcheck!

vctkell

Hi, I have been using just a cheap one from Walmart and it is reading around what the other girls are saying. I usually walk on Sat and Sun mornings here is my readings from the past 4 walks:
96 mins 975 cals, 98 mins 947 cals, 80 mins 661 cals and today 90 mins 1044 cals. Today I ran off and on for about a mile walk about 6 hills moderate incline to steep incline. I was trying really hard to keep heart rate above 120 so I was checking my heart rate really often and since my time less I feel the extra cal burn had to be due to the extra exertion. Whenever I note my walking time I put in what the heart rate monitor is telling me. I saw a note some where it said if you are working out on ellipticals to put in what the machine is reading, most of those have heart rate monitors built in.
I think you should feel pretty good about the reading and take the dog for more long walks !!!!



Unless you puke,faint or die, Keep Going !!
Jillian Michaels

Nightdust

I only walk about 30-40 minutes at a time and it takes me that long to do a mile. I put that in here at mfp at 2mph and I burn around 100-120 calories. I would be wary of anything that says I burn more than that.

astridfeline

Hi! I bought a new heart rate monitor and decided to try it out for the first time today. I took my dog to some woods near my mums and walked for 27 minutes. Some of it was uphill, some flat and some downhill. When I checked my heart rate on the monitor it calculated that I had burned 209 calories. Now I know I'm a big girl and the more you weigh the more you burn but that still seems a lot! What does anybody else think? Does this seem like too much for such a short walk?

Thanks!

That sounds pretty accurate--I have an uphill stretch that's 2 miles, it takes me 40 minutes and I burned 280 cals yesterday. The incline is pretty gradual so my HR doesn't really get elevated.

spicy618

It sounds about right to me also.

From what i've read, if you between 75- 85 % of your Target heartrate you can burn about 100 calorier per 10 minutes.

When i go walking with my dog for about 90 minutes, i keep my heartrate from 70 - 80% of My target heartrate. My HRM shows 500 - 650 calories burned. These figures are individual for each person, according to your stats (i'm 157, 5'4,, very active within the last year)

Hope this helps :flowerforyou:

Azdak

Well, if it is any comparison, I just ran 2.2 miles at 6 mph and it told me on MFP that I only burned 250 calories. Ain't that some crap?? I weigh 166 and I don't have a HRM.

I hope that you did burn that many in your walk...that would be so awesome!! It does seem high, though. Those HRM seem to be pretty accurate, though, so maybe you got a tougher workout than you thought with those hills! :happy:

According to the ACSM energy cost equation, at your current weight, at 6 mph you burn ~12.8 Kcal/minute. For 2.2 miles, that would work out to 281 Kcal.

twilight1542

I only walk about 30-40 minutes at a time and it takes me that long to do a mile. I put that in here at mfp at 2mph and I burn around 100-120 calories. I would be wary of anything that says I burn more than that.

A HRM monitor will always be more accurate than any online estimate you can find. You have to remember that estimators have to "guess" what your heart was during the activity whereas HRM's with chest straps constantly monitor your heart rate. No 2 people doing the exact same activity will have the exact same heart rate during the activity. Remember that your heart is a muscle & the more active it is, the more efficient it becomes. So a sedentary person doing 30 mins of cardio should have a much higher rate because their heart isn't as strong as a person who is very active doing the same activity person his/her heart is stronger & doesn't have to work as hard. This is why the resting heart rate of an athlete can be in the 60's whereas the resting heart rate of a sedentary person could be on the 80's or 90's.

BrendaLee

That doesn't sound too high at all.

Nightdust

Very true Twilight but I wouldn't go saying I burned a ton of calories if I'm not sure. I would do some research first.

Azdak

I only walk about 30-40 minutes at a time and it takes me that long to do a mile. I put that in here at mfp at 2mph and I burn around 100-120 calories. I would be wary of anything that says I burn more than that.

