What is happening?! UGH!
aezaidan
Posts: 31 Member
So I'm pretty ticked off.... I just bought a heart rate monitor and used it for the first time today in my Zumba class. I got it specifically because I wanted to make sure I was logging my exercise calorie loss correctly. I set it all up and when class was over (it's about a 55min class) I looked at my calories burned and was excited to see it was pretty similar to what MFP said I burned ( which comes to a bit over 1000 calories)
However, my curiosity got to me because, honestly, those numbers seem kinda high to me, and I thought I would check it out in comparison to a calorie burn calculator based on heart rate.
I put in my age, weight, and average bpm and it said I only burned a measly (in comparison) 300 calories!! WTF! Which is right?! If I am only burning 300 calories, it means I've been WAYYYYYYYY over eating on all my exercise days.
Does anyone know how to figure out which is correct?!?!?!?!?!?!? HELP ME!!! PLEASE!!!!
If it helps, my average heart rate was 127bpm with a peak of 170bpm. I am 28yrs old and am currently at 299lbs.
However, my curiosity got to me because, honestly, those numbers seem kinda high to me, and I thought I would check it out in comparison to a calorie burn calculator based on heart rate.
I put in my age, weight, and average bpm and it said I only burned a measly (in comparison) 300 calories!! WTF! Which is right?! If I am only burning 300 calories, it means I've been WAYYYYYYYY over eating on all my exercise days.
Does anyone know how to figure out which is correct?!?!?!?!?!?!? HELP ME!!! PLEASE!!!!
If it helps, my average heart rate was 127bpm with a peak of 170bpm. I am 28yrs old and am currently at 299lbs.
0
Replies
-
Are you currently losing weight? If yes: Your burn estimate is probably correct. If no: you may want to lower it.
I don't have a HRM... but I'd suggest using the estimates it gives you, rather than some online calculator trying to estimate a burn based on your pulse.0 -
can you run 4.5mph on a treadmill for an hour? if yes, and that feeling of exertion is about the same as your zumba class, then your hrm sounds accurate.
to note, 1k calories in an hour is a VERY high burn that is actually impossible for vast majority of the population to reach. Even elite athletes can't reach that level of burn. You normally have to be 1) very large 2) very fit to reach that burn level.
Also to note, when you're out of shape, you will have a higher than normal HR due to your VO2MAX being poor. The result of this is inflated burn numbers from devices such as HRM's which normally use a set average vo2max for a population. so that very well could be the issue here. I do think you're burning more than 300. But less than 1000.0 -
Is your HRM a reliable brand? With proper chest strap? And you have definitely inputted your stats correctly?
Unless you're talking about one of those cheap HRM's that are only a watch without chest strap, then I wouldn't think that a 1000 cal burn in an hour is impossible.
When I was pretty unfit I'd burn about 1000 calories in an hour running. Now I have to really work to get over 700 in an hour. But I am 5'9 and overweight. Shorter, smaller people will burn less in the same amount of time (well, depending on fitness levels).
But obviously your HRM is just a tool and won't be 100% accurate, maybe take off 20% or so to allow for a margin of error.0 -
you mean, when you were unfit, your HRM vastly overestimated your calorie burn due to having a much higher VO2MAX variable than you actually were at. Now that your VO2MAX is improved, your HRM is starting to reflect more proper burns.Is your HRM a reliable brand? With proper chest strap? And you have definitely inputted your stats correctly?
Unless you're talking about one of those cheap HRM's that are only a watch without chest strap, then I wouldn't think that a 1000 cal burn in an hour is impossible.
When I was pretty unfit I'd burn about 1000 calories in an hour running. Now I have to really work to get over 700 in an hour.
But obviously your HRM is just a tool and won't be 100% accurate, maybe take off 20% or so to allow for a margin of error.0 -
At 150 pounds going pretty hard, I burn between 500 and 600 in an hour of Zumba. I would go with the HRM, which was ACTUALLY measuring your activity, over an online calculator.So I'm pretty ticked off.... I just bought a heart rate monitor and used it for the first time today in my Zumba class. I got it specifically because I wanted to make sure I was logging my exercise calorie loss correctly. I set it all up and when class was over (it's about a 55min class) I looked at my calories burned and was excited to see it was pretty similar to what MFP said I burned ( which comes to a bit over 1000 calories)
However, my curiosity got to me because, honestly, those numbers seem kinda high to me, and I thought I would check it out in comparison to a calorie burn calculator based on heart rate.
I put in my age, weight, and average bpm and it said I only burned a measly (in comparison) 300 calories!! WTF! Which is right?! If I am only burning 300 calories, it means I've been WAYYYYYYYY over eating on all my exercise days.
Does anyone know how to figure out which is correct?!?!?!?!?!?!? HELP ME!!! PLEASE!!!!
If it helps, my average heart rate was 127bpm with a peak of 170bpm. I am 28yrs old and am currently at 299lbs.
I don't think 1,000 is an overestimate based on your weight.0 -
1000 sounds way to high!! I highly doubt you're actually burning that many calories. 300 sounds more accurate to me, especially for Zumba and your heart rate. I think the important question is have you been losing weight all this time? If so, then perhaps 1000 is not so off as it sounds. Either way, I wouldn't eat an extra 1000 calories to be safe...0
-
HRM's do not measure activity. they measure heart rate.At 150 pounds going pretty hard, I burn between 500 and 600 in an hour of Zumba. I would go with the HRM, which was ACTUALLY measuring your activity, over an online calculator.
I don't think 1,000 is an overestimate based on your weight.
Lets take you for example. even 500-600 sounds very high. Do you know your max heart rate and your VO2MAX? Because if you don't, then your HRM doesn't either. It's using pre inputted variables for those. And unless your body by pure luck happens to match those variables, then every number your HRM spits out at you is wrong.0 -
I know that using my HRM and recording the calories and eating many back, I lost an average of 2 pounds per week and dropped three dress sizes in 12 weeks.
HRM's do not measure activity. they measure heart rate.At 150 pounds going pretty hard, I burn between 500 and 600 in an hour of Zumba. I would go with the HRM, which was ACTUALLY measuring your activity, over an online calculator.
I don't think 1,000 is an overestimate based on your weight.
Lets take you for example. even 500-600 sounds very high. Do you know your max heart rate and your VO2MAX? Because if you don't, then your HRM doesn't either. It's using pre inputted variables for those. And unless your body by pure luck happens to match those variables, then every number your HRM spits out at you is wrong.
This level of burn was also in line with the Zumba website's calculator.0 -
What Brand of HRM? Timex is known for overestimating the caloric burn. Each company uses their own equation to get calories burned.Another thing to keep in mind if that HRMs give you total cals burned (including what you would have burned had you not worked out, "maintenance calories") So if your maintenance is 2800 cals, then you would have burned 107 (2800/24/60*55) cals had you not worked out, so the amount you would enter into MFP would be 893 (1000-107).
These numbers for maintenance are for illustration purposes only.0 -
So I'm pretty ticked off.... I just bought a heart rate monitor and used it for the first time today in my Zumba class. I got it specifically because I wanted to make sure I was logging my exercise calorie loss correctly. I set it all up and when class was over (it's about a 55min class) I looked at my calories burned and was excited to see it was pretty similar to what MFP said I burned ( which comes to a bit over 1000 calories)
However, my curiosity got to me because, honestly, those numbers seem kinda high to me, and I thought I would check it out in comparison to a calorie burn calculator based on heart rate.
I put in my age, weight, and average bpm and it said I only burned a measly (in comparison) 300 calories!! WTF! Which is right?! If I am only burning 300 calories, it means I've been WAYYYYYYYY over eating on all my exercise days.
Does anyone know how to figure out which is correct?!?!?!?!?!?!? HELP ME!!! PLEASE!!!!
If it helps, my average heart rate was 127bpm with a peak of 170bpm. I am 28yrs old and am currently at 299lbs.
The most I would ever put in for calories burned in an hour is 600.. so 1000 seems too high. Note, I am around 155 lbs though, 5 foot 7.0 -
I know that using my HRM and recording the calories and eating many back, I lost an average of 2 pounds per week and dropped three dress sizes in 12 weeks.
That's great (and congrats!) but the previous poster is still correct. HRM doesn't measure "activity", it measure heart rate and calculates a number based on a whole whack of assumptions.
