Yikes! I have been logging wrong all this time!

2

Replies

  • Guamybear
    Guamybear Posts: 1,061 Member
    When I was doing Zumba, I weighed over 200lbs and gave it my all..I loved it.. I averaged about a 400-500 cal burn..HR never really went over 170...
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    How old are you? 200 BPM is an extremely high heart rate. I would question the accuracy of this measurement.

    200 bpm is very possible. Many people have higher Max HR than 220-age, especially women, most likely her's is, which also makes the HRM think she is working harder than she is giving inflated calorie burns.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    So I do a fair amount of walking (at least 40 minutes a day), aerobics and zumba every week. I have been using the MFP settings to calculate my calorie burn, but because I know it wasn't very accurate, I would log 60 minutes of Aerobics as 45 minutes for example, giving me around 350-400cals burn.

    My finace bought me a polar ft4 heart rate monitor and I used it for my aerobics class yesterday for the first time. I burned 679kcals in the 60 minutes and my maximum heard rate was 200!!!! So I have been logging nearly half of what I actually burned? I am so confused (and happy)! I was certain I would burn less than what MFP said and I can't wrap my head around the fact that I can eat LOADS more now.

    Any chance my Polar hrm is wrong? lol!

    Actually yes there is a possibility the Polar is wrong for that type of activity. HRM's are designed for caloric burns during steady state cardio only, so probably a slight over estimation. On top of that HRM give you total burn, with includes what you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories/minute x the number of minutes worked out) So in that 60 mins you probably would have burned 75-90 calories doing nothing, plus the error for it not being steady state. I would suggest eating only 75% of them back, whihc would put you near what you were logging to prior to using the HRM

    I agree on the thought of reducing the burn by your estimated BMR. I do this. However, for a relatively small woman, it's probably closer to the 60 to 65 calories an hour range (that's what mine is, tested in a lab). So, I take about 90% of my HRM's number and use that.

    Not estimated BMR, estimated maintenance cals which should be 20+% higher than BMR, depending on activity level. unless your option was sleep or exercise, then if you would have slept BMR would be acceptable.
  • jmp463
    jmp463 Posts: 266 Member
    Those burns sound way too high IMO. I know my HRM overestimates burns by nearly 40% despite me putting in all my numbers correctly.

    OP, try putting your numbers into the heart rate calorie calculator on this site: Shapesense.com. Calculate your gross burn, and then use that number to calculate your net burn. See how the numbers match up. I would use the lower number myself,


    Thanks for the above website - lots of good things on it.
  • PoeRaven8991
    PoeRaven8991 Posts: 26
    My experience with logging calories burned from my HRM proved to be disastrous. After 2 weeks of consuming the calories I thought I was burning according to my HRM (Polar) I began gaining weight. I returned to logging what MFP says I burned and went back to losing.
    Just saying. :smile:
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    So I do a fair amount of walking (at least 40 minutes a day), aerobics and zumba every week. I have been using the MFP settings to calculate my calorie burn, but because I know it wasn't very accurate, I would log 60 minutes of Aerobics as 45 minutes for example, giving me around 350-400cals burn.

    My finace bought me a polar ft4 heart rate monitor and I used it for my aerobics class yesterday for the first time. I burned 679kcals in the 60 minutes and my maximum heard rate was 200!!!! So I have been logging nearly half of what I actually burned? I am so confused (and happy)! I was certain I would burn less than what MFP said and I can't wrap my head around the fact that I can eat LOADS more now.

    Any chance my Polar hrm is wrong? lol!

    Actually yes there is a possibility the Polar is wrong for that type of activity. HRM's are designed for caloric burns during steady state cardio only, so probably a slight over estimation. On top of that HRM give you total burn, with includes what you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories/minute x the number of minutes worked out) So in that 60 mins you probably would have burned 75-90 calories doing nothing, plus the error for it not being steady state. I would suggest eating only 75% of them back, whihc would put you near what you were logging to prior to using the HRM

    I agree on the thought of reducing the burn by your estimated BMR. I do this. However, for a relatively small woman, it's probably closer to the 60 to 65 calories an hour range (that's what mine is, tested in a lab). So, I take about 90% of my HRM's number and use that.

    Not estimated BMR, estimated maintenance cals which should be 20+% higher than BMR, depending on activity level. unless your option was sleep or exercise, then if you would have slept BMR would be acceptable.

    Yes, point taken, though I've found, at sedentary, the 20% is too high. For me, typically it is working out or sitting on the couch LOL.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    So I do a fair amount of walking (at least 40 minutes a day), aerobics and zumba every week. I have been using the MFP settings to calculate my calorie burn, but because I know it wasn't very accurate, I would log 60 minutes of Aerobics as 45 minutes for example, giving me around 350-400cals burn.

    My finace bought me a polar ft4 heart rate monitor and I used it for my aerobics class yesterday for the first time. I burned 679kcals in the 60 minutes and my maximum heard rate was 200!!!! So I have been logging nearly half of what I actually burned? I am so confused (and happy)! I was certain I would burn less than what MFP said and I can't wrap my head around the fact that I can eat LOADS more now.

    Any chance my Polar hrm is wrong? lol!

    Actually yes there is a possibility the Polar is wrong for that type of activity. HRM's are designed for caloric burns during steady state cardio only, so probably a slight over estimation. On top of that HRM give you total burn, with includes what you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories/minute x the number of minutes worked out) So in that 60 mins you probably would have burned 75-90 calories doing nothing, plus the error for it not being steady state. I would suggest eating only 75% of them back, whihc would put you near what you were logging to prior to using the HRM

    I agree on the thought of reducing the burn by your estimated BMR. I do this. However, for a relatively small woman, it's probably closer to the 60 to 65 calories an hour range (that's what mine is, tested in a lab). So, I take about 90% of my HRM's number and use that.

    Not estimated BMR, estimated maintenance cals which should be 20+% higher than BMR, depending on activity level. unless your option was sleep or exercise, then if you would have slept BMR would be acceptable.

    Yes, point taken, though I've found, at sedentary, the 20% is too high. For me, typically it is working out or sitting on the couch LOL.

    Actually, now that I think about it, I don't believe there is a setting for your activity level on the HRM so it probably is not including the 20% over your BMR.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    I think some people's heart rate can get really high. I am pretty fit (I do 5-6 high impact high intensity cardio classes a week, 1 spin class , plus lift heavy 4 days a week and do a yoga/pilates class 2 days a week) and my rh is super crazy.

    For example in my intense step class (I do everything in class as high impact/high intensity as possible and work really hard) my average heart rate is 175 and my max is 199 which is pretty high for a 37 (38 in less than a month) year old 131 lb 5'8 woman.. and I don't feel like I am going to faint. my recovery rate is between 28 and 50 (depending on how high my hr is at the end of class) so it is fairly decent.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    So I do a fair amount of walking (at least 40 minutes a day), aerobics and zumba every week. I have been using the MFP settings to calculate my calorie burn, but because I know it wasn't very accurate, I would log 60 minutes of Aerobics as 45 minutes for example, giving me around 350-400cals burn.

    My finace bought me a polar ft4 heart rate monitor and I used it for my aerobics class yesterday for the first time. I burned 679kcals in the 60 minutes and my maximum heard rate was 200!!!! So I have been logging nearly half of what I actually burned? I am so confused (and happy)! I was certain I would burn less than what MFP said and I can't wrap my head around the fact that I can eat LOADS more now.

    Any chance my Polar hrm is wrong? lol!

    Actually yes there is a possibility the Polar is wrong for that type of activity. HRM's are designed for caloric burns during steady state cardio only, so probably a slight over estimation. On top of that HRM give you total burn, with includes what you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories/minute x the number of minutes worked out) So in that 60 mins you probably would have burned 75-90 calories doing nothing, plus the error for it not being steady state. I would suggest eating only 75% of them back, whihc would put you near what you were logging to prior to using the HRM

    I agree on the thought of reducing the burn by your estimated BMR. I do this. However, for a relatively small woman, it's probably closer to the 60 to 65 calories an hour range (that's what mine is, tested in a lab). So, I take about 90% of my HRM's number and use that.

    Not estimated BMR, estimated maintenance cals which should be 20+% higher than BMR, depending on activity level. unless your option was sleep or exercise, then if you would have slept BMR would be acceptable.

    Yes, point taken, though I've found, at sedentary, the 20% is too high. For me, typically it is working out or sitting on the couch LOL.

    Actually, now that I think about it, I don't believe there is a setting for your activity level on the HRM so it probably is not including the 20% over your BMR.