A HRM monitor will always be more accurate than any online estimate you can find. You have to remember that estimators have to "guess" what your heart was during the activity whereas HRM's with chest straps constantly monitor your heart rate. No 2 people doing the exact same activity will have the exact same heart rate during the activity. Remember that your heart is a muscle & the more active it is, the more efficient it becomes. So a sedentary person doing 30 mins of cardio should have a much higher rate because their heart isn't as strong as a person who is very active doing the same activity person his/her heart is stronger & doesn't have to work as hard. This is why the resting heart rate of an athlete can be in the 60's whereas the resting heart rate of a sedentary person could be on the 80's or 90's.

The energy cost of an activity is fixed and the rate of calories burned depends primarily on weight. There are long-established energy cost equations for walking, running, and stairclimbing that are probably more accurate than a heart rate monitor.

2 people doing the same activity may not have the same heart rate, but the energy cost of the activity WILL be the same (assuming both are familiar with the movement). What will vary is a) the RATE of calories burned if the weights are different and b) the "difficulty" of the activity if their fitness levels are different.

Two people walking 4.0 miles per hour will each burn approx 4.1 Kcal per kg of body weight per hour, regardless of heart rate. If Person A weighs 100 kg, they will burn approx 410 Kcal/hr at that speed; if Person B weighs 70 kg, they will burn approx 287. Person A might have a very low fitness level and so walking at 4 mph might represent 65% of maximum and thus be a noticeably brisk pace; Person B might be very fit and the intensity might be only 25% of max and thus very easy, but both will burn 4.1 Kcal/kg/hr.

HRMs measure heart rate, not calories. They assume a relationship between % of HRmax and % of VO2max. Polar has developed algorithms that seem to work pretty well with that relationship for many people and thus are probably accurate to within 10%-20% for most people doing cardio exercise, which is probably about as accurate as you can be without doing direct measurements.

However, it is a mistake to assume that HRMs are automatically more accurate than any other method. For common, 'linear", steady-state cardio activities such as walking or running at both flat and incline elevations, stairclimbing, and stationary cycling (on an ergometer), prediction equations are at least as accurate as a HRM.

And I have described in other comments, the concept of "cardiovascular drift" in which HR increases with no change in workload. Since workload is constant, calorie rate should be constant, yet the Polar HRM counts a higher number because HR is increased. I have documented this trend in my own workouts, where in a 45 min stairclimber workout, my Polar counts ~25% more calories in the second half of the workout, even though average intensity is roughly the same througout.

When it comes to calorie estimating, HRMs really shine in what I would call "nonlinear" activities--stop and go movements, classes, spinning, outdoor cycling, running/walking with varying terrain, etc--where there are too many variables to include in a reliable prediction equation. Even with the 10%-20% error factor of HRMs, you are still a lot closer in those activities than you would be with any other method.

slieber

What Azdak just said! I have lost a ton of weight and as I lose, it gets harder and harder for me to burn the same cals that I burned at the higher weight. That's as it should be - my body's using the energy more efficiently. But man! it's SOOOOO frustrating to do the same level of intensity and get fewer cals out of it! *sigh*

Saudimom

hey!
I posted a similar prob last week..
I walked for 2hrs and burned 930 cals! all of my results since then have been similar. so if mine is correct, so is yours!!! awesome isn't it!?! :P

Wow You go girl!!!!!!

Azdak

What Azdak just said! I have lost a ton of weight and as I lose, it gets harder and harder for me to burn the same cals that I burned at the higher weight. That's as it should be - my body's using the energy more efficiently. But man! it's SOOOOO frustrating to do the same level of intensity and get fewer cals out of it! *sigh*

Theoretically, the "loss" should be offset somewhat by the fact that, as you lose weight and your fitness level improves, you should be able to work out at a higher intensity.

My experience, however, has been that, if you are losing weight steadily, the percent increase in fitness is smaller than the % decrease in weight loss.

Chiny

I am on the smaller side (5'0" and 110lbs). According to my Polar F4 last night I walked for 1:15.39, was in my zone for 1:00.50, max HR 155 & burned 404 calories.