Can this be right?

i have no idea, but i'm interested b/c i want to buy one myself!

Um, seems high :huh: at least to me.
Did you set up your profile on the HRM, with sex, weight, height, etc?
Is your heartrate usually that high on the elliptical? It seems high for doing weights too, but I'm basing that off my own heartrate during those activities, so maybe mine is just really low.

Robin,

First of all the HR that you mentioned is much higher than mine ever is...usually my low is a bit lower than that, my high is in the 160s, and my average is in the 140's - and at 35 minutes I burn about 450 calories. So the fact that your average is that much higher your calories burned would be higher.

I think the other suggestions of confirming sex, weight, height, etc are good - as it bases your calories burned on your heartrate over the length of time by your physical characteristics.

The workout part does seem high for some reason.

Oh yeah...and the lighter you become as MFP helps you out - the lower your calories burned becomes. At a higher weight, you burn more calories at the same heartrate as you do when you are lighter - I found out I had to update my HRM profile as my weight came off - there was a definite difference in the calculations when i was at 205lbs vs 185 now...so as you continue your success make sure you keep updating your HRM profile!

I don't really know about this, but I see a lot of chatter about it in various threads here. It seems to me that monitoring heart rate is a better indication of fitness level than of calories burned. If you are morbidly obese and never exercise, and have to walk up a flight of stairs, your heart rate will soar. Does that mean you are burning so many more calories than a lean, athletic person who goes up the same flight of stairs without a jump in heart rate? I find that hard to believe. Granted, as you become more fit, your body becomes accustomed to the exercise, and you probably do burn less calories doing the same exercise than you did six months ago, but I would think that reduction in calorie consumption is less than you might think if you look at the reduction in your heart rate.
Said another way, if fit-guy works weight machines, he will get a surge in heart rate during his exercise, but his heart rate will drop (recover) quickly as he moves between machines. Unfit-guy will get a surge in heart rate during the exercise, but may not see a drop in rate at all between machines. So doing the same work-out over the same period of time, his average heart rate will be significantly higher than fit-guy's. Is he really burning that many more calories because his body doesn't recover during rest phases? Hard to believe.
Maybe there is an exercise physiologist out there that can put this in perspective??

Tom - I went to the website The Foundation for Better Healthcare where they have a calculator for energy consumption - and put in the same exercise...but different body weights

Someone 200-219, walking briskly for 15 minutes would expend 80 calories, 30 minutes 160
Someone 180-199, walking briskly for 15 minutes would expend 71 calories, 30 minutes 142

The reason is that the enery expended is in large part a result of how much your body has to work because of it's own weight - as such, you would burn more doing the same exercise, at the same pace, etc, if you are heavier. Having said that, if you lose weight, you may be able to go faster, push more weight, workout harder - therefore offsetting the difference in calories burned.

Same principle if you run faster, or push more weights, or row harder - you body weight is a factor in how much your body is working against itself and therefore burning more calories.

Tom - I went to the website The Foundation for Better Healthcare where they have a calculator for energy consumption - and put in the same exercise...but different body weights

Someone 200-219, walking briskly for 15 minutes would expend 80 calories, 30 minutes 160
Someone 180-199, walking briskly for 15 minutes would expend 71 calories, 30 minutes 142

The reason is that the enery expended is in large part a result of how much your body has to work because of it's own weight - as such, you would burn more doing the same exercise, at the same pace, etc, if you are heavier. Having said that, if you lose weight, you may be able to go faster, push more weight, workout harder - therefore offsetting the difference in calories burned.

Same principle if you run faster, or push more weights, or row harder - you body weight is a factor in how much your body is working against itself and therefore burning more calories.

JL,
Thanks. I agree with your conclusions, but that is looking purely at weight and not heart rate. My point was that if the elliptical estimates your calorie burn at 350 (assuming you punch in your age and weight), but your HRM estimates it at 750 calories, maybe the HRM is overestimating your calorie burn. (Admittedly, the elliptical may be underestimating, and the truth may be in the middle somewhere, but that is a major difference). If you are calculating your calorie intake based on the HRM estimate of calories burned, you may not be seeing the results you expect.
Just putting things into perspective, I ran (hard) for an hour yesterday, and the MFP calorie calculator estimates I burned 750 calories. I find it almost inconceivable I could burn that many calories in 30 mniutes on an elliptical, regardless of incline or resistance added, so I am a little skeptical, that's all.

SBS,
Glad you joined in! You are like the physiology guru around here

Yes, the 750 calories I was referring to are the 'extra' calories earned through exercise, over and above my BMR. I am almost 6'0 and am 158 lbs.

My point (and maybe I haven't been making it well) is that your heart rate isn't totally directly related to calories burned. Yes, I will burn more calories hiking with a 40 pound backpack, I don't argue that. I would also burn more calories hiking if I weighed 40 pounds more. But I don't believe that a 160 lb guy who hikes all the time and maintains a low heart rate burns a ton less calories than a 160 lb guy couch potato on the same hike who's heart rate may be racing because he's not as fit.

To use your numbers, 30 minutes on an elliptical is 240 calories. The original question said the elliptical estimated 380 calories ( and maybe the difference is due to age / size of the person involved - I never checked her profile)(Somebody posted some numbers showing you increase calories burned by about 10% with 10% increase in body weight). But 740-750 calories in 30 minutes seems like a lot, regardless of your weight and exertion effort ( I guess unless you're 400 lbs).

Or maybe I'm just wrong!! :noway: Inquiring minds want to know! :laugh: :laugh:

SBS,
Glad you joined in! You are like the physiology guru around here

Yes, the 750 calories I was referring to are the 'extra' calories earned through exercise, over and above my BMR. I am almost 6'0 and am 158 lbs.

My point (and maybe I haven't been making it well) is that your heart rate isn't totally directly related to calories burned. Yes, I will burn more calories hiking with a 40 pound backpack, I don't argue that. I would also burn more calories hiking if I weighed 40 pounds more. But I don't believe that a 160 lb guy who hikes all the time and maintains a low heart rate burns a ton less calories than a 160 lb guy couch potato on the same hike who's heart rate may be racing because he's not as fit.

To use your numbers, 30 minutes on an elliptical is 240 calories. The original question said the elliptical estimated 380 calories ( and maybe the difference is due to age / size of the person involved - I never checked her profile)(Somebody posted some numbers showing you increase calories burned by about 10% with 10% increase in body weight). But 740-750 calories in 30 minutes seems like a lot, regardless of your weight and exertion effort ( I guess unless you're 400 lbs).

Or maybe I'm just wrong!! :noway: Inquiring minds want to know! :laugh: :laugh:

Oh, you're totally right. HR is just a % of what goes into calorie burning, and a very rough estimate. What really determines our caloric burn is oxygen consumption. If your HR is high, but your stroke volume is low, you're sending little blood out with each beat, which translates to little oxygen reaching the cells. Less oxygen makes for less ATP, so less calories consumed. So the guy who hikes all the time still burns a lot of calories even though his HR is slower--he is sending out more oxygen with each beat because his heart is filling with more blood. But he's still burning less than the heavier guy due to the fact that it takes less work to move his body mass around.

I think the estimations sound really high as well. I'd like to know the brand and type of HRM, what units it uses, and its margin of error. That would help a lot.

arewethereyet brings up a GREAT point. Sometimes when I'm in the gym sweating rivers on an elliptical, the chick next to me strolling along reading Cosmo will look at her HR and say "Wow, 180 BPM, I'm really working hard!" :laugh: If anyone is within 3 ft of you with a HRM, you can pick up their signals.

I had a funny situation at the gym.

There was a fit runner type, younger girl on the treadmill to my left (HRM watch on left arm)

I was going along at a pretty good clip, but no more that 140-150 bpm...I know my body and can come within a few points in guessing.

The girl to my right was running full out.

I look at my wrist and yelp...HR 182.....I stop my machine, jump off and tell my friend I have to sit down or I am going to have a heart attack. She is all worried, I am all worried. Her trainer asks me what going on and then laughs like crazy when I tell her. She then tells me about HRM transference (as she called it) :blushing: I felt like such a fool!!

Heehee, I always try to see how many machines I can command at once with my HRM! :laugh: :huh: :laugh:

The Polar F6 won't pick up other's HR--or it isn't supposed to anyway.

So, my DH gave me a heart rate monitor for my birthday. Used it yesterday, but only was able to tell my heart rate and if I was in my zone. Reread the instructions this morning, and figured out how to get it to do my calories and time in my zone and all that....

After 35 minutes on the elliptical, doing the hill climb, my average heart rate was 162, high 183, low 119, when I started. It says I burned 740 calories! Can that be true? It seems so high compared to what the machine said, which was 380.

Then, I did 30 minutes of weight machines. Now, I don't sit between sets, I do a different machine (I do one for arms, then go to a leg machine, then go back do my second set on each machine), so my heart rate stays relatively high, in the upper 150s, with a peak here and there in the 170's. The HRM said I burned another 735 calories.

I'm not really complaining if it's true. Just think of it, another whole day's worth of food I can try to eat. And with the funky travel weekend I've got coming up, better to burn more now.... But I'd appreciate any opinions you might have.
-Robin

Hi Robin, curious if you tried it again. :flowerforyou:

SBS, I've got a timex HRM. Mike said he checked it out and had really good reviews, that it was one of the better ones. I'm not sure what you mean by units it uses, It does beats per minute, and I used lbs when I set up the profile. I just followed the directions... So I am hoping I did it ok... lol.
-Robin

Well sometimes if we miss the metric part, we end up weighing something like 120kg, which would burn a lot of calories on its own. :laugh: Did you see its margin of error or what equation it uses by chance?

Runnerdad, you're still consuming the same amount of oxygen, so your caloric consumption would be the same. Your HR is indeed lower because of the lack of heat stress...your blood is less viscous because it's easier to maintain hydration levels and your heart doesn't have to work so hard.

:

Runnerdad, you're still consuming the same amount of oxygen, so your caloric consumption would be the same. Your HR is indeed lower because of the lack of heat stress...your blood is less viscous because it's easier to maintain hydration levels and your heart doesn't have to work so hard.

SBS,
Thank you, :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: - that has been my point all along - that there are other variables to consider when you look at heart rate, and you can't look at heart rate alone and predict exact calories burned.

Definitely...in fact none of the equations I use take HR into consideration. We use METs and VO2max values, but to use those in a practical setting you need an O2 sensor and whatnot. You can use these values to determine what HR to maintain to work at a certain MET, so I'm assuming these HRM's work 'backwards' with these equations to estimate calories burned at a certain MET/oxygen consumption, but that assumes that everyone's heart operates at the same efficiency.