Same Heart Rate = Same Calorie Burn?
Options
Replies
-
Perhaps I am wrong in how a heart rate monitor is estimating the burn in the first place?
well...you said "estimating" the burn, so you can't be totally wrong. it's an estimate based on an algorithm that is set based on information that you give it (weight, age, sex, VO2max, etc) and it uses that, along with your heart rate and the assumption that you are performing a steady state cardio activity to make it's best estimate on calorie burn rate. but it's not your "true" rate, just a best guess.
different things could trigger different heart rates even tho they might burn the same amount of calories. and let's say you started walking hills when you were completely unfit. your HR might go thru the roof and you'll barely be able to breathe. Now you've run several 10ks and you're in much better shape. walking the same hill might barely make your HR go up and you'll breathe normally. the HRM will give you a lower estimate **even tho the exact same amount of energy (calories) are required to up that same hill (assuming you weigh the same).
TL;DR it's just a guess. it's probably close enough to work with so don't spend a bunch of time worrying if you have your exact burn numbers. they really don't matter that much.
I realize over time it may change. I am basically asking if it is reasonably safe to assume for the same person and the same time period (same fitness level, weight, etc. therefore) if the calorie burn of something like cycling and elliptical should be similar if the heart rate is the same. It seems to be the consensus so far that this is not the case. It mystifies me a bit, though, because it seems that would make heart rate monitors quite inaccurate...and I thought they were supposed to be fairly accurate for steady state cardio.
but....you seem to be making the case that "inaccurate" means "not what you expected". it could very well be accurate and your expectations were skewed
I think you may be partially misunderstanding what I'm after. I realize there is inaccuracy possible in both the equation the heart rate monitor uses and my Bodybugg. I am not asking for affirmation that the numbers I've shows are exactly right. If the bodybugg shows a burn of 150, I know it may in reality be 120 or 180. I realize that is the same for heart rate monitors. What I am talking about is under the same circumstances, same variables within the same equation, whether the burn would be approximately the same. I guess in part it depends on exactly what variables are being used in the HRM to estimate. I believe the equations generally use gender, age, weight, maybe height, VO2max (if you know it, otherwise an estimate based on the other given information), and heart rate. Knowing that, I would think that during a single given trip to the gym, where these variables don't change (I am not changing my gender, age, weight, VO2max, etc. over one session), is there some variable I am not seeing that would cause the calorie burn to change even though the heart rate is the same? The only thing in the equation that changes during a single session would seem to be heart rate based on a HRM equation. So, given that, why shouldn't 125 heart rate on elliptical be causing the same burn as a 125 heart rate on the bike? What part of the equation is being changed (or perhaps what part not able to be compensated for by the original HRM equation)? I know different muscles may be being used (and part of my original question was about how this changes the heat being put off which would relate to burn also), but I'd like something solid that explains why a different motion changes the equation either as estimated by a HRM or taking into account exactly what causes inaccuracies in the HRM in the first place.0 -
OK....to try to make what I'm meaning clearer....here is the equation (perhaps inaccurate depending on the person, but still a model) of calories burned based on heart rate.
Male: ((-55.0969 + (0.6309 x HR) + (0.1988 x W) + (0.2017 x A))/4.184) x 60 x T
Female: ((-20.4022 + (0.4472 x HR) - (0.1263 x W) + (0.074 x A))/4.184) x 60 x T
where
HR = Heart rate (in beats/minute)
W = Weight (in kilograms)
A = Age (in years)
T = Exercise duration time (in hours)
So, when the gender, weight, age, and time (10m interval for example) stay the same, isn't heart rate the only variable left? Therefore, if the heart rate is the same (assuming steady state cardio), how can it be that it causes a different result? I understand this is a simplistic model that is guessing your calories burned based on an estimated VO2max and also an estimation of how many calories are being burned per % of maximum heart rate in comparison to that.0 -
during one activity you're supporting most of your own weight. on another you're mostly seated.
either way, you're overthinking this. not many people screw up because they were a handful of calories off from their weekly gym estimates. that's a handful of hours in a 168 hour week. get the rest of the day right and don't spend much time fretting about <200 calories of workout burn0 -
Perhaps I am wrong in how a heart rate monitor is estimating the burn in the first place?
well...you said "estimating" the burn, so you can't be totally wrong. it's an estimate based on an algorithm that is set based on information that you give it (weight, age, sex, VO2max, etc) and it uses that, along with your heart rate and the assumption that you are performing a steady state cardio activity to make it's best estimate on calorie burn rate. but it's not your "true" rate, just a best guess.
different things could trigger different heart rates even tho they might burn the same amount of calories. and let's say you started walking hills when you were completely unfit. your HR might go thru the roof and you'll barely be able to breathe. Now you've run several 10ks and you're in much better shape. walking the same hill might barely make your HR go up and you'll breathe normally. the HRM will give you a lower estimate **even tho the exact same amount of energy (calories) are required to up that same hill (assuming you weigh the same).
