Fit Bands or HRM

KBMatula
KBMatula Posts: 1 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Does anyone have any clue on these fit bands or HRM? I just want to get a more accurate idea of the calories that I am burning during my workouts. I have done research on the fit bands, fit bands with HRMs, etc. Everything I read keeps coming back to the polar brand. Does anyone have the loop and a HRM??? I think it would be cool to see what goes on when I am not working out, but man there are way too many options.

Any guidance would be great. Price really doesn't matter. I don't want to buy something that is cheap though and not accurate.

Replies

  • ryangassxx
    ryangassxx Posts: 12
    HRMs are going to give you a more accurate picture of what you're doing. The truth is that anything claiming to know your calorie burn that isn't even taking your heart rate into account pretty much is full of crap.. Height, weight, and age isn't enough info to determine your actual and accurate calorie burn. It has no idea what your current fitness level is..

    I struggle with it because I HATE wearing a chest strap, but a good Polar watch with a fitness test feature is the most accurate way to go as far as personal fitness computing..

    I good HRM (not the $50 ones) is going to measure your at rest rate and ask all of the height, weight, age, stuff. The at rest heart rate is key because it creates a base line, so it KNOWS when you're exerting yourself and when you come into and out of cardio states.

    Those other things are just dressed up pedometers..
  • AdventureFreak
    AdventureFreak Posts: 236 Member
    Both. The heart rate monitor for vigorous exercise, heart rate zone targeting, and heart rate alarming and the fit band for sleep monitoring, steps, and general activity. True a fit band messes up sometimes (mine doesn't understand cycling well) but the ultimate lifetime long term goal is to keep moving moderately regularly and the fitband is way better at capturing that across the course of a day.
  • SecretAgent27
    SecretAgent27 Posts: 57 Member
    The way I see it, a HRM is better at keeping track of how much work you're actually doing during a workout. But a FitBit is more convenient (though less accurate) for keeping track of what you do in your normal everyday routine because you probably don't want to be wearing a chest strap all day, especially after a workout where you've soaked it with sweat.
  • AdventureFreak
    AdventureFreak Posts: 236 Member
    HRMs are going to give you a more accurate picture of what you're doing. The truth is that anything claiming to know your calorie burn that isn't even taking your heart rate into account pretty much is full of crap.. Height, weight, and age isn't enough info to determine your actual and accurate calorie burn. It has no idea what your current fitness level is..

    I struggle with it because I HATE wearing a chest strap, but a good Polar watch with a fitness test feature is the most accurate way to go as far as personal fitness computing..

    I good HRM (not the $50 ones) is going to measure your at rest rate and ask all of the height, weight, age, stuff. The at rest heart rate is key because it creates a base line, so it KNOWS when you're exerting yourself and when you come into and out of cardio states.

    Those other things are just dressed up pedometers..

    The inclusion of an accelerometer, thermal measurement, and other factors makes my body media band startlingly effective relative to my HRM. Plus it measures sleep which we all know is critical to successful fitness maintenance and enhancement.
  • ryangassxx
    ryangassxx Posts: 12
    Pardon my ignorance, but do any of those "fuel bands/fit bits" claim to calculate calorie burn?

    Because I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever tried to run them parallel and see if there was a difference in result..
  • knra_grl
    knra_grl Posts: 1,566 Member
    Fit Bands will track overall activity throughout the day - the calorie burn from them includes your "resting" calorie burn. For specific workouts you would want a HRM.

    I have a Polar Loop which is a fit band type of thing, but it also syncs with my H7 HRM so that it's the whole deal. That way I can track my daily activity and also use it for specific workouts.

    It doesn't sync with MFP which I am totally fine with as I don't want to use my "daily activity" for added calories, I only add calories when I do a workout specifically for calorie burn.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Depends on the exercise too.

    Walking and jogging - the step-based monitors with correct stride length can be more accurate than HRM because they use formula that has been found to be with 4% of tested.
    A cheaper HRM will be up to 30% inaccurate, a better one with VO2max stat (like Polar RS300X) and self-test can be up around 10-15% accurate.

    Lifting - neither is going to be close. Activity monitor is going to be badly underestimated, HRM is going to be badly inflated.
    The formula in HRM for tying HR to calorie burn is only valid for steady-state aerobic exercise, most exercise class, lifting, intervals, ect, are all very non-steady state, and for lifting and intervals are going in to the anaerobic zone too, so worse inflation there.

    Cycling, rowing, other non-step based exercise that is steady-state aerobic - HRM for this easily.

    The Polar and Garmin wrist bands are nice in that you get the all day measurement, and the HRM data for specific workouts.
    Polar has always been a closed shop for their data, don't expect integration with them.
    Garmin has open API's for other apps grabbing data off the devices or the files, but they don't open their web offering, and that's all that MFP will work with.

    I have not read in reviews if those devices have the VO2max stat for when you do the HRM part.
    And for exercise incorrect to use HRM with, you'll have to manually log it anyway.
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    I use a Mio Alpha wrist HRM paired throught Bluetooth with the Digifit app on my iPhone. Digifit has a fitness assessment that calculates your V02max by having you run as fast as you can for 30 minutes. Using that data, along with your sex, height, and weight, you can get a more accurate calorie burn than just formulas that don't take into account your HR and fitness level.
  • ELM70CA
    ELM70CA Posts: 35 Member
    I prefer the Polar HRMs. Simple to use and quite accurate within a 5% range for calories burned. Both options seem popular.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Pardon my ignorance, but do any of those "fuel bands/fit bits" claim to calculate calorie burn?

    Because I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever tried to run them parallel and see if there was a difference in result..

    Sure they do - that's their stated purpose actually.

    http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-reviews

    Pick them out and read up on them. Other bloggers have done the same too. Minimal differences.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I prefer the Polar HRMs. Simple to use and quite accurate within a 5% range for calories burned. Both options seem popular.

    How would you know within 5% of accurate?
    Comparing to.....?

    And big difference between cheaper Polar's and better ones, though even the more expensive aren't that accurate.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
  • ryangassxx
    ryangassxx Posts: 12
    What I don't understand though, is how can the device accurately calculate calorie burn when any algorithm that would be able to figure it out would be predicated on a heart rate.. I mean, I get the argument that perhaps these devices serve alternative purposes as more rudimentary step counters and sleep monitors, but the only data input that these devices are capable of calculating from is simple movement. It relies on generic height/weight/age estimates to sort of try and "figure it out". If it doesn't know what my heart is actually doing when I'm at a certain point of my workout (my conditioning level), how can it do the math and know my true calorie burn?
  • jim180155
    jim180155 Posts: 769 Member
    What I don't understand though, is how can the device accurately calculate calorie burn when any algorithm that would be able to figure it out would be predicated on a heart rate.. I mean, I get the argument that perhaps these devices serve alternative purposes as more rudimentary step counters and sleep monitors, but the only data input that these devices are capable of calculating from is simple movement. It relies on generic height/weight/age estimates to sort of try and "figure it out". If it doesn't know what my heart is actually doing when I'm at a certain point of my workout (my conditioning level), how can it do the math and know my true calorie burn?

    It doesn't need to know your heart rate to know how much energy is needed to move a specified mass over a specified distance. At a given age, height, and weight, you will burn roughly the same amount of calories walking a mile at 2 mph or running the same mile at 6 mph.
  • ryangassxx
    ryangassxx Posts: 12
    What I don't understand though, is how can the device accurately calculate calorie burn when any algorithm that would be able to figure it out would be predicated on a heart rate.. I mean, I get the argument that perhaps these devices serve alternative purposes as more rudimentary step counters and sleep monitors, but the only data input that these devices are capable of calculating from is simple movement. It relies on generic height/weight/age estimates to sort of try and "figure it out". If it doesn't know what my heart is actually doing when I'm at a certain point of my workout (my conditioning level), how can it do the math and know my true calorie burn?

    It doesn't need to know your heart rate to know how much energy is needed to move a specified mass over a specified distance. At a given age, height, and weight, you will burn roughly the same amount of calories walking a mile at 2 mph or running the same mile at 6 mph.

    In the most respectful way possible, I just simply do not agree with that.

    So BMI doesn't come into play in any of this? A 6'1 230 lb man with a BMI of 12% exerts the same energy as a 6'1 230lb man with 33% body fat?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    What I don't understand though, is how can the device accurately calculate calorie burn when any algorithm that would be able to figure it out would be predicated on a heart rate.. I mean, I get the argument that perhaps these devices serve alternative purposes as more rudimentary step counters and sleep monitors, but the only data input that these devices are capable of calculating from is simple movement. It relies on generic height/weight/age estimates to sort of try and "figure it out". If it doesn't know what my heart is actually doing when I'm at a certain point of my workout (my conditioning level), how can it do the math and know my true calorie burn?

    Studies have shown that for walking and running, the formula's are highly accurate for certain ranges and level.

    The only thing that matters in that exercise is mass, and pace for how often you move that mass.

    You having a high HR or not, or finding it easy or difficult, don't matter.

    Might liken it to that 20 lb dumbbell on the ground.
    The force required to break it free from gravity and lift it is the same no matter young or old, male or female, in or out of shape.
    Same energy required, expended, calories consumed.

    For walking or running, the high or low HR just indicates if it is easy or hard to do, and what % of carbs to fat are you burning to supply that energy.

    So all the step-based monitors are doing is estimating a stride length from your height (that could be off if not average leg length and stride length for your height), and then watching the sensors for those steps and how much force from them.
    The calculations know how much force from your weight if this is normal stride, or moving slowly, or jogging, ect, and what the expected stride length is.
    There is your distance, it knows time, therefore it knows pace, and it knows weight.
    Now it knows calories.

    For the bloggers that have tested the ability to get distance right, it really is incredible that purposely taking short steps or longer strides, or slower or faster, ect, have all resulted in distance's within 5% of accurate. GPS over decent distance would have issues with that depending on turns and such.

    Here's info on study of how accurate formulas are.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    What I don't understand though, is how can the device accurately calculate calorie burn when any algorithm that would be able to figure it out would be predicated on a heart rate.. I mean, I get the argument that perhaps these devices serve alternative purposes as more rudimentary step counters and sleep monitors, but the only data input that these devices are capable of calculating from is simple movement. It relies on generic height/weight/age estimates to sort of try and "figure it out". If it doesn't know what my heart is actually doing when I'm at a certain point of my workout (my conditioning level), how can it do the math and know my true calorie burn?

    It doesn't need to know your heart rate to know how much energy is needed to move a specified mass over a specified distance. At a given age, height, and weight, you will burn roughly the same amount of calories walking a mile at 2 mph or running the same mile at 6 mph.

    In the most respectful way possible, I just simply do not agree with that.

    So BMI doesn't come into play in any of this? A 6'1 230 lb man with a BMI of 12% exerts the same energy as a 6'1 230lb man with 33% body fat?

    Example is dead on correct, read reply above from me.

    edit to include - or 230 lb woman 5'4".
  • jim180155
    jim180155 Posts: 769 Member
    So BMI doesn't come into play in any of this? A 6'1 230 lb man with a BMI of 12% exerts the same energy as a 6'1 230lb man with 33% body fat?

    Right. The more muscular man will expend the same energy as the fatter man if they are the same height and weight (and I think age, but I'm not sure that that's a factor).

    Hopefully I won't screw myself up with this metaphor:

    Take two identical cars, both with 6 cylinder engines. The only difference between the two is that the first car has a turbocharger. The car with the turbo has a higher top end and can accelerate faster. But traveling a distance of one mile at 20 mph where the extra capacity of the turbo charger doesn't kick in, both cars will burn the same amount of gas.

    Muscular guys don't burn less calories for the same amount of effort. The difference is that muscular guys have more in reserve. When the fat guy reaches his limit, the muscular guy can keep going.
  • ryangassxx
    ryangassxx Posts: 12
    I see, so basically what you're saying is that there is no direct correlation between your heart rate and calorie burn. I get the science stuff. A calorie is a unit of energy (of heat), and the work to move an object of mass is uniform.

    So essentially if you took the same 230lb people.. Both of the same height. But one is 12% BMI and conditioned for running,.. and the other 33% and in no condition to speak of,.. Started them at a line and told them both to run a specified distance and a specified speed (so they're running side by side).. You will concede that the 33% guy's heart is going to be thumping faster than the other guy's when they cross the finish line.. But he's burned no more calories than the other guy even though his heart rate didn't even get into cardio range..

