Heart Rate Versus Calorie Burn
TheCaren
Posts: 894 Member
I'm not sure if anyone has run across this, or if it's just me. I have a very high resting heart rate, in part because I lead a sedentary lifestyle (which I'd like to fix) and in part because I was just made that way. I was a runner in high school and always had a resting heart rate that was 15 to 20 beats per minute higher than my classmates'.
The question is this. When determining calories burned with normal exercise, like walking, all the calculators seem to be focused on distance and time, period. Today, I walked 25 minutes at 3.2 MPH on average and MFP and 2 other calculators I checked said I burned 102 calories. However, when I went to a site that caculated calorie burned based on average BPM for heart rate (and took into account age and weight), it said I burned 190 something. What do you base your calorie burn on? Traditional distance and time? Or do you take your average heart rate into account?
The question is this. When determining calories burned with normal exercise, like walking, all the calculators seem to be focused on distance and time, period. Today, I walked 25 minutes at 3.2 MPH on average and MFP and 2 other calculators I checked said I burned 102 calories. However, when I went to a site that caculated calorie burned based on average BPM for heart rate (and took into account age and weight), it said I burned 190 something. What do you base your calorie burn on? Traditional distance and time? Or do you take your average heart rate into account?
0
Replies
-
Bump
I'd like to know too
I personally go with HRM, but I'd like to see what the pros say 0 -
You calorie burn depends on the ACTUAL WORKLOAD being performed, not your heart rate.
Heart rate is just a relative indicator to estimate at what % of your max you are working. In other words, it is more significant to know if you are working at 60% , 70%, 80% of max, etc, rather than working at a heart rate of 120, 140, 160, etc.
For example, a young person with a genetically high heart rate can be working at a heart rate of 170 and burning significantly fewer calories than someone 20 years older who is working at a heart rate of 140.
Most people do not set up their HRMs with either their actual max HR or their max oxygen uptake (cardio fitness level). That makes the HRM calorie count even more inaccurate than it already is.
A high resting heart rate, or a higher than "average" maximum heart rate have no effect on your calorie burn. What they do is throw off any chart or calculator that is based on "average".
For the most part, if you are walking and not holding on to handrails, a calorie calculator on a treadmill, or a calorie calculator based on speed and elevation will be pretty accurate--about as accurate as you can get w/out a metabolic cart.
A calorie estimator--esp an online one--that is based solely on heart rate, may not be accurate at all.0 -
You calorie burn depends on the ACTUAL WORKLOAD being performed, not your heart rate.
Heart rate is just a relative indicator to estimate at what % of your max you are working. In other words, it is more significant to know if you are working at 60% , 70%, 80% of max, etc, rather than working at a heart rate of 120, 140, 160, etc.
For example, a young person with a genetically high heart rate can be working at a heart rate of 170 and burning significantly fewer calories than someone 20 years older who is working at a heart rate of 140.
Most people do not set up their HRMs with either their actual max HR or their max oxygen uptake (cardio fitness level). That makes the HRM calorie count even more inaccurate than it already is.
A high resting heart rate, or a higher than "average" maximum heart rate have no effect on your calorie burn. What they do is throw off any chart or calculator that is based on "average".
For the most part, if you are walking and not holding on to handrails, a calorie calculator on a treadmill, or a calorie calculator based on speed and elevation will be pretty accurate--about as accurate as you can get w/out a metabolic cart.
A calorie estimator--esp an online one--that is based solely on heart rate, may not be accurate at all.
It had age, weight, distance, time and heartrate, if I remember correctly.
Do you reccomend a particular HRM? And at the risk of seeming rude, what is the basis for the info you posted above (okay, it sounded rude no matter how I word it...)?0 -
You calorie burn depends on the ACTUAL WORKLOAD being performed, not your heart rate.
Heart rate is just a relative indicator to estimate at what % of your max you are working. In other words, it is more significant to know if you are working at 60% , 70%, 80% of max, etc, rather than working at a heart rate of 120, 140, 160, etc.
For example, a young person with a genetically high heart rate can be working at a heart rate of 170 and burning significantly fewer calories than someone 20 years older who is working at a heart rate of 140.
Most people do not set up their HRMs with either their actual max HR or their max oxygen uptake (cardio fitness level). That makes the HRM calorie count even more inaccurate than it already is.
A high resting heart rate, or a higher than "average" maximum heart rate have no effect on your calorie burn. What they do is throw off any chart or calculator that is based on "average".
For the most part, if you are walking and not holding on to handrails, a calorie calculator on a treadmill, or a calorie calculator based on speed and elevation will be pretty accurate--about as accurate as you can get w/out a metabolic cart.
A calorie estimator--esp an online one--that is based solely on heart rate, may not be accurate at all.
It had age, weight, distance, time and heartrate, if I remember correctly.
Do you reccomend a particular HRM? And at the risk of seeming rude, what is the basis for the info you posted above (okay, it sounded rude no matter how I word it...)?
If you insist on getting a HRM to estimate calories, the "least bad" models would be the Polar FT40 and FT60. They at least allow you to manually input VO2max. So, if you do a max test, or submax test, or field test that gives you a reasonable idea of VO2 max, you can improve the accuracy of the calorie estimate (assuming you also program in your true max heart rate) when doing steady-state cardio.
As for the basis of my comments: not to be coy (or rude), but that information is listed in my profile.0 -
You calorie burn depends on the ACTUAL WORKLOAD being performed, not your heart rate.
Heart rate is just a relative indicator to estimate at what % of your max you are working. In other words, it is more significant to know if you are working at 60% , 70%, 80% of max, etc, rather than working at a heart rate of 120, 140, 160, etc.
For example, a young person with a genetically high heart rate can be working at a heart rate of 170 and burning significantly fewer calories than someone 20 years older who is working at a heart rate of 140.
Most people do not set up their HRMs with either their actual max HR or their max oxygen uptake (cardio fitness level). That makes the HRM calorie count even more inaccurate than it already is.
A high resting heart rate, or a higher than "average" maximum heart rate have no effect on your calorie burn. What they do is throw off any chart or calculator that is based on "average".
For the most part, if you are walking and not holding on to handrails, a calorie calculator on a treadmill, or a calorie calculator based on speed and elevation will be pretty accurate--about as accurate as you can get w/out a metabolic cart.
A calorie estimator--esp an online one--that is based solely on heart rate, may not be accurate at all.
It had age, weight, distance, time and heartrate, if I remember correctly.
Do you reccomend a particular HRM? And at the risk of seeming rude, what is the basis for the info you posted above (okay, it sounded rude no matter how I word it...)?
If you insist on getting a HRM to estimate calories, the "least bad" models would be the Polar FT40 and FT60. They at least allow you to manually input VO2max. So, if you do a max test, or submax test, or field test that gives you a reasonable idea of VO2 max, you can improve the accuracy of the calorie estimate (assuming you also program in your true max heart rate) when doing steady-state cardio.
As for the basis of my comments: not to be coy (or rude), but that information is listed in my profile.
Haven't been on MFP a real long time and I didn't realize I could see the contents of the profiles of others without them being your "friend". Sorry about that.0 -
You calorie burn depends on the ACTUAL WORKLOAD being performed, not your heart rate.
Heart rate is just a relative indicator to estimate at what % of your max you are working. In other words, it is more significant to know if you are working at 60% , 70%, 80% of max, etc, rather than working at a heart rate of 120, 140, 160, etc.
For example, a young person with a genetically high heart rate can be working at a heart rate of 170 and burning significantly fewer calories than someone 20 years older who is working at a heart rate of 140.
Most people do not set up their HRMs with either their actual max HR or their max oxygen uptake (cardio fitness level). That makes the HRM calorie count even more inaccurate than it already is.
A high resting heart rate, or a higher than "average" maximum heart rate have no effect on your calorie burn. What they do is throw off any chart or calculator that is based on "average".
For the most part, if you are walking and not holding on to handrails, a calorie calculator on a treadmill, or a calorie calculator based on speed and elevation will be pretty accurate--about as accurate as you can get w/out a metabolic cart.
A calorie estimator--esp an online one--that is based solely on heart rate, may not be accurate at all.
It had age, weight, distance, time and heartrate, if I remember correctly.
Do you reccomend a particular HRM? And at the risk of seeming rude, what is the basis for the info you posted above (okay, it sounded rude no matter how I word it...)?
Azdak speaks the truth. This is why you don't burn extra calories from watching a scary movie (i.e., just your heart rate going up). The heart rate is an indicator of what your body is doing. My heart rate tends to be higher when I am walking than when I am marching in place. I might be using similar muscles, but propelling myself forward requires more energy. Your weight, pace, and distance travelled(or time) are more important indicators when it comes to running/walking. If your heart rate is abnormally high, something that uses purely your heart rate to estimate calories might be a high estimate as well.
I use a Garmin 305 for running and this has a heart rate monitor. But mostly I use the heart rate to aid in my training. My heart rate tends to get pretty high running but I've learned what range is "easy" for me and at what range I really need to slow down or walk. A lot of my runs average ~170 bpm. Going all out on a stationary bike I can only get to 150 bpm. Doing an aerobics video (like 30 day shred) I tend to average in the 140s and 150s as well. For running 100 calories per mile seems a good ballpark (they say 80 to 100 per mile for most people). So for your 25 minute walk at 3 mph, I'd guestimate 100-125 would be a lot closer than the 190. But then most people I know on here post ridiculously high calorie burns for exercise so you won't be alone if you're using the higher number.0 -
No, you are not burning more than anyone else just because your heart is beating faster than theirs is
You're heart rate only includes how fast your heart beats, which does NOT include how much blood your heart pumps per beat.
As you get fitter, your heart rate will slow down as your heart becomes more efficient and pumps more per beat. You will burn the same number of calories at a lower and lower heart rate (or burn more at the same heart rate).0 -
You calorie burn depends on the ACTUAL WORKLOAD being performed, not your heart rate.
Heart rate is just a relative indicator to estimate at what % of your max you are working. In other words, it is more significant to know if you are working at 60% , 70%, 80% of max, etc, rather than working at a heart rate of 120, 140, 160, etc.
For example, a young person with a genetically high heart rate can be working at a heart rate of 170 and burning significantly fewer calories than someone 20 years older who is working at a heart rate of 140.
Most people do not set up their HRMs with either their actual max HR or their max oxygen uptake (cardio fitness level). That makes the HRM calorie count even more inaccurate than it already is.
A high resting heart rate, or a higher than "average" maximum heart rate have no effect on your calorie burn. What they do is throw off any chart or calculator that is based on "average".
For the most part, if you are walking and not holding on to handrails, a calorie calculator on a treadmill, or a calorie calculator based on speed and elevation will be pretty accurate--about as accurate as you can get w/out a metabolic cart.
A calorie estimator--esp an online one--that is based solely on heart rate, may not be accurate at all.
It had age, weight, distance, time and heartrate, if I remember correctly.
Do you reccomend a particular HRM? And at the risk of seeming rude, what is the basis for the info you posted above (okay, it sounded rude no matter how I word it...)?
If you insist on getting a HRM to estimate calories, the "least bad" models would be the Polar FT40 and FT60. They at least allow you to manually input VO2max. So, if you do a max test, or submax test, or field test that gives you a reasonable idea of VO2 max, you can improve the accuracy of the calorie estimate (assuming you also program in your true max heart rate) when doing steady-state cardio.
As for the basis of my comments: not to be coy (or rude), but that information is listed in my profile.
Haven't been on MFP a real long time and I didn't realize I could see the contents of the profiles of others without them being your "friend". Sorry about that.
Nothing to apologize for. Your question was not rudely stated and I wasn't trying to be snide about responding. I just prefer not to "bigfoot" any topics by pushing my background.0 -
You calorie burn depends on the ACTUAL WORKLOAD being performed, not your heart rate.
Heart rate is just a relative indicator to estimate at what % of your max you are working. In other words, it is more significant to know if you are working at 60% , 70%, 80% of max, etc, rather than working at a heart rate of 120, 140, 160, etc.
For example, a young person with a genetically high heart rate can be working at a heart rate of 170 and burning significantly fewer calories than someone 20 years older who is working at a heart rate of 140.
Most people do not set up their HRMs with either their actual max HR or their max oxygen uptake (cardio fitness level). That makes the HRM calorie count even more inaccurate than it already is.
A high resting heart rate, or a higher than "average" maximum heart rate have no effect on your calorie burn. What they do is throw off any chart or calculator that is based on "average".
For the most part, if you are walking and not holding on to handrails, a calorie calculator on a treadmill, or a calorie calculator based on speed and elevation will be pretty accurate--about as accurate as you can get w/out a metabolic cart.
A calorie estimator--esp an online one--that is based solely on heart rate, may not be accurate at all.
It had age, weight, distance, time and heartrate, if I remember correctly.
Do you reccomend a particular HRM? And at the risk of seeming rude, what is the basis for the info you posted above (okay, it sounded rude no matter how I word it...)?
If you insist on getting a HRM to estimate calories, the "least bad" models would be the Polar FT40 and FT60. They at least allow you to manually input VO2max. So, if you do a max test, or submax test, or field test that gives you a reasonable idea of VO2 max, you can improve the accuracy of the calorie estimate (assuming you also program in your true max heart rate) when doing steady-state cardio.
As for the basis of my comments: not to be coy (or rude), but that information is listed in my profile.
Haven't been on MFP a real long time and I didn't realize I could see the contents of the profiles of others without them being your "friend". Sorry about that.
Nothing to apologize for. Your question was not rudely stated and I wasn't trying to be snide about responding. I just prefer not to "bigfoot" any topics by pushing my background.
Hey, you worked for (and no doubt paid for) your education. Flaunt it, I say! LOL Thanks again for your info. Very helpful!0 -
I'm curious about this too. For example, I'm 27, F, 161lbs, and spent 45 minutes on the elliptical today burning 436 calories. However, my heart rate was right at 178 +/-1 for most of the workout. This gives me a burn of 559 calories. I went with the elliptical's calculated 436, but is the 559 actually correct?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