TL;DR it's just a guess. it's probably close enough to work with so don't spend a bunch of time worrying if you have your exact burn numbers. they really don't matter that much.
I realize over time it may change. I am basically asking if it is reasonably safe to assume for the same person and the same time period (same fitness level, weight, etc. therefore) if the calorie burn of something like cycling and elliptical should be similar if the heart rate is the same. It seems to be the consensus so far that this is not the case. It mystifies me a bit, though, because it seems that would make heart rate monitors quite inaccurate...and I thought they were supposed to be fairly accurate for steady state cardio.
but....you seem to be making the case that "inaccurate" means "not what you expected". it could very well be accurate and your expectations were skewed
I think you may be partially misunderstanding what I'm after. I realize there is inaccuracy possible in both the equation the heart rate monitor uses and my Bodybugg. I am not asking for affirmation that the numbers I've shows are exactly right. If the bodybugg shows a burn of 150, I know it may in reality be 120 or 180. I realize that is the same for heart rate monitors. What I am talking about is under the same circumstances, same variables within the same equation, whether the burn would be approximately the same. I guess in part it depends on exactly what variables are being used in the HRM to estimate. I believe the equations generally use gender, age, weight, maybe height, VO2max (if you know it, otherwise an estimate based on the other given information), and heart rate. Knowing that, I would think that during a single given trip to the gym, where these variables don't change (I am not changing my gender, age, weight, VO2max, etc. over one session), is there some variable I am not seeing that would cause the calorie burn to change even though the heart rate is the same? The only thing in the equation that changes during a single session would seem to be heart rate based on a HRM equation. So, given that, why shouldn't 125 heart rate on elliptical be causing the same burn as a 125 heart rate on the bike? What part of the equation is being changed (or perhaps what part not able to be compensated for by the original HRM equation)? I know different muscles may be being used (and part of my original question was about how this changes the heat being put off which would relate to burn also), but I'd like something solid that explains why a different motion changes the equation either as estimated by a HRM or taking into account exactly what causes inaccuracies in the HRM in the first place.
Because different muscles and motions require different energy amounts. Measure it in joules, watts produced, calories expended ... it doesn't matter ... the energy requirements differ between activities. Because of those differences, the equations used to calculate energy expenditure are different for each ... it isn't just the heart rate that varies but you don't see that since the full formula is buried in the background of the HRM or activity monitor.0 -
Walk for an hour at a fast enough pace to elevate your heart rate ... then run for an hour as slow as necessary to keep your heart rate at the same level as on your walk .... which burns more?0
-
during one activity you're supporting most of your own weight. on another you're mostly seated.
either way, you're overthinking this. not many people screw up because they were a handful of calories off from their weekly gym estimates. that's a handful of hours in a 168 hour week. get the rest of the day right and don't spend much time fretting about <200 calories of workout burn
I realize the difference is not huge and it won't make a huge difference in the grand scheme. However, I like to understand the science of my body and how things work. I know equations are just models and not always accurate, but they should be relatively consistent in their inaccuracy for a given person and set variables. For me, this issue is more psychological with regard to seeing the same heart rate and trying to achieve the same burn since I have a tendency to push through the pain and cause more damage otherwise. This doesn't mean I want to believe something not true, though. I want to understand it properly.0 -
Perhaps I am wrong in how a heart rate monitor is estimating the burn in the first place?
well...you said "estimating" the burn, so you can't be totally wrong. it's an estimate based on an algorithm that is set based on information that you give it (weight, age, sex, VO2max, etc) and it uses that, along with your heart rate and the assumption that you are performing a steady state cardio activity to make it's best estimate on calorie burn rate. but it's not your "true" rate, just a best guess.
different things could trigger different heart rates even tho they might burn the same amount of calories. and let's say you started walking hills when you were completely unfit. your HR might go thru the roof and you'll barely be able to breathe. Now you've run several 10ks and you're in much better shape. walking the same hill might barely make your HR go up and you'll breathe normally. the HRM will give you a lower estimate **even tho the exact same amount of energy (calories) are required to up that same hill (assuming you weigh the same).
TL;DR it's just a guess. it's probably close enough to work with so don't spend a bunch of time worrying if you have your exact burn numbers. they really don't matter that much.