    No there isn't on the HRM, but MFP already accounts for total cals burned if not exercising, the HRM counts total cals burned for that duration, so the BMR+sedentary cals are double counted if you enter the amount directly from the HRM. It would be MFP that double counts, not the HRM.
  • bperkins88
    bperkins88 Posts: 357 Member
    I use:

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn-conversion-calculator.aspx

    I use the above to subtract the calories I'd burn not doing anything, and also do not eat back ALL of my exercise calories my HRM tells me i'm burning . I find it hard to believe I'm actually burning 1000 - 1300 calories in an hour and a half ... 5ft. 7, 205LBS.
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    Don't forget, also only 5'4.

    This is why I have been logging it as 350kcals all this time. I did check frequently and my heart rate was constantly over 190 and reached a maximum of 200.

    I shall monitor this and see what happens. :)
    140 pound female burning 700 calories in an aerobics class? Another female burning 900 in an hour of Zumba?

    Proceed at your own peril
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Don't forget, also only 5'4.

    This is why I have been logging it as 350kcals all this time. I did check frequently and my heart rate was constantly over 190 and reached a maximum of 200.

    I shall monitor this and see what happens. :)
    140 pound female burning 700 calories in an aerobics class? Another female burning 900 in an hour of Zumba?

    Proceed at your own peril

    Heart rate =/= calorie burn rate. If you were losing consistently before, it would be unwise to double your exercise calorie count and expect to continue losing at the same rate.

    Experience>>devices
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    Thank you for your replies everybody. In summary, I have decided to tread cautiously and take it with a pinch of salt. Yesterday's class was indeed a crazy one and I did feel light headed afterwards and was gasping for air through some of the harder tracks, so the heart rate readings were probably correct. I then had to walk home for 40 minutes and got a slight calf cramp and jelly legs (it was a hard class). I may have skewed the numbers a little bit as I continued to wear it through the hand and leg tracks, which were more light weights, squats and lunges, so my heart rate was relatively low.

    My maximum heart rate was 200, with an of average 174. Just before the class when I checked my heart rate, it was around 100-120 and afterwards walking home it was 130-140.

    I am new to using any heart rate monitors, so I shall monitor what I get (without increasing my calories too much) and see what happens. I have graphs with trend lines and everything (I'm an engineer. lol). I only logged 500kcals for yesterday's class and I still had about 200kcals left over, but my daily goal (set manually) is 1500kcals.
    I have had one or two binge days where I have gone over my limit by a maximum of about 1000kcals, but otherwise I don't really feel deprived. I had hair loss when I first started at 1200kcals, but I manually changed the goal to 1500kcals, so it seems to have stopped now.


    As a former cardiac nurse, I can tell you this: If your heart rate was actually at 200 bpm for any length of time you would have felt light headed, dizzy, somewhat nauseous, and essentially like death warmed over. Unless you are EXTREMELY fit, that is. Even if you are already extremely fit with loads of aerobic conditioning under your belt, you would have been feeling as though you were working at maximum exertion. How did you feel when you were taking that class? If you honestly felt like you were going to die, and you were completely wiped out afterwards, then your HRM is probably correct. If you felt like it was a great class, and you gave it your all, but you still felt energetic and okay afterwards, then your HRM is probably NOT correct. There is a known issue with some polar straps that they will pick up static electricity from the movement of your clothing (especially tech fabrics like wicking and fast dry) in fast paced exercises or windy conditions. This extra electrical activity is interpreted as extra heart beats, artificially elevating your max and average HR, and thus exaggerating your calorie burn. It can be minimized by the use of ultrasound gel. So, I would not look at this as an automatic license to eat more. Look at your progress. You've been taking this same class for a while. What is your weight loss like? Are you hitting the MFP predictions for five weeks out pretty regularly? Or are you dropping weight so fast that it seems like several hundred calories a day are magically disappearing somewhere? Or, are you finding the weight is stubborn and hard to get off? How are you feeling? Listen to your body. Are you hungry? Really hungry? Not bored, not eating to stuff emotions, not thirsty, not having cravings or a fit of the munchies. Are you actually hungry? As in, do you feel like your body needs more protein, more complex carbs, more healthy fats, more nutrients and fuel? If so, you should eat. If it's one of the other things, you should not eat. And if you can't tell the difference that is your first order of business.

    Good luck.

    Acronyms used

    bpm = beats per minute
    HR = heart rate
    HRM = heart rate monitor

    Edit: Spelling is hard.
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    Thank you! Will definitely try that.

    My weight loss has stalled a little, which is why I am slightly worried (not too worries, as I have started heavy lifting = hopefully, muscle gain). Weird thing is I lost weight during Christmas when I ate at my maintenance and have stopped losing since I started tracking again.

    This needs some monitoring and investigation. lol!
    Those burns sound way too high IMO. I know my HRM overestimates burns by nearly 40% despite me putting in all my numbers correctly.

    OP, try putting your numbers into the heart rate calorie calculator on this site: Shapesense.com. Calculate your gross burn, and then use that number to calculate your net burn. See how the numbers match up. I would use the lower number myself,
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    I have not really set a 'working range', so will look in to that today. I have Zumba tomorrow, so will try it out again tomorrow. I expected my HRM to show the calorie burn to be lower than the MFP estimates to be fair.

    I did keep my eye on the HRM. During the actual tracks my heart rate was mostly between 190 and 200. As soon as the track stopped and I went to get some water (30second break), it dropped down to about 183-184 before the next track started again, so my heart rate was ridiculously high. And I did feel light headed after the class (and a little bit during).

    Did a run on the treadmill last Saturday and jogging at 9.5kmph, my heart rate was 185-197ish (checked using the bars on the machine, didn't have my polar then). Does this mean I am really unfit? I have been working out frequently since August so its not like I just started!
    Echoing what others have said. Make sure you've set-up your HRM right for you age/height/weight etc. Also, is it one where you set your 'working' range - think Polar call it OwnCal? My HRM records cals burnt when heart rate is over 100 (ie. I'm exercising).

    Your burn does sound rather high. For an average (ish) person, burns are usually 100 cals/10 mins (I know this is simplistic), while working hard.

    I'm 143lb female and going absolutely flat-out at HIIT and Tabata style training, I get between 400-500 cals in 45 mins with max heart rate around high 170s.

    Have an experiment and keep an eye on your HRM while exercising to see what it's recording.
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    First of all, apologies for all these posts, but I could not check MFP as I had meetings this afternoon. So I am reading ALL of these replies (and replying to them) in one go.

    I thought my diary was open. I shall go to my profile and change the settings as soon as I am done reading all the replies.

    I am most certainly not anorexic. I am 5 '4 and about 141lbs, so have a BMI of about 24. I was given a 1200kcal deficit by MFP which I followed for a while (always eating back exercise calories), lost a bunch of weight, increased it to 1400kcals as I started feeling tired and my hair started falling off, lost more wieght, and have now increased it to 1500kcals because I am pretty much happy with what I look like, but want to keep losing weight slowly while doing some heavy lifting. I have recently had a few binges, but otherwise I am happy with my calorie goal.

    However, your reply did get me thinking about my high heart rate, as it doesn't seem to be normal? Might keep an eye on that. Apart from anorexia, what other factors may cause high heart rates like mine?
    Also, another thought. Your diary isn't open, so I can't see what you're eating routinely, but how is your intake? If you're working at the intensity you think you are, and you're as slender as you appear in your profile picture, you shouldn't be having a huge deficit. You need to fuel that kind of work, and if you're actually working that hard, by all means, eat more. If you are eating properly, then the things I said previously are probably accurate, in the absence of any other medical problems. If, however, you already have a low or low end of normal BMI and you're eating a very low calorie diet, then you could be looking at some other issues, like an eating disorder of some sort. Many anorexic people have highly variable heart rates and could hit those numbers. Although, I want to stress, THAT IS NOT HEALTHY. Note: I am not saying you are anorexic. I am saying that without further data to go on, that this could be a red flag. It is something that would trigger further assessment if I were actually your nurse. :) But YOU know the data. You need to look at your big picture. How much are you eating, how much are you exercising, how hard are you working? How well are you losing weight? What are your goals? Are they realistic goals? Best of luck to you.
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    This is a number I can work with while I monitor my heart rate for a few weeks. :) Thanks!
    Yes, I did the BMR calculation last night in my head on the way back from gym. I should burn about 70kcals to just stay alive (my BMR is in the 1400s), plus I removed another 100kcals just for luck and logged it as 500kcals. 75% is a easy estimation, so will run with that and see where I go! :) Thanks!
    So I do a fair amount of walking (at least 40 minutes a day), aerobics and zumba every week. I have been using the MFP settings to calculate my calorie burn, but because I know it wasn't very accurate, I would log 60 minutes of Aerobics as 45 minutes for example, giving me around 350-400cals burn.