The odds of the OP burning 1000 calories in Zumba class are very very low. And the more out of shape the OP is, the worse the odds get. If I were the OP, I would go with the "300" number.0 -
She weighs 300 pounds.So I'm pretty ticked off.... I just bought a heart rate monitor and used it for the first time today in my Zumba class. I got it specifically because I wanted to make sure I was logging my exercise calorie loss correctly. I set it all up and when class was over (it's about a 55min class) I looked at my calories burned and was excited to see it was pretty similar to what MFP said I burned ( which comes to a bit over 1000 calories)
However, my curiosity got to me because, honestly, those numbers seem kinda high to me, and I thought I would check it out in comparison to a calorie burn calculator based on heart rate.
I put in my age, weight, and average bpm and it said I only burned a measly (in comparison) 300 calories!! WTF! Which is right?! If I am only burning 300 calories, it means I've been WAYYYYYYYY over eating on all my exercise days.
Does anyone know how to figure out which is correct?!?!?!?!?!?!? HELP ME!!! PLEASE!!!!
If it helps, my average heart rate was 127bpm with a peak of 170bpm. I am 28yrs old and am currently at 299lbs.
The most I would ever put in for calories burned in an hour is 600.. so 1000 seems too high.0 -
You're playing semantics. Someone carrying around 300 pounds burned more than 300 calories in an hour of Zumba.I know that using my HRM and recording the calories and eating many back, I lost an average of 2 pounds per week and dropped three dress sizes in 12 weeks.
That's great (and congrats!) but the previous poster is still correct, HRM doesn't measure "activity", it measure heart rate and calculates a number based on a whole whack of assumptions.
The odds of the OP burning 1000 calories in Zumba class are very very low. And the more out of shape the OP is, the worse the odds get. If I were the OP, I would go with the "300" number.0 -
You're playing semantics.
That's not what "semantics" means.Someone carrying around 300 pounds burned more than 300 calories in an hour of Zumba.
Not unless they moved a *lot*. That the HR was only 127 strongly suggests that wasn't the case.0 -
that has nothing to do with HRM calorie burn accuracy. I would venture that the other 23 hours in the day contributed far more to that weight loss than the hour of exercise did. And you still avoided the question. the method to calculate calorie burn is an actual formula. And unless you know your VO2MAX number and HRmax numbers. both of which are individual and not constant amongst the population, then your HRM also does not know it and WILL spit out incorrect burns unless you happen to luck out and have matching stats to your HRM.
I know that using my HRM and recording the calories and eating many back, I lost an average of 2 pounds per week and dropped three dress sizes in 12 weeks.
HRM's do not measure activity. they measure heart rate.At 150 pounds going pretty hard, I burn between 500 and 600 in an hour of Zumba. I would go with the HRM, which was ACTUALLY measuring your activity, over an online calculator.
I don't think 1,000 is an overestimate based on your weight.
Lets take you for example. even 500-600 sounds very high. Do you know your max heart rate and your VO2MAX? Because if you don't, then your HRM doesn't either. It's using pre inputted variables for those. And unless your body by pure luck happens to match those variables, then every number your HRM spits out at you is wrong.
This is why it's good to get a HRM that allows for inputting of these variables. As otherwise your burn amount on your HRM could be off by over 100% easily if you're unlucky enough to have a high natural heart rate and poor VO2MAX.0 -
that has nothing to do with HRM calorie burn accuracy. I would venture that the other 23 hours in the day contributed far more to that weight loss than the hour of exercise did. And you still avoided the question. the method to calculate calorie burn is an actual formula. And unless you know your VO2MAX number and HRmax numbers. both of which are individual and not constant amongst the population, then your HRM also does not know it and WILL spit out incorrect burns unless you happen to luck out and have matching stats to your HRM.
I know that using my HRM and recording the calories and eating many back, I lost an average of 2 pounds per week and dropped three dress sizes in 12 weeks.
HRM's do not measure activity. they measure heart rate.At 150 pounds going pretty hard, I burn between 500 and 600 in an hour of Zumba. I would go with the HRM, which was ACTUALLY measuring your activity, over an online calculator.
I don't think 1,000 is an overestimate based on your weight.
Lets take you for example. even 500-600 sounds very high. Do you know your max heart rate and your VO2MAX? Because if you don't, then your HRM doesn't either. It's using pre inputted variables for those. And unless your body by pure luck happens to match those variables, then every number your HRM spits out at you is wrong.
This is why it's good to get a HRM that allows for inputting of these variables. As otherwise your burn amount on your HRM could be off by over 100% easily if you're unlucky enough to have a high natural heart rate and poor VO2MAX.
The other 23 hours? Well, 8-9 of them are sitting at a desk while another 7-8 are sleeping. So that leaves about nine hours of not being at work or sleeping. Add in a few hours reading, watching TV or playing around on the computer and some time for eating, plus an hour of exercise, drive time, showering and getting ready for work or whatever ...
Yeah. I'm not burning a ton of calories in my non-exercise time.
My point is, an awful lot of people count on the HRM calorie burn, record those calories and eat them back and lose weight just fine. So obviously it isn't THAT far off.0 -
what is a vo2max and how do i find it?!
The monitor I have does have a chest strap, it is a timex and and I do come out of the class feeling like a ran a marathon, lol but I am also SUPER unfit and like stated before weight quite a bit....
I'm a bit confused though. Do I burn MORE because I'm 300lbs or LESS because I'm 300lbs?? I feel like there are conflicting answers on here....
It would make sense that I would burn more because it takes more effort to move a 300lb body than a smaller body, BUT it would also make sense that because I'm so overweight that my body would have adjusted to being so heavy and become better at using less energy to move so I can see it the other way too.....
I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE FAT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!
Also, I have been losing weight, but it's in this really weird, up 2lbs then down 3lbs, then up 3lbs, then down 4 lbs. so I am trending down.... sort of...... in a really slow weird way....
Another side note. I'm SUPER hungry on days that I work out so if I'm not actually burning over 800 calories that I get to eat back, I'd LOVE some ideas on super filling foods that are relatively low cal!!!0 -
You can get a reasonable estimate from the "1 Mile Walk Test":
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/vo2max-calculator.aspx
It's not perfect as it normally slightly underestimates, but it is accurate enough to be useful.0 -
In all actuality you burned way more than 300 calories. When I first started Zumba at around 220 I would burn between 400 - 800 depending on the intensity of the class and the effort I put forth. I use a Polar FT4 and as I've lost weight and kept my stats current in it my calorie burns have come down (I've also gotten in much better shape). I probably would not trust a HRM that does not have a chest strap though. If you want to be conservative subtract 200 - 300 calories from your HRM to ensure you are still eating at a deficit when you eat back your exercise calories.0
-
Hi aezaidan,
As a comparison, I burn 600 calories per hour when jogging at a heart rate of approximately 150 bpm. Given that zumba is usually as demanding as running, and the fact that your weight is higher than mine (173 lbs) I would not be surprised if you indeed burned 1,000 calories/hour, although that number sound a little too high.
My best guess would be somewhere between 800 and 900 calories.
300 calories sound too little, unless you are not working out properly and are not sweating much
0 -
Meh, I can burn 1000 calories in an hour on a bicycle if I am going hard and I'm 5'11 - 187lbs. I don't think it's all that overestimated for the OP.0
-
but it can be. especially for someone out of shape. Thats the point. And a lot of people do meet the general preset conditions of the HRM, so it does reflect their burn. Congrats to them...
that has nothing to do with HRM calorie burn accuracy. I would venture that the other 23 hours in the day contributed far more to that weight loss than the hour of exercise did. And you still avoided the question. the method to calculate calorie burn is an actual formula. And unless you know your VO2MAX number and HRmax numbers. both of which are individual and not constant amongst the population, then your HRM also does not know it and WILL spit out incorrect burns unless you happen to luck out and have matching stats to your HRM.
I know that using my HRM and recording the calories and eating many back, I lost an average of 2 pounds per week and dropped three dress sizes in 12 weeks.
HRM's do not measure activity. they measure heart rate.At 150 pounds going pretty hard, I burn between 500 and 600 in an hour of Zumba. I would go with the HRM, which was ACTUALLY measuring your activity, over an online calculator.
I don't think 1,000 is an overestimate based on your weight.
Lets take you for example. even 500-600 sounds very high. Do you know your max heart rate and your VO2MAX? Because if you don't, then your HRM doesn't either. It's using pre inputted variables for those. And unless your body by pure luck happens to match those variables, then every number your HRM spits out at you is wrong.
This is why it's good to get a HRM that allows for inputting of these variables. As otherwise your burn amount on your HRM could be off by over 100% easily if you're unlucky enough to have a high natural heart rate and poor VO2MAX.
The other 23 hours? Well, 8-9 of them are sitting at a desk while another 7-8 are sleeping. So that leaves about nine hours of not being at work or sleeping. Add in a few hours reading, watching TV or playing around on the computer and some time for eating, plus an hour of exercise, drive time, showering and getting ready for work or whatever ...
Yeah. I'm not burning a ton of calories in my non-exercise time.
My point is, an awful lot of people count on the HRM calorie burn, record those calories and eat them back and lose weight just fine. So obviously it isn't THAT far off.
you're still evading the point at hand. Unless you can test and input VO2MAX and maxhr, you have an inaccurate HRM. You might luck out in that it matches your physiological performance, but it's not a guarantee.
And yes, the other 23hours matter more. How is this even a debate. You do burn calories at rest you realize. So you overestimate your exercise burn, and underestimate your tdee. Is this really so hard to grasp?0 -
then you burn 300 calories more than tour de france riders max.Meh, I can burn 1000 calories in an hour on a bicycle if I am going hard and I'm 5'11 - 187lbs. I don't think it's all that overestimated for the OP.
also, no you don't burn that much. These is zero chance your VO2MAX is 30% greater than the elitist of the elite endurance athletes on earth.0 -
Oh, I sweat like crazy. It is literally DRIPPING off me within the first 20 min.....0
-
I am not an idiot. My point is, I'm not burning a significant amount of calories in those 23 hours. And I was eating back pretty much every burned caloire (based on HRM estimations) and at a HEALTHY WEIGHT per BMI, at a size 6, was still losing almost 2 pounds per week. I was not doing anything different in those 23 hours than I was during the time I GAINED 30 extra pounds. I cut back on what I was eating and started exercising an hour or two a day. Period. The weight literally melted off using HRM estimates.
but it can be. especially for someone out of shape. Thats the point. And a lot of people do meet the general preset conditions of the HRM, so it does reflect their burn. Congrats to them...
that has nothing to do with HRM calorie burn accuracy. I would venture that the other 23 hours in the day contributed far more to that weight loss than the hour of exercise did. And you still avoided the question. the method to calculate calorie burn is an actual formula. And unless you know your VO2MAX number and HRmax numbers. both of which are individual and not constant amongst the population, then your HRM also does not know it and WILL spit out incorrect burns unless you happen to luck out and have matching stats to your HRM.
I know that using my HRM and recording the calories and eating many back, I lost an average of 2 pounds per week and dropped three dress sizes in 12 weeks.
HRM's do not measure activity. they measure heart rate.At 150 pounds going pretty hard, I burn between 500 and 600 in an hour of Zumba. I would go with the HRM, which was ACTUALLY measuring your activity, over an online calculator.
I don't think 1,000 is an overestimate based on your weight.
Lets take you for example. even 500-600 sounds very high. Do you know your max heart rate and your VO2MAX? Because if you don't, then your HRM doesn't either. It's using pre inputted variables for those. And unless your body by pure luck happens to match those variables, then every number your HRM spits out at you is wrong.
This is why it's good to get a HRM that allows for inputting of these variables. As otherwise your burn amount on your HRM could be off by over 100% easily if you're unlucky enough to have a high natural heart rate and poor VO2MAX.
The other 23 hours? Well, 8-9 of them are sitting at a desk while another 7-8 are sleeping. So that leaves about nine hours of not being at work or sleeping. Add in a few hours reading, watching TV or playing around on the computer and some time for eating, plus an hour of exercise, drive time, showering and getting ready for work or whatever ...
Yeah. I'm not burning a ton of calories in my non-exercise time.
My point is, an awful lot of people count on the HRM calorie burn, record those calories and eat them back and lose weight just fine. So obviously it isn't THAT far off.
you're still evading the point at hand. Unless you can test and input VO2MAX and maxhr, you have an inaccurate HRM. You might luck out in that it matches your physiological performance, but it's not a guarantee.
And yes, the other 23hours matter more. How is this even a debate. You do burn calories at rest you realize. So you overestimate your exercise burn, and underestimate your tdee. Is this really so hard to grasp?
