What should I believe????

Options
Trotty2004
Trotty2004 Posts: 15 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I am trying to get out of "starvation mode" and figured I need to get an accurate read on my calorie burns at the gym so I bought a moderately expensive Heart Rate Monitor recommended by Dr Phil. Problem is when I ran this morning my HRM said I burned 831 cals, the treadmill said 625 and MFP said 534. What should I believe? I am 229.5 lbs and ran 3.1 miles for 35 minutes. My heart rate stayed between 180 and 195 throughout the run. Considering I work out at least twice a day the 300 cal variance per workout will really add up by the end of the week.

Replies

  • myukniewicz
    myukniewicz Posts: 906 Member
    Options
    i ALWAYS go with my HRM.
  • ilsie99
    ilsie99 Posts: 259
    Options
    Personally, I would go with MFP. The general rule I go with is ~100 calories burned per mile, with some variance for weight, HR, etc, but 831 sounds really off to me.

    I really have no idea though, since I never use a HRM, but MFP's calculation seems about spot on for me.
  • LJCannon
    LJCannon Posts: 3,636 Member
    Options
    I am not sure which one is "Right", I personally believe that they are ALL just an estimate. I would pick one and stick with it, just ignore the others. I would think that your HRM would be the most accurate, but that is just me.
  • absolament
    absolament Posts: 278 Member
    Options
    Did you make sure to input your personal info into the HRM?
  • ShaneT99
    ShaneT99 Posts: 278 Member
    Options
    I am trying to get out of "starvation mode" and figured I need to get an accurate read on my calorie burns at the gym so I bought a moderately expensive Heart Rate Monitor recommended by Dr Phil. Problem is when I ran this morning my HRM said I burned 831 cals, the treadmill said 625 and MFP said 534. What should I believe? I am 229.5 lbs and ran 3.1 miles for 35 minutes. My heart rate stayed between 180 and 195 throughout the run. Considering I work out at least twice a day the 300 cal variance per workout will really add up by the end of the week.

    I would normally say go with the HRM, but at your weight 831 calories sounds too high for that run. By comparison, I weigh 255 and my Garmin GPS/HRM says my 30 minute run (2.9 miles) this morning burned 530 calories (which is in line with what MFP says for the same run). In your case it sounds like the MFP number is probably most realistic.
  • bmontgomery87
    bmontgomery87 Posts: 1,260 Member
    Options
    ^^ this.


    I'd kind of find a middle point and go with that.
  • mosneakers
    mosneakers Posts: 343 Member
    Options
    I had the same problem and ended up relying on my HRM and not what the machine said - especially when the machine said my heart rate was at about 80 when I could feel that my heart rate was up (and my watch said I was at 170 (this happened more than once). I figured if the machine couldn't calculate my heart rate correctly, it had to be wrong about the calories too (since the heart rate plays a key role in how many calories you burn).
    I hope that helps - best of luck to you!
  • FrenchMob
    FrenchMob Posts: 1,167 Member
    Options
    First off, I wouldn't buy anything that is recommended by Dr. Phil or any big celeb. They're only in it for the money and have NO idea what they're promoting other than what the company is telling them to, and the HRM you got might be crap.

    Second, if you're heart rate was that high for 35 mins in a 5k, you're pushing way too hard and setting yourself up for injuries.

    Third, running burns anywhere from 100-175 cals/mile depending on your weight, so 800+ for 3 miles is way off. Heart rate can be affected by many thinks including fatigue, hydration, weather/temp, etc., etc....
  • aviduser
    aviduser Posts: 208 Member
    Options
    First, I would not take any advice from anyone who gets on TV calling himself a doctor when he is not.

    What type of HRM did you get? In my experience, Polar is the best at monitoring HR and calculating calories burned.

    As far as the amount of calories you burned, there are several factors that lead me to believe your HRM was right:

    -- Your current weight is 229, which means that you are working much harder to run an 11 min mile than someone at 150 lbs

    -- your HR was between 180 and 195 for the entire run, which means that you were pretty close to an average max HR for your age (220-36=184). Working at that intensity level will definitely burn more calories

    -- MFP's estimate, and the machine's estimate are not based on your exertion level (as indicated by your HR), but rather on averages of cal burned for the activity. An overweight person will burn more calories than a fit person (assuming all things equal) because the heavier person has to move more weight, which takes more work.

    So, assuming that your HRM is a good one, and that you have programmed it with all your current, accurate stats (weight, age, height) I would go with the HRM estimate over anything else.

    You can celebrate with an extra apple after dinner tonight! :-)
  • aviduser
    aviduser Posts: 208 Member
    Options
    I am trying to get out of "starvation mode" and figured I need to get an accurate read on my calorie burns at the gym so I bought a moderately expensive Heart Rate Monitor recommended by Dr Phil. Problem is when I ran this morning my HRM said I burned 831 cals, the treadmill said 625 and MFP said 534. What should I believe? I am 229.5 lbs and ran 3.1 miles for 35 minutes. My heart rate stayed between 180 and 195 throughout the run. Considering I work out at least twice a day the 300 cal variance per workout will really add up by the end of the week.

    I would normally say go with the HRM, but at your weight 831 calories sounds too high for that run. By comparison, I weigh 255 and my Garmin GPS/HRM says my 30 minute run (2.9 miles) this morning burned 530 calories (which is in line with what MFP says for the same run). In your case it sounds like the MFP number is probably most realistic.

    Just FYI, Garmin does not calculate calories burned based on HR. It uses the time and activity instead. The Garmin GPS watches do not even calculate total calories unless you are outdoors doing the activity and it can track the distance.
  • kathyhull
    kathyhull Posts: 327 Member
    Options
    Running a 5k (3.1 miles) in 35 minutes is pretty darned fast (you should feel really good about that speed!!) and should have burned quite a few calories. It all depends upon your height, weight and BMI and whether it was at 0% incline or intervals or hills. Not knowing your height, but knowing your weight, I'd say you probably did burn around 600 or so. I'd pick the middle number.

    I'm not convinced that you need to eat back your exercise calories in order to avoid starvation mode as long as you're eating more than the greater of 1,200 or ~ 60% or so of the calories your body normally needs just to exist and maintain your current weight (again, depending upon your height and percentage of body fat v. muscle, somewhere between 2,100 and 2,500 to just maintain). And, as long as you're eating the proper balance of protein (I think I need more protein than this site thinks I need) and complex carbs (vegies, vegies, vegies - for fiber and that full feeling and for vitamins).

    A couple of years ago, I lost 30 pounds by eating very healthy foods totalling 1,200 calories per day (and 70 or so grams of protein) and working out 4 -6 days per week. I'm pretty short so my normal calorie requirement just to maintain is pretty low. If you figure a pound is 3,500 calories and I wanted to lose 2 pounds a week, that meant I needed to cut my calories back to ~800 a day. Well that WOULD put me in starvation mode. So, I made up the difference between the 1,200 I was eating and the ~800 required to lose weight by exercising. I lost 1 or 2 pounds per week pretty steadily for the 24 week program and have kept most of it off.

    Honestly, the numbers aren't as important as how you feel - eat healthy foods and exercise consistently. You'll sleep better and have more energy, build muscle and burn more calories - in the long run, you'll see results. some weeks the scale will move, other weeks your clothes will fit better. Just keep doing it! If you're running like that, I'd say you're doing great!
  • michelegrayson
    michelegrayson Posts: 157
    Options
    Normally, I would say your heart rate monitor, but that sounds WAY off. I run for an hour (12/hr) and can barely get 500 calories and I weight 170 lbs (my average HR is 140-150 bpm). I would check your user settings and make sure they are accurate. It sounds like you have a Polar and those are usually pretty good.

    I NEVER believe the machines. Always off 30-40%. when I don't have my heart rate monitor (rarely) I figure I burn 8-9 calories a minute if I am working hard (ie., this morning I biked 16 miles in 60 minutes which is a virgious pace for me and I burned 550 calories. Usuing my formula : 60x9 = 540 calories and that was pretty close to my Monitor (550) so I always use that as a sanity check.

    Good luck!
  • kdiamond
    kdiamond Posts: 3,329 Member
    Options
    Personally, I would go with MFP. The general rule I go with is ~100 calories burned per mile, with some variance for weight, HR, etc, but 831 sounds really off to me.

    I really have no idea though, since I never use a HRM, but MFP's calculation seems about spot on for me.

    Yes, you might be a little more based on your weight, but ~100 calories per mile is a pretty good estimation.

    I think 800-something sounds very high for a 5K.
  • ndhr3d
    ndhr3d Posts: 45 Member
    Options
    +1 For HRM... especially if your HR was near peak... a good 45 min workout for me on any cardio machine will put me around 600 cal burned... I don't think it's a stretch that you burned 800.

    I'm not a runner... had no idea that everyone thinks 100 cal/mile is average... on the elliptical I go for 20min with my HR in zone 2 and I'm getting 2-300 cal while only completing 3/4 of a mile.

    I would especially go with your HRM if you have a good enough one to use your V02 and that calibrates your heart rate zones based on an actual test you perform for it...
  • Trotty2004
    Trotty2004 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    Thanks everyone for your input! I asked the fitness trainer at the gym and he said I should go by the HRM. The treadmill and MFP don’t know my exertion level and the HRM does. The HRM also has all of my personal stats. I am however going to go with the middle number when recording my workout on MFP since I would rather be under than over in my estimation.

    Also, RVSHON71, I always feel great while and after running and I’ve been running for about 4 months without injury so I don’t think I am pushing too hard. But I will pay attention to my body and if any of the signs show up I will lay off a bit.
  • FrenchMob
    FrenchMob Posts: 1,167 Member
    Options
    I am trying to get out of "starvation mode" and figured I need to get an accurate read on my calorie burns at the gym so I bought a moderately expensive Heart Rate Monitor recommended by Dr Phil. Problem is when I ran this morning my HRM said I burned 831 cals, the treadmill said 625 and MFP said 534. What should I believe? I am 229.5 lbs and ran 3.1 miles for 35 minutes. My heart rate stayed between 180 and 195 throughout the run. Considering I work out at least twice a day the 300 cal variance per workout will really add up by the end of the week.

    I would normally say go with the HRM, but at your weight 831 calories sounds too high for that run. By comparison, I weigh 255 and my Garmin GPS/HRM says my 30 minute run (2.9 miles) this morning burned 530 calories (which is in line with what MFP says for the same run). In your case it sounds like the MFP number is probably most realistic.

    Just FYI, Garmin does not calculate calories burned based on HR. It uses the time and activity instead. The Garmin GPS watches do not even calculate total calories unless you are outdoors doing the activity and it can track the distance.
    NOT TRUE. The only ones that use distance/time are the older models like the FR305 for example. The newer 310s, 405s etc use HR to determine cals burnt.

Categories