    Do I have that right?
  • ryangassxx
    ryangassxx Posts: 12
    I think the flaw in this science is that the energy being applied to the kettle bell isn't what you should be measuring,.. It's the energy required by the body to generate that force to move that kettle bell that deviates from person to person..
  • jim180155
    jim180155 Posts: 769 Member
    Depends on the exercise too.

    Walking and jogging - the step-based monitors with correct stride length can be more accurate than HRM because they use formula that has been found to be with 4% of tested.
    A cheaper HRM will be up to 30% inaccurate, a better one with VO2max stat (like Polar RS300X) and self-test can be up around 10-15% accurate.

    Lifting - neither is going to be close. Activity monitor is going to be badly underestimated, HRM is going to be badly inflated.
    The formula in HRM for tying HR to calorie burn is only valid for steady-state aerobic exercise, most exercise class, lifting, intervals, ect, are all very non-steady state, and for lifting and intervals are going in to the anaerobic zone too, so worse inflation there.

    Cycling, rowing, other non-step based exercise that is steady-state aerobic - HRM for this easily.

    The Polar and Garmin wrist bands are nice in that you get the all day measurement, and the HRM data for specific workouts.
    Polar has always been a closed shop for their data, don't expect integration with them.
    Garmin has open API's for other apps grabbing data off the devices or the files, but they don't open their web offering, and that's all that MFP will work with.

    I have not read in reviews if those devices have the VO2max stat for when you do the HRM part.
    And for exercise incorrect to use HRM with, you'll have to manually log it anyway.

    This is a good summary of the relative benefits of each.

    I'd add only that in very general terms, a HRM is better for measuring workouts, while something like the Fitbit is better for general activity. And the real benefit of a Fitbit, IMO, is it's motivational effect. It makes you want to get up and move in between workouts. In my case, that means an extra 500 or so calories a day that I wouldn't be burning if I didn't have the thing clipped to me, reminding me that I've been sitting on my butt a little too long.
  • jim180155
    jim180155 Posts: 769 Member
    I see, so basically what you're saying is that there is no direct correlation between your heart rate and calorie burn. I get the science stuff. A calorie is a unit of energy (of heat), and the work to move an object of mass is uniform.

    So essentially if you took the same 230lb people.. Both of the same height. But one is 12% BMI and conditioned for running,.. and the other 33% and in no condition to speak of,.. Started them at a line and told them both to run a specified distance and a specified speed (so they're running side by side).. You will concede that the 33% guy's heart is going to be thumping faster than the other guy's when they cross the finish line.. But he's burned no more calories than the other guy even though his heart rate didn't even get into cardio range..

    Do I have that right?

    Yes, you have that right.

    How about this: Two guys have to push a load on a four wheel cart up a hill. The load for both guys is 1,000 pounds. Both guys weigh the same and are of identical height. Both guys are wearing the same type of shoes. Both carts are the same with handles at the same height. The only difference is that the first guy is pushing a cart loaded with a 1,000 pound block of solid steel while the second guy is pushing a 1,000 pound blob of Jello.

    Both guys will burn identical calories getting their carts up the hill.
  • ryangassxx
    ryangassxx Posts: 12
    I'll be honest I'm just having a very difficult time drawing the parallels. Intuitively, everything that I know about exercise is saying that none of that makes any sense. I could very well be completely wrong, but I just can't reconcile what you're saying. And don't get me wrong I completely get what you're saying. I just think there must be some critical element that isn't being accounted for in your analogies, and I suspect it's the point of where you're measuring energy.. Calories are burning heat units. I believe a less conditioned man will generate more units of heat to do the same work externally. Measuring the external work is going to be uniform. This is why we don't simply use "reps" as a standard measurement of how much of a workout you've gotten, and it's why someone who works out will gradually increase rep counts over time as they become more conditioned. If what you're saying is true, why would anyone ever increase workout reps over time if the exercise benefit of doing the same reps stays consistent? They're just moving energy right?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I see, so basically what you're saying is that there is no direct correlation between your heart rate and calorie burn. I get the science stuff. A calorie is a unit of energy (of heat), and the work to move an object of mass is uniform.

