Help undersanding a Heart Rate Monitor

Cristin129
Cristin129 Posts: 49 Member
edited January 10 in Fitness and Exercise
Hi all,

Just getting started with a Polar ft40. Did my 1st workout today. I had a cheap HRM I tried using but for the same workout I did today it was telling me I burned twice as many calories. 387 with the old vs. 223 with the polar. I did notice it kept me in the fitness zone for 25 min of the 30 min workout. Does that mean I am working too hard & am not burning fat? Or doesn't it matter how high my HR is? Thanks for your help, I appreciate it!

Replies

  • seena511
    seena511 Posts: 685 Member
    did your old one have a chest strap? if not, it very easily could have overestimated your burn because it was going off of only a periodic measure of intensity instead of a constant one. the zone is where your heart rate should be to burn optimal calories. being in your zone for 25 of 30 minutes is great. and it still counts calories for when you weren't in your zone...you just didn't burn as many as you would if you were truly "working out".
  • Cristin129
    Cristin129 Posts: 49 Member
    did your old one have a chest strap? if not, it very easily could have overestimated your burn because it was going off of only a periodic measure of intensity instead of a constant one. the zone is where your heart rate should be to burn optimal calories. being in your zone for 25 of 30 minutes is great. and it still counts calories for when you weren't in your zone...you just didn't burn as many as you would if you were truly "working out".

    No old one was a wrist model. According to this FAT BURN ZONE has a lower HR than FITNESS ZONE. So I thought I was working harder with higher HR. ??? Now I am not sure???
  • moustache_flavored_lube
    moustache_flavored_lube Posts: 849 Member
    The fitness zone is likely where you want to be.

    In general the heart rate zones that come with heart rate monitors are to broad to be of great use.

    The fat burning zone is BS. If you are in the fitness zone you are likely "aerobic" which means you are using primarily fat as fuel.

    From a weightloss perspective intervals into the anaerobic zone have been shown to burn even more fat than aerobic exercise because of the "after effects" of intense intervals.

    From a fitness perspective each heartrate zone has different effects on the body, and needs to be properly targeted for optimal results.
  • moustache_flavored_lube
    moustache_flavored_lube Posts: 849 Member
    did your old one have a chest strap? if not, it very easily could have overestimated your burn because it was going off of only a periodic measure of intensity instead of a constant one. the zone is where your heart rate should be to burn optimal calories. being in your zone for 25 of 30 minutes is great. and it still counts calories for when you weren't in your zone...you just didn't burn as many as you would if you were truly "working out".

    No old one was a wrist model. According to this FAT BURN ZONE has a lower HR than FITNESS ZONE. So I thought I was working harder with higher HR. ??? Now I am not sure???

    The Fat burn zone is labeled as such because at that heart rate your body is using almost entirly fat (vs carbohydrates) for energy.

    What you should be concerned with is overall calorie expenditure (which is higher at higher heart rates).

    If you burn 600 calories in an hour 80% of which was fat while working in the fitness zone this is better than 300 calories 100% of which is fat. If you have created a calorie deficit for the day your body will burn fat reserves for energy to keep you alive. The fact that you used some carbohydrates for 20 minutes doesn't mater at all.
  • Cristin129
    Cristin129 Posts: 49 Member
    Thanks for your help! :smile:
This discussion has been closed.

Categories