Viewing the message boards in:

Please tell me if this calculator is correct

Options
Posts: 193 Member
edited January 11 in Health and Weight Loss
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

I have a HRM, but can't understand the readout for the calories burned. It seemed impossibly high. So I entered in the data on this site (gender, age, weight, average heart rate, duration) and it gave me a number for calories burned.

Now I know I'm way out of shape, but this is even higher than what MFP gives me!

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Replies

  • Posts: 130 Member
    Seemed a little high for me.

    try http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx ?
  • Posts: 193 Member
    That's what I thought. Thank you for the link!
  • Posts: 193 Member
    Well, it's the same. So I guess I have an answer now!
  • Posts: 11,118 Member
    Wow! That was WAY too high for me. It was about 35% higher than my normal burn. Maybe I'm just wierd.

    ETA: The running calorie calculator on the second link was right on.
  • Posts: 279 Member
    I get a lower result with the first website than with the second suggestion. And both seem way too high in my eyes. Would have halfed the results.
  • Posts: 153 Member
    Seemed a little high for me.

    try http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx ?

    tyvm - explains why my HRM was so much higher than MFP. Makes sense now that I've had it explained! :)
  • Posts: 193 Member
    Both calculators match what my HRM gives me for calories burned. In my case it seems correct.
  • Posts: 193 Member
    I think I know what my problem was. I had a blonde moment. It was showing me calories per HOUR burned, not the total calories I had just burned. No wonder the number was so high.

    Doh.
  • Posts: 198 Member
    I think I know what my problem was. I had a blonde moment.

    I'm offended
  • Posts: 18,842 Member
    You need to have a good estimated VO2max if you want it to really work well.

    Both those sites are using the same thing.

    It's a Polar funded study that came up with that formula.

    Now, if you want a fully tweaked version of it, with the means of estimating your VO2max, and have the formula tweaked for your better estimated HRmax value, which it leaves out....

    Use the HRM tab in this spreadsheet. It's as close as anything as ever gotten to my actual VO2max treadmill test values.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/813720-spreadsheet-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones

    Fill in known stats at the top.
    Move down to estimate your VO2max, then fill that in at the top.
    Move down to estimate your HRmax, fill that in at the top.

    Now go to the very bottom, and there's your personal calorie burn chart. Fill in common times and avgHR's you see, and there is your totally tweaked calorie burn.

    And those formula's show exactly what happens as you become more fit.
    Your HR doesn't have to go as high to supply the required oxygen (VO2), but you are burning the same amount of energy as you used to when HR was high and VO2 was low.

    HRM's that have no VO2max stat, underestimate calorie burns for people with high BMI's but are fit from doing lots of cardio.
    That's because the HRM with no stat is assuming low VO2max if you have a bad BMI. Bad assumption though.
  • Posts: 193 Member
    show previous quotes

    I'm offended

    Yeah, go figure...I'm a blonde.
This discussion has been closed.

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories