HELP! Is my HRM over-estimating my calorie burn???

Options
2»

Replies

  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    If your resting HR is that high (mine is 85) then your workouts are going to give you a greater burn because even a less intense workout is still going to really get your heart rate up. My resting HR used to be 104 and I could get a serious burn just from going for a walk because my fitness level was so low. As you progress, you'll note that your RHR decreases as you level of fitness increases...thus it becomes necessary to increase the intensity of your workouts to get the same burn or to get you working HR up to your desired %.

    I find my HRM to be fairly accurate when I compare it to a VO2 calculator, if I knock off my BMR calories for that specific time to account for the calories that I would have still burned just sitting on my *kitten* for those 30 minutes...when I do that, I come within 10-20 calories of the VO2 calculators I've used.
  • mrsappleblossom77
    mrsappleblossom77 Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    I have the low level Polar HRM that does not tell you calories burned, so I have to manually find out my numbers to enter them into MFP. I use this calculator:http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx That gives me the gross calories burned including my RMR, so then I have to enter that number into another calculator (they show you the link) to find out my net calories burned. That is the number I enter into MFP because MFP includes my resting metabolic rate.(calories you burn just for being alive.) So to answer the OP question, I'm not familiar with your HRM, but maybe it's possible it's giving you the gross number of calories burned instead of the net calories burned?
  • aswearingen22
    aswearingen22 Posts: 271 Member
    Options
    The runners that I know who worry about calorie burn don't measure it by minutes. They measure it by miles. Mileage is a much more accurate way to measure calorie burn. The theory is, if you go fast and burn a lot of calories per minute, you get through your mileage quicker, thus giving you a fast but short calorie count. If you slow and don't burn so many calories per minute, it takes you a while to get a lot of burned calories, but you took a long time running your miles, so there you go.

    For the average weighted person, it takes about 100 calories to go a mile, no matter your speed. Larger people take more calories. I burn about 110/mile. Lighter people take less. There are websites that do the calculations to tell you how many calories you burn per mile, based on your weight and/or BMI.

    In agreement with this. I do use my HRM and it appears accurate. If I'm running on the treadmill, I'll generally burn about 80-90 calories per mile (regardless of speed). If I'm outside (hills, wind, etc), I'll generally burn 100-110 per mile. Yesterday on a 10 mile treadmill run, I burned 1,050 calories, whereas my husband, who weighs 80 pounds more than I do, ran 10 miles outside and burned 1650 calories. He's heavier, and he was outside.

    I use my HRM (Garmin) to give me my calories and I do eat nearly all of them back. If my weight loss stalls, then I'll try eating fewer of them back. But right now, I'm averaging 2 pounds/week with only 15 pounds to go, so I'm not changing anything.
  • palmerar
    palmerar Posts: 489 Member
    Options
    I have the low level Polar HRM that does not tell you calories burned, so I have to manually find out my numbers to enter them into MFP. I use this calculator:http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx That gives me the gross calories burned including my RMR, so then I have to enter that number into another calculator (they show you the link) to find out my net calories burned. That is the number I enter into MFP because MFP includes my resting metabolic rate.(calories you burn just for being alive.) So to answer the OP question, I'm not familiar with your HRM, but maybe it's possible it's giving you the gross number of calories burned instead of the net calories burned?

    That's what I was thinking was happening, that it was showing gross calories, where those are already accounted for in MFP. I used the link you provided and it lined up with MFP, both have my correct age weight and gender. This seems like what it should be! Thanks
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    Here is a way to get a better idea on the accuracy
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
  • neverstray
    neverstray Posts: 3,845 Member
    Options
    The runners that I know who worry about calorie burn don't measure it by minutes. They measure it by miles. Mileage is a much more accurate way to measure calorie burn. The theory is, if you go fast and burn a lot of calories per minute, you get through your mileage quicker, thus giving you a fast but short calorie count. If you slow and don't burn so many calories per minute, it takes you a while to get a lot of burned calories, but you took a long time running your miles, so there you go.

    For the average weighted person, it takes about 100 calories to go a mile, no matter your speed. Larger people take more calories. I burn about 110/mile. Lighter people take less. There are websites that do the calculations to tell you how many calories you burn per mile, based on your weight and/or BMI.

    I suggest you consider switching to calorie burn based on mileage, not HR.

    I hope this helps.
    This
  • T1mH
    T1mH Posts: 568 Member
    Options
    All of these calculators are based on estimates of estimates based on formulas arrived at by averages. What is most important is that whatever you do, you do consistently. Otherwise you won't know what to change when you don't get the results your expecting. If your eating back your exercise calories and not losing weight then try eating back less of your calories. If your eating half your calories and feeling tired then try eating back more of them.

    You have to listen to your body and makes changes based its feedback. Don't make multiple changes at once and give changes a couple weeks to a month before changing again.

    I love all the posts of my HRM is super accurate when in reality most people have no real idea if the HRM is accurate or not just that whatever they are doing is working therefore it must be accurate.
  • jimian60
    jimian60 Posts: 21
    Options
    I got a Polar FT4 HRM for Christmas, and I have been using it for all of my cardio workouts. My resting heart rate is in the high 60s, which is in the normal range, but it gets pretty high pretty fast while I am on the treadmill. I am using the chest strap and I have heard that HRMs are more accurate, but it seems like my calories burned are REALLY high. Last week I was alternating between walking very fast (4.5 mph) and jogging (6.5 mph) for 40 mins and got a total calorie burn of 502......could this be accurate or could my elevated heart rate be skewing my calorie burn???

    Thanks for any insight!!
  • joey2012cs
    joey2012cs Posts: 7
    Options
    I got a Polar FT4 HRM for Christmas, and I have been using it for all of my cardio workouts. My resting heart rate is in the high 60s, which is in the normal range, but it gets pretty high pretty fast while I am on the treadmill. I am using the chest strap and I have heard that HRMs are more accurate, but it seems like my calories burned are REALLY high. Last week I was alternating between walking very fast (4.5 mph) and jogging (6.5 mph) for 40 mins and got a total calorie burn of 502......could this be accurate or could my elevated heart rate be skewing my calorie burn???

    Thanks for any insight!!

    The HRM is probably correct. Jogging at ~7mph burns over 600 calories in a half hour.

    Edit: The HRM _is_ estimating how many calories you have burned, but it is based specifically on your heart rate and heart performance during the given time period, which makes it very accurately when worn correctly.
  • jimian60
    jimian60 Posts: 21
    Options
    Going 4.5 to 6.5 mph for 40 mins is a nice high and steady clip. I've done that as well as you ramp up the CALORIE BURN totals fast! So i'd have to say that's very accurate (plus you had the chest strap on.) Yes, the devices record HR, but they have an algorithm that determines your calorie burn totals from your age and sex.

Categories