Weight Lifting & Calorie Expenditure confusion!

Like yesterday my average heart rate was 170bpm for 54min I lifted weights and today was 166bpm for 56min of weight lifting. That would put me burning 634.661 and 634.225 calories respectively. Does that sound right?!

Sorry if I've confused anyone, this is my first forum post. I'm just seeking some opinions. And I can't afford a good electronic heart rate monitor.

Thanks in advance!!

Those heart rates seem very high, especially for weight training. If I get up to 160 BPM while running, I feel like I'm gonna have a heart attack! I can't imagine an anaerobic workout would give you these heart rates at a constant level... but, hey - what do I know!

I lift heavy (for me) handweights every other day. Currently I weight 225lbs and here are my lifting stats for the last few days:

(I use a polar F11 HRM)

78 mins lifting (1kg for warmup to 8kg hand weights to 9kg kettlebell) HR Max 154 - Cal burn 563
71 mins lifting (same as above) HR Max 157 - Cal burn 581
48 mins lifting (same as above) HR Max 149 - Cal burn 395

To me, your average heart rate sounds very high but without using a HRM to measure or knowing what weights you are lifting, it is hard to tell. I tend to average about 126-136 when lifting. How are you measuring your heart rate if not with a HRM?

My Polar FT7 was ~ 60 dollars. I've only had it for a few months now, but no complaints so far!

I think your math may be off or your measurments. It is a tough thing to do manually. Like many of the other posters on here, I also wear a Polar HRM and you can put in all your data (age, weight, etc.). It sounds like you're calculating aerobic heart rates for your non-aerobic work outs. Wearing an HRM is very educational (and sometimes disappointing). I did an abdominal workout with around 250 crunches of varying types. It is a tough workout (Tamilee Webb's I want those abs) when you're belly is out of shape. So I was working it pretty hard. When I checked the HRM after 20 minutes and 250 crunches... I'd burned a whopping 60... yes, only SIXTY measley calories. Weight and strength training exercises are for building muscle and tone, not for burning calories really, IMHO. I think that's why MFP doesn't even assign them a caloric deduction in your diary. You record the activity, so you know how you progress in weight and reps... but no calorie deduction. If you want to know though, get yourself a heart rate monitor.

Just as the vast majority of HRM's aren't intended for estimating calorie burn outside the steady-state aerobic range (about 90-160), you measuring the HR to include the spikes of ANaerobic activity makes using that calculator invalid. As would plugging in your avg HR sitting at desk all day, invalid calorie burn estimate by manual or HRM method.

They are using the same formula as here, which has a link to the Polar study that is the basis for it.

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

So it assumes those high HR's, just as would a HRM, are for aerobic activity, and indeed, if reached it that way and at steady state, massive calorie burn.

But you aren't, you spike up there with sharp carb burn that is not related to your high HR, which is high for the effort put forth anaerobically.

It's the exact same effect of having a heat-elevated HR. Your heart pumps more blood because it's used in the cooling process too. But it's not more blood flow and higher HR because you need the oxygen to burn more calories, but the HRM doesn't know that, so inflated calorie burn figures.

I have a HRM that actually is intended for use during anaerobic activity like weight lifting, and worn it a few times to get a sense of what it is. About 1/3 to 1/2 of what the Polar said for calorie burn.
And actually, the MFP estimate has been right on within 25-50 calories.
That is doing the lifts with 1 min recovery in-between sets, and about 2-3 minutes in-between different lifts. So lot of recovery time.

And it's true, you don't burn as much during the session of lifting - the fat burn comes later for up to 24 hrs during recovery/repair process. And you sure don't need to feed that part of the workout back.

HEYBALES:

A lot of very good information, just a little "foreign" talk for me. LOL I understand much of what you're saying, but still trying to process the rest.

Thanks for the informative advice!

The take away is this, when you lift weights at an intensity that pushes lactic acid threshold, your heart rate does not reflect your calorie burn accurately, so don't bother trying.

I've come across this one the Polar FT4™ Heart Rate Monitor....Would this be sufficient enuf for me? I'd probably use it during my Turbo Fire workouts? The FT4 was priced at $79.95.

The only other one (Polar brand) the place I'm shopping at online has the Polar Ladies’ FT40 Heart Rate Monitor for $149.00, which is a little too rich for my blood right now, LOL

Any thoughts/advice on the two??

long as you understand they are useless for resistance training, go nuts. polar works great.

I've come across this one the Polar FT4™ Heart Rate Monitor....Would this be sufficient enuf for me? I'd probably use it during my Turbo Fire workouts? The FT4 was priced at $79.95.

The only other one (Polar brand) the place I'm shopping at online has the Polar Ladies’ FT40 Heart Rate Monitor for $149.00, which is a little too rich for my blood right now, LOL

Any thoughts/advice on the two??

I have the FT4. It works good. Amazon or Ebay might be cheaper, though I would hesitate to get a used one on Ebay.

HRMs are absolutely NOT useless for lifting. For heaven's sake. the HRM monitor will track your calorie expenditure over a period of time.

Get one. That's the best tool you're going to have to track calories you burn during lifting.

HRMs are absolutely NOT useless for lifting. For heaven's sake. the HRM monitor will track your calorie expenditure over a period of time.

Get one. That's the best tool you're going to have to track calories you burn during lifting.

From sparkpeople.com:

A heart rate monitor (HRM) is capable of estimating calorie burn pretty accurately—but only for aerobic (cardio) exercise, not for strength training. Here's why:

A HRM won't give you an accurate idea of how many calories you burn during strength training, because the relationship between heart rate and calorie expenditure is not the same during strength training as during cardio exercise, which is what the HRM's estimate is based on. Unless your weight training is very vigorous circuit training, the heart rate monitor will be overestimating your calorie burn by a fair amount.

The problem is a technical one. Calorie burning isn't determined by heart rate, it's determined by the number of muscle cells that are activated to perform a given activity. It's the working cells that actually use the energy (calories) and consume oxygen. When working muscle cells need more energy and oxygen, your heart rate goes up to deliver these things to the cells via the blood stream.

Any muscle that performs a high intensity or maximum effort (strength training) will trigger an increase in heart rate and blood flow. But if only a single muscle group is on the receiving end to utilize that extra oxygen (doing a strength exercise that isolates your biceps, for example), only a relatively small amount of oxygen (and calories) will actually be consumed.

So while a series of strength training exercises may elevate your heart rate like aerobic exercise does, you're not actually using as much oxygen and burning as many calories as you would be if you were steadily using several large muscles all at once, as when walking, running, swimming, or doing aerobics for example.

The heart rate monitor doesn’t know whether your increase in heart rate is due to several large muscle groups working (cardio), an isolated muscle group lifting a weight (strength training), or even if adrenaline or excitement is increasing your heart rate. It just knows your heart rate, and the formulas it uses to estimate calories are based on studies of aerobic exercise, not other activities. So, it's going to overestimate your calorie expenditure when the rise in heart rate is stimulated by using isolated muscles at maximum intensity, which is what occurs during strength training.

http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=75

Yeah, I also found the Polar FT40F listed on sale for $99.97. Was $134.00. These are from the military AAFES site and they're new.

There's another FT7 in-between the FT4 you mentioned and the FT40.

Price is increase in features, some of which you may never use. But if $100 is in budget, you may appreciate having some of the features later as you expand the workouts you enjoy doing. I'd go for it.

Just confirm they have user-replaceable batteries in the sending and receiving unit. Older models, with the same name, don't.
So while last year's color is just fine at discount, not too old.

"you're aware of how HRM's work right? by calculating oxygen consumption?? you're aware that resistance training is anaerobic right? ie: no oxygen?? so how exactly are you proposing a HRM is supposed to track a process that does not use oxygen with a device that calculates oxygen consumption?? hmm??"

Really? That's funny, because I breathe pretty darned hard when I'm doing squats. And deadlifts. And.. well, anytime I pick up a plate.

Here are some facts: http://www.livestrong.com/article/271696-heart-monitors-for-strength-training/

To the OP: buy a HRM, you will benefit.

I don't know what those programs are, but I would try putting in circuit training rather than strength training.

And damn, your bpm is 170+ for an hour? Crazy.

Really? That's funny, because I breathe pretty darned hard when I'm doing squats. And deadlifts. And.. well, anytime I pick up a plate.

Here are some facts: http://www.livestrong.com/article/271696-heart-monitors-for-strength-training/

To the OP: buy a HRM, you will benefit.

Read the article - not one comment about calorie count having any usefulness with weight lifting. Nothing to back up your assertions in that regard.

it's talking about knowing you are hitting the anaerobic zone during the lifts. Huh, perhaps if someone is comparing 5 sets x 20 reps this would be useful info, but if you are doing 5 x 5 or 3 x 6 - 10, and actually pushing hard, I'd find it surprising that someone might not know that anyway.

I'm sorry, but if you can't tell you are pushing as hard as you can, which would make reaching the anaerobic zone happen automatically, then you just need some general advice on how to lift properly.

But as far as any useful calorie count from it - you'll have to buy the expensive Polar model that says it is specifically for weight lifting, or the Suunto or Garmin's that use Firstbeat algorithms.

Otherwise, forget it for calorie count purposes, but go for it if you literally can't tell you are pushing as hard as you can and need to confirm later.

OK everybody, I bought the Polar FT4 (women's) over the weekend and used it today. My readings are as follows:

I did Beach Body's Turbo Fire "Fire 45" Class (by Chalene Johnson):
- Duration: 53min; 27sec
- Calories burned: 632
- "In Zone": 8min; 35sec
- Average heart rate: 174bpm
- Maximum heart rate: 191

Sound accurate? B/c I know I was raising a lot of questions when I said that my Average heart rate was 170 when I was calculating it manually myself.

Wow, you made that intense - great job.

So, you reached during a workout a max HR that happens to be what the HRM is calculating your HRmax to be (220-age).
So the first is what you reached during the workout as max HR, the latter is the stat of what you could possibly reach ever.

If you ever hit the HRmax during a workout, you usually have to ramp up to it pretty fast, you can't go slowly up to it because you'll burn off the ATP/glucose used to get the final push to it.
You'll also have to stop exercising right then, because you'll have no energy to keep going.

So I'm guessing that 191 you reached was a little spike, maybe slowly got up to it, and kept working out afterwards because you weren't laying on the floor feeling like you were dying and lungs burning, ect.

So you could safely go into the personal stats, where your age, weight, height is, and change the HR max stat to probably 198, and that still isn't high enough probably.

Now, that workout was still a big effort and huge carb burn. Make sure you eat back your workout calories, confirming about 537 calories of extra carbs to the day, because that's probably easily what you burned for carbs out of the 632. You don't want to go into your next workout without those topped back off.

And with the HRmax stat higher and more correct, it will report a smaller calorie burn next time even if the avgHR is kept the same.

But the HRM is calculating your HRmax is 191 right now, and since you actually reached it and kept going, it most obviously is not your HRmax, which is higher yet.

Now, not familiar with the workout, but if it's mainly heavy weight lifting and not cardio, my calorie advice above is wrong, the HRmax is still correct.
Calorie count for weight lifting is probably 1/3 to 1/2 that at most. And doesn't need to be mainly carbs, but decent protein in that case.