    My finace bought me a polar ft4 heart rate monitor and I used it for my aerobics class yesterday for the first time. I burned 679kcals in the 60 minutes and my maximum heard rate was 200!!!! So I have been logging nearly half of what I actually burned? I am so confused (and happy)! I was certain I would burn less than what MFP said and I can't wrap my head around the fact that I can eat LOADS more now.

    Any chance my Polar hrm is wrong? lol!

    Actually yes there is a possibility the Polar is wrong for that type of activity. HRM's are designed for caloric burns during steady state cardio only, so probably a slight over estimation. On top of that HRM give you total burn, with includes what you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories/minute x the number of minutes worked out) So in that 60 mins you probably would have burned 75-90 calories doing nothing, plus the error for it not being steady state. I would suggest eating only 75% of them back, whihc would put you near what you were logging to prior to using the HRM
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    So as there are breaks between tracks for both aerobics and zumba, should I assume a 75% accuracy and run with it? Or is the error likely to be more than that?

    Unfortunately, pretty much all my cardio exercises are interval training (aerobics, zumba, and interval training on the treadmill in preparation for a 10k run) and the HRM was more than £50, so I still want to use it and correct for the error (if it is quantifiable) if possible. :(
    I have a Polar FT4 ad it is fairly accurate, however, even the most accurate HRM's are only 75% accurate when calculating calories burned from exercise.

    Good luck ;-) A

    That statement isn't really true. About 70% of the calorie burn can be attributed to the info put in the HRM (assuming steady state cardio) the remainder is an algorithm, so it should be in the 85% accuracy due to that estimation. Now if your HRM allows you to input V02 Max, then the cals burned attributed to the info contained can be upwards of 85% of the burn, again the remaining 15% is estimated using an algorithm, ending up with 90+% accuracy.

    Again these % due to oxygen uptake either entered or build in to the calc in the HRM are only true for steady state cardio, circuits or intervals will be off for this reason
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    I am 26. So my maximum heart rate should be 194?

    I know my brother who is a lot more fit and is 23 sometimes gets his heart rate up to about 210 when he is sprinting on the treadmill.
    How old are you? 200 BPM is an extremely high heart rate. I would question the accuracy of this measurement.

    200 bpm is very possible. Many people have higher Max HR than 220-age, especially women, most likely her's is, which also makes the HRM think she is working harder than she is giving inflated calorie burns.
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    Wah! I wish mine were more conservative.

    If they were, I'd have happily logged it and this post never would have happened. lol
    I use a Garmin Forerunner to track my burn during CrossFit (our box does a lot of cardio). Another girl in the class uses a Polar. Last time we compared, my burn for the 60 minute class came in at 375 and hers came in at 599. We lift a comparable weight - she may lift a little less. She runs a little faster, though.

    Mine is programmed for my height, weight, age and activity level. I don't know about her programming.

    I'm glad my numbers are more conservative, but I was surprised at the discrepancy.
  • sjp_511
    sjp_511 Posts: 476 Member
    My Polar (not sure the model, but I have had it for 6+ years) has settings for age, weight, resting heart rate, max heart rate and vo2 max. Make sure these are accurate.

    I recently started using my Polar again because I have to send my Garmin in for repair. I never questioned the Garmin - it seemed to be in-line with or less than most online calculators (including MFP) for calorie burn. At first the Polar ws stupidly low. Then I adjusted the settings (they were outdated from when I was much more out of shape). Now they seem rather high - I think it has to do with the fact that I have no idea what my vo2 max is. I did 3 online calculators to estimate and got 51, 52, and 35. I put it at 50 and got really insane calorie burns. I have since bumped it down to 45 and they seem more reasonable, but still on the high end.

    One other thing - I have 1 sport bra with an underwire. When I wear that with my HRM it must cause interference because I get really goofy readings.
  • Luciewithienoty
    Luciewithienoty Posts: 15 Member
    I did check frequently and my heart rate was constantly over 190 and reached a maximum of 200.

    Just check you're not "crossing" with anyone else wearing a HRM; sometimes when I run on a treadmill next to my husband (both wearing Polar HRMs) we get a bit of interference because the watch is not "locked on" to the signal from the right chest strap.
    On mine there is an outline around the flashing heart to show it's locked on I think.
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    I don't think there was anyone else wearing a HRM, but how do you 'lock' it on anyway. I followed the instructions on the little booklet I got with it, but I don't think there was anything about locking it?
    I did check frequently and my heart rate was constantly over 190 and reached a maximum of 200.

    Just check you're not "crossing" with anyone else wearing a HRM; sometimes when I run on a treadmill next to my husband (both wearing Polar HRMs) we get a bit of interference because the watch is not "locked on" to the signal from the right chest strap.
    On mine there is an outline around the flashing heart to show it's locked on I think.
  • fleetzz
    fleetzz Posts: 962 Member
    I just checked out the web site, and I would say this matches up pretty well to what my heart rate monitor shows me.

    I am 45, 5'4", 125 lbs, typically run 4 miles slow, 12 min/mile pace, and my hrm tells me I burn about 330 calories, which is about what this calculator gave me. Net would be 297 for me. Which is sad, because I figured every 100 calories I could burn it off by running one mile, but I have to run more than that. But it seems to be accurate for me on this particular exercise at least!
    Those burns sound way too high IMO. I know my HRM overestimates burns by nearly 40% despite me putting in all my numbers correctly.

    OP, try putting your numbers into the heart rate calorie calculator on this site: Shapesense.com. Calculate your gross burn, and then use that number to calculate your net burn. See how the numbers match up. I would use the lower number myself,


    Thanks for the above website - lots of good things on it.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    I am 26. So my maximum heart rate should be 194?

    I know my brother who is a lot more fit and is 23 sometimes gets his heart rate up to about 210 when he is sprinting on the treadmill.
    How old are you? 200 BPM is an extremely high heart rate. I would question the accuracy of this measurement.

    200 bpm is very possible. Many people have higher Max HR than 220-age, especially women, most likely her's is, which also makes the HRM think she is working harder than she is giving inflated calorie burns.

    The max HR equation is very faulty on an individual basis. I'm 39 to my max should be around 181. I can get my HR over 200 on especially hot and tough days. I estimate my max is somewhere between 202 and 206. I feel OK up to about 200 and once it gets over that, I start to feel bad.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING THAT IS RIGHT AND JUST IN THIS WORLD, PLEASE STOP TOP-QUOTING.
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    I really think folks with a high heart rate need to talk to their doctor about it.

    When I noticed mine was high, my doc put me on a beta blocker and had me wear a heart monitor thing for a week, etc. I still take the beta blocker.
  • Luciewithienoty
    Luciewithienoty Posts: 15 Member
    I don't think there was anyone else wearing a HRM, but how do you 'lock' it on anyway. I followed the instructions on the little booklet I got with it, but I don't think there was anything about locking it?

    It does it automatically, I think it depends on other electrical interference around at the time you switch it on. Mine is good 95% of the time, it's just every now & then it goes a bit "wonky". Yesterday morning it didn't pick up my heart rate properly til I was about 10 minutes into my run...
  • Sharonks
    Sharonks Posts: 884 Member
    I can't afford an HRM so I take my pulse a few times during steady state cardio and come up with an average beats per minute then plug it into http://braydenwm.com/calburn.htm. I took my pulse at rest and plug that in. You get cal burn for your heart rate during exercise and subtract your resting heart rate.

    I think this is more accurate than the mfp burn because as I get in better shape doing the same exercise is easier. My heart rate slows down and my body doesn't have to work as hard and my cal burn goes down.

    For reference, I am 4'11" and weigh about 125 and am 48 years old, female. I would say I am fairly muscular. Trainer said I have a 23% body fat, not sure that is true. When my HR is at 160 I end up with about a 600 cal burn. My resting heart rate is about 60 and my average steady state cardio is 160. At 180 I'm pretty fried afterward. These heart rates are supposedly not where I should be (220-48=172 max heart rate) yet seem to have no real ill affect. At 160 I feel normal and invigorated. At 170 I still do. HIIT at 180 isn't a problem, only steady state for say an hour will wipe me out. I think some people can run a little higher and it is more about how you feel. It would be good to talk to your doctor to be sure, especially if you have any kind of heart issue.
  • wolfsbayne
    wolfsbayne Posts: 3,116 Member
    In to have this in my feed

Categories