I do not get this backlash some people on here have regarding HRMs. They are probably not perfect, but they aren't that awful, either. They do work. And if someone isn't losing, the simple solution is to not eat back all the estimated calories. Why do people have to make this stuff so complicated?0 -
then you burn 300 calories more than tour de france riders max.Meh, I can burn 1000 calories in an hour on a bicycle if I am going hard and I'm 5'11 - 187lbs. I don't think it's all that overestimated for the OP.
also, no you don't burn that much. These is zero chance your VO2MAX is 30% greater than the elitist of the elite endurance athletes on earth.
Wouldn't it be obvious that highly trained athletes would burn less? That would be my assumption as my calories burned get less and less the more weight I lose the more trained I get. And 1000 was a bit of stretch so I apologize. I usually burn between 650 and 750 doing a 50-55 minute ride.
I don't know what this VO2MAX stuff is so I can't comment.
Just telling you what my HRM tells me, which is usually about 1/2 of what MFP estimates.0 -
what is a vo2max and how do i find it?!
The monitor I have does have a chest strap, it is a timex and and I do come out of the class feeling like a ran a marathon, lol but I am also SUPER unfit and like stated before weight quite a bit....
I'm a bit confused though. Do I burn MORE because I'm 300lbs or LESS because I'm 300lbs?? I feel like there are conflicting answers on here....
It would make sense that I would burn more because it takes more effort to move a 300lb body than a smaller body, BUT it would also make sense that because I'm so overweight that my body would have adjusted to being so heavy and become better at using less energy to move so I can see it the other way too.....
I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE FAT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!
Also, I have been losing weight, but it's in this really weird, up 2lbs then down 3lbs, then up 3lbs, then down 4 lbs. so I am trending down.... sort of...... in a really slow weird way....
Another side note. I'm SUPER hungry on days that I work out so if I'm not actually burning over 800 calories that I get to eat back, I'd LOVE some ideas on super filling foods that are relatively low cal!!!
calories + oxygen = atp. atp is what moves our muscles. the more you work, the more atp you need, the more calories you burn to make it. if you know the oxygen useage of the body, then you can use the simplified formula i listed to calculate calorie burn as well. There is no way to track how many calories are being burned by the body. but you can calculate oxygen usage. either directly with a machine, or indirectly through VO2MAX tests. your heart beats to provide oxygen to the body. the faster it beats, the more oxygen it's inputting. thus if you know exactly how much oxygen is being inputted per beat (VO2) and what your max heart rate is. (%intensity above rest) You can then use those to give a reasonably accurate calorie burn. Most HRM's just have set variables that reflect the average among the population. which is great if you're average. but not so great if you're not..
The bigger you are, the more you burn. the more mass you have to move, then the more calories is required to move it.0 -
Oh, I sweat like crazy. It is literally DRIPPING off me within the first 20 min.....
Unfortunately, that doesn't really correlate to calorie burn.
As a point of comparison, someone of approximately your size would need to run approximately 5 miles in one hour to burn 1000 calories in that one hour.
BTW, two thumbs up on working out that hard! It ain't easy, as some of us know from experience! 0 -
If you know what VO2MAx is, then you would understand why it's impossible for someone who is untrained to possible burn as much as someone who is trained. That's the whole point. Untrained people show increased calorie burns on HRM's BECAUSE they are inaccurate to untrained people because HRM's generally do not know someones VO2MAX.
then you burn 300 calories more than tour de france riders max.Meh, I can burn 1000 calories in an hour on a bicycle if I am going hard and I'm 5'11 - 187lbs. I don't think it's all that overestimated for the OP.
also, no you don't burn that much. These is zero chance your VO2MAX is 30% greater than the elitist of the elite endurance athletes on earth.
Wouldn't it be obvious that highly trained athletes would burn less? That would be my assumption as my calories burned get less and less the more weight I lose the more trained I get. And 1000 was a bit of stretch so I apologize. I usually burn between 650 and 750 doing a 50-55 minute ride.
I don't know what this VO2MAX stuff is so I can't comment.
Just telling you what my HRM tells me, which is usually about 1/2 of what MFP estimates.
Vo2MAX is a measure of oxygen. The more oxygen the body can use, the more potential calorie burn it's able to do. Trained people can pump far more oxygen than untrained. Thus their calorie burn potential is greater.0 -
OP, I would go with your HRM. I am over 200lbs and found when I got my HRM, it was actually pretty close to what MFP was saying.
If I were 150lbs, My burns would probably be significantly less.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions