Heart rate monitor and calories burned...opinions please!

Options
Steph70508
Steph70508 Posts: 110
in Fitness and Exercise
A little upset with what my heart rate monitor showed...used the treadmill for 60 minutes. Walked 4.17 miles at a minimum incline of 2.0 at 4.2-5.5mph. The treadmill showed I burned 497 calories. My heart rate monitor shows 115 bpm average, 159 bpm max and only 332 calories burned. I am drenched with sweat and now highly upset! :(
Should I go strictly with the heart rate monitor? If so, I will have to double the amount of cardio I am already doing...

Replies

  • Michelle_J
    Michelle_J Posts: 362 Member
    Options
    bump
  • EDBENAGLIO
    EDBENAGLIO Posts: 424
    Options
    I GUESS WE NEED TO KNOW AGE HIGHT WEIGHT

    IS YOUR HRM SET RIGHT
  • JennLifts
    JennLifts Posts: 1,913 Member
    Options
    Does it have a chest strap or is it just the watch? If your hr was as low as it tells, then your burn unfortunately wouldn't have been very high. I've found no matter the speed, run or walk, i burn about 100 calories per mile, give a couple.
  • Shawna0101
    Shawna0101 Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • sunshine79
    sunshine79 Posts: 758 Member
    Options
    I know it can be disheartening but try not to ficus so much on calories burned during a work out session. Rather than doubling your cardio as you've suggested (this is a recipe for disaster) try working out at a higher intensity for a shorter period of time. Working close to your maximum intensity not only burns more calories at the time of working out, it also increasing the number of calories burned long after your work out too.

    Have a look at HIIT (high intensity interval training) :smile:
  • kristie874
    kristie874 Posts: 774 Member
    Options
    That's a really low heart rate for such an intense workout! You may want to see if it's accurate. I'd go with the counts it gave you, though, if the heart rate is correct. I try to keep my heart rate between 135 and 160 during my workouts and generally burn between 600 and 900 per 90 minute workout, depending on what I'm doing. But we're all different and you could just be in super good shape to have the hr be so low.
  • bigfluffnana
    bigfluffnana Posts: 1
    Options
    You need to change your routine. Your body gets used to the same things.
  • robin52077
    robin52077 Posts: 4,383 Member
    Options
    Does it have a chest strap or is it just the watch? If your hr was as low as it tells, then your burn unfortunately wouldn't have been very high. I've found no matter the speed, run or walk, i burn about 100 calories per mile, give a couple.

    ^^ this ^^

    300 an hour is my typical hour walking. Running it would be 400-500 in an hour but I can't run that long. I can do 300 in 40 minutes though.

    And I would need your height and weight.
    And like Jenn asked...do you have the watch only kind? If so it is wrong. Unless you touched it every minute it's useless.
    If it's chest strap, is it possible it wasn't attached properly at some point?
  • piccolarj
    piccolarj Posts: 488 Member
    Options
    If your HRM has a chest strap and you entered in your weight, height, etc. correctly then the HRM is most likely correct. I worked out an hour on the tredmill today and it said almost 700 calories burned but my HRM said 594 a big difference. Also remember the more you workout and get more physically fit the harder it is to get your HR up and get a high calories burn. When I first started working out I could burn about 700 calories in 45 mins but now it takes me about an hour and half.
  • Steph70508
    Steph70508 Posts: 110
    Options
    It does have a chest strap and I put in all of my stats before. I am 34 years old, 5'7" 133 pounds and my resting heart rate is in the 50's. I usually work out at the gym, but on Saturdays I just use my treadmill at home. Can't run due to back issues...The heart rate monitor is a Polar 6.
  • kristie874
    kristie874 Posts: 774 Member
    Options
    It does have a chest strap and I put in all of my stats before. I am 34 years old, 5'7" 133 pounds and my resting heart rate is in the 50's. I usually work out at the gym, but on Saturdays I just use my treadmill at home. Can't run due to back issues...The heart rate monitor is a Polar 6.

    It sounds like you're in really good shape so your heart rate won't get as high. This is a good thing!
  • cris12
    cris12 Posts: 90
    Options
    steph, I'd trust the Polar. If you're using a treadmill that doesn't take into consideration age + weight, it might be programmed for the average overweight joe who likes seeing he burned xx number of calories on the treadmill, the makers figure everyone else will be happy seeing that number too.

    if you're doing light cardio and your heart rate doesn't climb to your aerobic zone, (check out the chart I linked) then you may not be doing much. Like sunshine said, work harder for shorter periods, not light, long periods.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UuvGH8lX8Cw/THaMrpH_aPI/AAAAAAAAC5o/6lJ2TzNCNZ0/s1600/Heart+Rate+Zone.JPG
  • pyro13g
    pyro13g Posts: 1,127 Member
    Options
    Your heart rate monitor is more accurate than the machine. If you up your average bpm you'll burn a lot more.
  • PoleBoy
    PoleBoy Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    I have pretty much the same issue ( see http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/181436-so-how-hard-did-i-work-calorie-estimates-from-treadmil-and )

    I've just purchased a ki fit (AKA BodyBugg), and I'll see what that makes of it.

    No doubt I'll end up with three wildly differing estimates...

Categories