Tracking "Exercise" Calories

Options
2»

Replies

  • ThatDamnRobyn
    ThatDamnRobyn Posts: 47 Member
    Options
    I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+

    HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.

    People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...

    That's interesting. Never thought about that and assumed HRMs were going to be more accurate. Perhaps I'm totally wrong about this, but it seems like the HRM would be more accurate because it knows how hard you are working. A treadmill, for instance, only knows how fast you're going, and for someone who is super fit, 4.5 might be a piece of cake and for someone terribly out of shape, it might have them working incredibly hard. If one of those people is 150 lbs with lots of muscle and great fitness level, and one is 150 lbs and overweight and out of shape, they would be burning cals at a different rate, wouldn't they? So the machine wouldn't see a difference, but the HRM would. Am I mistaken?
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+

    HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.

    People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...

    That's interesting. Never thought about that and assumed HRMs were going to be more accurate. Perhaps I'm totally wrong about this, but it seems like the HRM would be more accurate because it knows how hard you are working. A treadmill, for instance, only knows how fast you're going, and for someone who is super fit, 4.5 might be a piece of cake and for someone terribly out of shape, it might have them working incredibly hard. If one of those people is 150 lbs with lots of muscle and great fitness level, and one is 150 lbs and overweight and out of shape, they would be burning cals at a different rate, wouldn't they? So the machine wouldn't see a difference, but the HRM would. Am I mistaken?

    how hard you're working (effort) doesn't impact calorie burn. It takes a fixed amount of work (calories) to move a 200lb body from point a to point b regardless of how fit you are... this is why weight impacts calorie burns but effort doesn't. Effort is more an indicator of how hard you are pushing yourself relative to your fitness level.

    This is why HR is only loosely tied to calorie burns, but the person's weight and the activity being done have a very direct impact in calorie burns.
  • OkieTink
    OkieTink Posts: 285 Member
    Options
    I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+

    HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.

    People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...

    Activity doesn't matter. If your heart rate is 160 on a treadmill, or 160 doing HIIT your calories burned are the same.

    My HRM this morning said my heart rate was 149 on the stepper. The stepper said my heart rate was 197. HUGE difference. Since I hadn't passed out, and had the resistance set high and was stepping slow and deep I have to say my HRM was correct :)
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+

    HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.

    People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...

    Activity doesn't matter. If your heart rate is 160 on a treadmill, or 160 doing HIIT your calories burned are the same.

    Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally wrong.
  • OkieTink
    OkieTink Posts: 285 Member
    Options
    I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+

    HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.

    People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...

    Activity doesn't matter. If your heart rate is 160 on a treadmill, or 160 doing HIIT your calories burned are the same.

    Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally wrong.

    Then explain why, when maintaining my HR almost the same on the treadmill, a bike or the stepper my calories burned are almost the same?
  • xiamjackie
    xiamjackie Posts: 611 Member
    Options
    They are both just estimates... neither one is guaranteed to be more or less right than any other one.

    Personally, I'd go with the lower number to be on the safe side. Besides, most people don't burn as much as they think/want when exercising.

    This.. I always go with the lower number and when I'm on any machine (treadmill, elliptical, etc.) I usually just cut the burned calories in half and use that number just to err on the side of caution.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    I just recently bought a good heart rate monitor, the polar ft4. This site & the other cheap heart rate monitor that I was using & the machines at the gym(even though I entered my weight) was all way overestimating my cals burned, compared to my new hrm. So I'd say the only way to know for sure would be to get a heart rate monitor, this site for certain exercise sometimes overestimates my cals by 300+

    HRMs are not automatically more accurate than the machines. The machine knows what activity you are doing, the HRM doesn't... that's a big disadvantage for the HRM.

    People need to stop thinking HRMs are some miracle tool...

    Activity doesn't matter. If your heart rate is 160 on a treadmill, or 160 doing HIIT your calories burned are the same.

    Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally wrong.

    Then explain why, when maintaining my HR almost the same on the treadmill, a bike or the stepper my calories burned are almost the same?

    because HRMs calculate cals burned based on HR, when in reality HR is only loosely related to calorie burns. It's a flaw with HRMs and the problem with your assumptions.
  • OkieTink
    OkieTink Posts: 285 Member
    Options
    What else are calories burned based on?
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    What else are calories burned based on?

    increased O2 exchange.
  • OkieTink
    OkieTink Posts: 285 Member
    Options
    What else are calories burned based on?

    increased O2 exchange.

    Wouldn't that affect your heart rate?
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    What else are calories burned based on?

    increased O2 exchange.

    Wouldn't that affect your heart rate?

    increased O2 exchange = increased HR

    ... but ...

    increased HR does not always = increased O2 exchange.


    but back to the original topic...

    calories are a unit of energy, energy is a measure of work done, work is the activity being done. HR has no direct impact, it's more of a side effect. correlation vs causation.

Categories