    So essentially if you took the same 230lb people.. Both of the same height. But one is 12% BMI and conditioned for running,.. and the other 33% and in no condition to speak of,.. Started them at a line and told them both to run a specified distance and a specified speed (so they're running side by side).. You will concede that the 33% guy's heart is going to be thumping faster than the other guy's when they cross the finish line.. But he's burned no more calories than the other guy even though his heart rate didn't even get into cardio range..

    Do I have that right?

    There is no direct correlation - there is a lose association. Which is the best your get outside wearing a backpack air bag and face mask to collect what you breath, and measure it later.

    Now - my whole discussions above were about running and walking, those formula's are more accurate than HRM's.
    Formula's for cycle-ergometers are more accurate too, if you use cadence, and watts, ect, and are sitting.
    Rowing on machine is equally good, watts known, and pull rate, ect.

    But almost everything else, even ellipticals with so many variables, have no valid formula's. All that stuff is going to be best with HRM.

    Your example of running is correct. And the high HR guy is burning probably almost total carbs, so he'd run out faster. Fit guy is burning much more fat and carbs and could go longer.

    Now as you mention on HR thumping along at 2 very different levels. Here's why the cheaper HRM's including Polar lose out on accuracy. They all need a VO2max stat to even estimate calorie burn. But some don't have a visible stat, they estimate it.

    So the cheaper ones calculate your BMI (height and weight) and see where it is in range of good to bad (age and gender). Now you know why they need those stats. Age is also use for 220-age = HRmax (another big assumption).

    So your 2 guys with same everything, but one more fit and muscular.
    His HR is low. HRM sees perhaps bad BMI, so assumes bad fitness and VO2max, so low HR means low calorie burn.

    Other guy with high HR, HRM figures high HR means higher calorie burn.

    So a HRM on both would be very different figures. But get a HRM with tested VO2max stats in them, and they'd be about the same.

    And it's much faster to get fit than lose weight. So all these folks with cheaper Polar's that get fit faster than they lose weight, are actually getting under-reported calorie burns. Except the inaccuracy may have that even out. Difficult to know.

    Page 2 of this topic, my post on results testing 2 Polar's, one with no VO2max stat, one with it, compared to an actual VO2max test.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn
  • ryangassxx
    ryangassxx Posts: 12
    I see, so basically what you're saying is that there is no direct correlation between your heart rate and calorie burn. I get the science stuff. A calorie is a unit of energy (of heat), and the work to move an object of mass is uniform.

    So essentially if you took the same 230lb people.. Both of the same height. But one is 12% BMI and conditioned for running,.. and the other 33% and in no condition to speak of,.. Started them at a line and told them both to run a specified distance and a specified speed (so they're running side by side).. You will concede that the 33% guy's heart is going to be thumping faster than the other guy's when they cross the finish line.. But he's burned no more calories than the other guy even though his heart rate didn't even get into cardio range..

    Do I have that right?

    There is no direct correlation - there is a lose association. Which is the best your get outside wearing a backpack air bag and face mask to collect what you breath, and measure it later.

    Now - my whole discussions above were about running and walking, those formula's are more accurate than HRM's.
    Formula's for cycle-ergometers are more accurate too, if you use cadence, and watts, ect, and are sitting.
    Rowing on machine is equally good, watts known, and pull rate, ect.

    But almost everything else, even ellipticals with so many variables, have no valid formula's. All that stuff is going to be best with HRM.

    Your example of running is correct. And the high HR guy is burning probably almost total carbs, so he'd run out faster. Fit guy is burning much more fat and carbs and could go longer.

    Now as you mention on HR thumping along at 2 very different levels. Here's why the cheaper HRM's including Polar lose out on accuracy. They all need a VO2max stat to even estimate calorie burn. But some don't have a visible stat, they estimate it.

    So the cheaper ones calculate your BMI (height and weight) and see where it is in range of good to bad (age and gender). Now you know why they need those stats. Age is also use for 220-age = HRmax (another big assumption).

    So your 2 guys with same everything, but one more fit and muscular.
    His HR is low. HRM sees perhaps bad BMI, so assumes bad fitness and VO2max, so low HR means low calorie burn.

    Other guy with high HR, HRM figures high HR means higher calorie burn.

    So a HRM on both would be very different figures. But get a HRM with tested VO2max stats in them, and they'd be about the same.

    And it's much faster to get fit than lose weight. So all these folks with cheaper Polar's that get fit faster than they lose weight, are actually getting under-reported calorie burns. Except the inaccuracy may have that even out. Difficult to know.

    Page 2 of this topic, my post on results testing 2 Polar's, one with no VO2max stat, one with it, compared to an actual VO2max test.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn

    Alright I concede, solely because you seem to know what you're talking about :P , I'm just having a difficult time wrapping my head around it. It was always my impression that heart rate was a direct indicator to the amount of work your body was doing, and at the very least a HRM had some means of sampling your biology in order to form something to predicate it's calorie burn calculations on. Motion sensing devices have no means of biology sampling. But evidently there is some very high level technical stuff at play that I am not aware of that goes way over my head, and that's good enough for me.

    Go science!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I'll be honest I'm just having a very difficult time drawing the parallels. Intuitively, everything that I know about exercise is saying that none of that makes any sense. I could very well be completely wrong, but I just can't reconcile what you're saying. And don't get me wrong I completely get what you're saying. I just think there must be some critical element that isn't being accounted for in your analogies, and I suspect it's the point of where you're measuring energy.. Calories are burning heat units. I believe a less conditioned man will generate more units of heat to do the same work externally. Measuring the external work is going to be uniform. This is why we don't simply use "reps" as a standard measurement of how much of a workout you've gotten, and it's why someone who works out will gradually increase rep counts over time as they become more conditioned. If what you're saying is true, why would anyone ever increase workout reps over time if the exercise benefit of doing the same reps stays consistent? They're just moving energy right?

    Did you read the study in the prior link about running and walking calorie burn. Go read the details of the study for the weight ranges and gender and age. All over the board.

    So for reps then, equal weight, same length of arms so same lever being applied.
    Strong man can do 20 lbs easy, barely engaging his muscles to do curls.
    Weak man can barely do it, producing a lot of heat of effort and total muscle engagement.

    Same energy used to accomplish by both men.

    When you start diverging is the variable in real life. Like even those formula for walking/running calorie burns. Notice level.
    Up to certain incline still good.
    But get too steep, now personal differences make it a different effort and different burn.
    Like longer stride than normal up a hill means more effort to lift that weight higher, shorter stride means less energy. Shoot, shorter legs trying to lop along outside comfort zone is more energy.

    And even the HR example, with same VO2max tested, so same fitness level. One may have genetically lower HRmax and one higher, so their HR at same given level could be very different, and yet burning same calories.
    Some have diesel hearts, some Honda hearts.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Page 2 of this topic, my post on results testing 2 Polar's, one with no VO2max stat, one with it, compared to an actual VO2max test.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn

    Alright I concede, solely because you seem to know what you're talking about :P , I'm just having a difficult time wrapping my head around it. It was always my impression that heart rate was a direct indicator to the amount of work your body was doing, and at the very least a HRM had some means of sampling your biology in order to form something to predicate it's calorie burn calculations on. Motion sensing devices have no means of biology sampling. But evidently there is some very high level technical stuff at play that I am not aware of that goes way over my head, and that's good enough for me.

    Go science!

    Read the first post of above topic before going to page 2.
    It talks about all the other reasons your HR can be inflated and nothing about your current workload.

    So you could run exact same run, 2 days in a row. And be dehydrated the 2nd run, and HR is inflated by 5-10 bpm.
    Does that mean more effort that resulted in bigger calorie burn?
    No, bigger effort by heart to move thick blood around to get the oxygen it needs, yes. But not because you needed more oxygen.

    Or had double-expresso with energy drink prior to workout, and HR is inflated by 10-15 bpm. Same effort as day before. Heart isn't beating faster because body needs more oxygen because of bigger calorie burn - it's hopped up because of drugs basically.

    If you want to read up more on the science beyond my posts, here's another.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories
  • ryangassxx
    ryangassxx Posts: 12
    I'll dive into it when I have more time.

    I'm sold though on what you're saying.

Categories