I realize over time it may change. I am basically asking if it is reasonably safe to assume for the same person and the same time period (same fitness level, weight, etc. therefore) if the calorie burn of something like cycling and elliptical should be similar if the heart rate is the same. It seems to be the consensus so far that this is not the case. It mystifies me a bit, though, because it seems that would make heart rate monitors quite inaccurate...and I thought they were supposed to be fairly accurate for steady state cardio.
but....you seem to be making the case that "inaccurate" means "not what you expected". it could very well be accurate and your expectations were skewed
I think you may be partially misunderstanding what I'm after. I realize there is inaccuracy possible in both the equation the heart rate monitor uses and my Bodybugg. I am not asking for affirmation that the numbers I've shows are exactly right. If the bodybugg shows a burn of 150, I know it may in reality be 120 or 180. I realize that is the same for heart rate monitors. What I am talking about is under the same circumstances, same variables within the same equation, whether the burn would be approximately the same. I guess in part it depends on exactly what variables are being used in the HRM to estimate. I believe the equations generally use gender, age, weight, maybe height, VO2max (if you know it, otherwise an estimate based on the other given information), and heart rate. Knowing that, I would think that during a single given trip to the gym, where these variables don't change (I am not changing my gender, age, weight, VO2max, etc. over one session), is there some variable I am not seeing that would cause the calorie burn to change even though the heart rate is the same? The only thing in the equation that changes during a single session would seem to be heart rate based on a HRM equation. So, given that, why shouldn't 125 heart rate on elliptical be causing the same burn as a 125 heart rate on the bike? What part of the equation is being changed (or perhaps what part not able to be compensated for by the original HRM equation)? I know different muscles may be being used (and part of my original question was about how this changes the heat being put off which would relate to burn also), but I'd like something solid that explains why a different motion changes the equation either as estimated by a HRM or taking into account exactly what causes inaccuracies in the HRM in the first place.
Because different muscles and motions require different energy amounts. Measure it in joules, watts produced, calories expended ... it doesn't matter ... the energy requirements differ between activities. Because of those differences, the equations used to calculate energy expenditure are different for each ... it isn't just the heart rate that varies but you don't see that since the full formula is buried in the background of the HRM or activity monitor.
So, you are basically saying that if we were going by the simplistic HRM equation, it would probably be the same. It is the real life side of things that causes it to not be true? Is there any way of estimating how much these real life factors affect the equation? What is the percent error when using a HRM? Is it something like 10% or more like 30%?0 -
Walk for an hour at a fast enough pace to elevate your heart rate ... then run for an hour as slow as necessary to keep your heart rate at the same level as on your walk .... which burns more?
For me personally, I am pretty sure it would be impossible for a running heart rate to ever be as low as a walking heart rate...however, I also don't run because of how much stress it causes my joints and heel. Is it possible for a normal weight person to have a similar heart rate fast walking vs slow running?0 -
..... For me, this issue is more psychological with regard to seeing the same heart rate and trying to achieve the same burn since I have a tendency to push through the pain and cause more damage otherwise.
well, this is an entirely different problem and i would recommend that you address that as opposed to anything fitness related.0 -
I appreciate the responses I am getting. Thank you for taking the time to post.0
-
..... For me, this issue is more psychological with regard to seeing the same heart rate and trying to achieve the same burn since I have a tendency to push through the pain and cause more damage otherwise.
well, this is an entirely different problem and i would recommend that you address that as opposed to anything fitness related.
I am trying to also address this. It is just very hard sometimes to tell a good burn from bad and know how much to push yourself. If I wanted zero pain, I wouldn't be able to workout at all with the heel and joint issues I have. Unfortunately, sometimes I don't realize until after a workout (or even the next morning) how much it hurts.0 -
OK...found a good paper about this with a sample size of 115. http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf
The heart rate equation here is known to only be accurate of heart rates between 90 and 150. Basically, this only refers to steady state cardio and not getting scared or anything else that may raise your heart rate.
Essentially, it shows that if you know your VO2max (I do not, but I've heard you can have it tested), standard heart rate equation variables (gender, age, weight, heart rate) account for about 83.3% of the variance in energy expenditure based on a given age, gender, weight, and VO2max.
The equation that guesses your VO2max based on your other statistics, causes those statistics (age, gender, weight, heart rate) to account for 73.3% of the variance in energy expenditure.
Therefore, if I use the basic heart rate equation without a measured VO2max to assume the same heart rate for me with my own set variables (which aren't going to change during a single workout period), it would show the same burn for different (steady state cardio) activities such as biking, elliptical, treadmill (if say my heart rate is an average of 125 doing any of them). However, up to 26.7% of what causes burn rates to be different may not be accounted for. However, that inaccuracy applies to a certain extent to any activity you do, so you can't say that cycling vs elliptical will be off by that amount. Most likely, the difference will be less because some factors will remain the same regardless of what activity you are doing (hydration, caffeine, lean body mass vs fat that makes up your weight, etc). Honestly, I think this makes me comfortable enough knowing that if my heart rate stays about 125 during a steady state activity that the calorie burn most likely isn't going to be radically different between cycling and elliptical. They are far more similar to each other than boxing, swimming, and other activities where the STEADY part of steady state cardio is less easy to achieve (at least for me). Also, I am similarly fit when it comes to both. Certainly, if the activity in question uses different muscles and causes an unusual increase in heart rate because of newness to that motion, this wouldn't apply. However, I have been using the elliptical and cycle both pretty consistently so expect that my fitness in relation to both is fairly similar.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions