Calorie burn on my HRM...seems too good

Options
Huffdogg
Huffdogg Posts: 1,934 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So, I just did 30 minutes of step aerobics on a 5 inch step (an adaptor for the Wii Fit balance board). My heart rate averaged 70% of my maximum according to my HRM. All in all, not the most outrageous workout. Pretty tame, in my opinion. My HRM is telling me it was worth 500 calories! I have a hard time buying that. Anyone else had a lot of experience with these chest band HRM's and have any commentary about their accuracy? I don't want to go eat back all of these calories and find out that I way overestimated, so I'm entering a lowball figure of 300 in my diary for today (I figure 10 cal/minute is definitely safe). Any feedback anyone has would be greatly appreciated.

Replies

  • ilsie99
    ilsie99 Posts: 259
    Options
    Again... I feel like people on MFP put too much emphasis on HRMs and their accuracy.

    Check out this study that found large inaccuracies in HRM measurements-
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3580725

    All I'm saying is, people shouldn't just blindly trust their HRM.
  • Improvised
    Improvised Posts: 925 Member
    Options
    I don't know much about HRM's, but I do know step aerobics are supposed to burn A LOT.
  • fitmommy2012
    fitmommy2012 Posts: 451 Member
    Options
    Mine seems high sometimes too, but I use the new balance heart rate monitor. My workouts are usually pretty intense though, so I dont think of it as that unusual. I burn typically between 700- 1000 calories, but I do P90x workouts, and they are real intense, so I can see burning that much. I dont know, I am sure that it may be off by a 100 or so calories, but not any more than that. I heard that the bodybug was a really godo way to track your calories though, but it can be pretty pricy. Hopefully I was helpful! :smile:
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,124 Member
    Options
    I agree, depending on the brand - it could be way off.

    The other thing is: did you enter all your own parameters into the watch? You need your age, weight, gender, resting heart rate, VO2 (on some). If it is entered wrong, you'll get skewed results.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,241 Member
    Options
    If I read that right, a little more current study would be nice. That one is over 20 years old (1987). I am guessing HRM technology has improved a great deal in that time. If I am misunderstanding the date in the abstract, then when was the study done?

    As for the step aerobics, remember you are lifting you entire body weight every time you step up. That will burn a lot of calories. Whether 500 is reasonable I don't know.

    I just skimmed through the article. The HRM they were testing were quite different from those people here are wearing. The only one that was close was an on demands watch style where you have to touch it. The other 3 were all photo-transducer types that go on a person's finger. Not one was a HRM with a chest strap. No surprise since wireless tech in 1987 was very primitive compared to today. Basically this study is quite useless for determining how accurate a HRM with a chest strap is today.
  • seasonalvoodoo
    seasonalvoodoo Posts: 380 Member
    Options
    Mine seems to be pretty accurate. My HRM usually shows that I burn about 10-20% less than what MFP says I burn. I usually eat back most/all of my exercise calories and have not had any issues yet. I have a Sportline Duo 1060 HRM with chest strap.
  • trac3
    trac3 Posts: 134 Member
    Options
    I'd say most HRM are pretty accurate, especially with your personal data in it (sex, weight, age, etc.). I know mine is always about 100 - 200 cals less than the machines at the gym tell me, so I go with it. At 5'3", 40 years old and 136 lbs, I burn about 550-630 cals per hour (via my HRM), depending on what I'm doing.

    I have a (male) friend, 52 years old and 182 lbs who burns about 400-450 cals in a half hour. We did the same workout at the same level, and I was so depressed to see that he burned that much more than me....:huh: More mass burns more calories.
  • ilsie99
    ilsie99 Posts: 259
    Options
    The inherent tech used to actually measure your heart rate has pretty much stayed the same since the early eighties. Wireless transmission technologies, in-monitor calculators, (i.e. features) are really what's developed over the years.
  • Vpirwannab
    Vpirwannab Posts: 22
    Options
    This link is from 1987 LOL.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,241 Member
    Options
    The inherent tech used to actually measure your heart rate has pretty much stayed the same since the early eighties. Wireless transmission technologies, in-monitor calculators, (i.e. features) are really what's developed over the years.

    Be that as it may, and I don't think that is actually the case, 3 of the 4 HRM studied have nothing to do with the sort used by people while exercising, they are the type that go on your finger which anyone who has been hospitalized is familiar with. The only one that was close was the arm mounted one using on demand readings. Even the approach of the study is something that could be fraught with problems. How accurate current consumer HRMs are is not at all dealt with in this article, and something more current would be needed.
  • torregro
    torregro Posts: 307
    Options
    I've checked my heart rate monitor periodically against the reading on the treadmill, I've also checked it manually while I'm in the middle of a workout and find it to be very accurate...........as long as I stay away from electrical sources, such as computers, electric lamps, etc. Then the rate soars up to 200+, which, if I didn't notice it, could give me a very high in accurate results.
    I've been wearing the heart rate monitor for my workouts with a trainer for the past two weeks. I find the readings all to be pretty consistent. Around 250+ for upper body work out days and about 350+ for lower body work out days, regardless of how much I feel like I was huffing and puffing. Works for me.
  • ilsie99
    ilsie99 Posts: 259
    Options
    The inherent tech used to actually measure your heart rate has pretty much stayed the same since the early eighties. Wireless transmission technologies, in-monitor calculators, (i.e. features) are really what's developed over the years.

    Be that as it may, and I don't think that is actually the case, 3 of the 4 HRM studied have nothing to do with the sort used by people while exercising, they are the type that go on your finger which anyone who has been hospitalized is familiar with. The only one that was close was the arm mounted one using on demand readings. Even the approach of the study is something that could be fraught with problems. How accurate current consumer HRMs are is not at all dealt with in this article, and something more current would be needed.

    Sorry, but a high gain amplifier is a high gain amplifier. In the 80's, they used BJTs, now they use FETs. Same circuit. This is the same tech that is _still_ used in EKGs (and always has been).

    Anyways, I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm just saying, use your head if you see a number that looks crazy to you.
  • antzlady01
    antzlady01 Posts: 11
    Options
    I use a Sportline HRM with a chest strap. And I think it varies. You have to make sure its calibrated correctly. Last night I did 30 minuteson the eliptical and then 60 minutes in a Zumba class . I burned over 1500 calories. And no I didnt eat back all my calories I try to stay within 1200. The heavier you are the more calories you burn. I am just a Zumba nut ! My highest heart rate was 205.:wink:
  • Huffdogg
    Huffdogg Posts: 1,934 Member
    Options
    Mine has, as programmable personal parameters: Age, Weight, Maximum HR. It has no fields for gender or age. It is a TimexT5G981, which was rated pretty highly in consumer reports and such. Maybe I'm just being overly suspicious, but 500 cals for a 30 minute workout that averaged 70% max HR seems pretty high to me.

    I've heard great things about that Bodybugg thing, also, and the other similar subscription service, but there's no way I'm dropping that kind of money on this process. Either this thing will work, or it won't. I just don't really know a very useful strategy for cross-checking it against anything short of dealing with a bariatric specialist lol.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,124 Member
    Options
    Huffdogg, this debate becomes more important when you get to the point you are at now. Less than ten pounds to lose, you've already lost 50+.

    It becomes harder to lose, and you have to be even more closely tuned with your food and exercise. We all get to that point where we want exact numbers. Surely you have already learned your calorie burn rate before now, right? You can tell about how much you are burning (within 100-200 cals) after you've done it for a while.

    Make your best guess. When there becomes a method to accurately tell us our calories burns for under a hundred bucks, we will all buy one. In the meantime, it's an imperfect world. (Ha ha, your food calories are probably off by a couple hundred a day, too.)



    ________________________________________
  • creickson
    creickson Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    Mine has, as programmable personal parameters: Age, Weight, Maximum HR. It has no fields for gender or age. It is a TimexT5G981, which was rated pretty highly in consumer reports and such. Maybe I'm just being overly suspicious, but 500 cals for a 30 minute workout that averaged 70% max HR seems pretty high to me.

    I've heard great things about that Bodybugg thing, also, and the other similar subscription service, but there's no way I'm dropping that kind of money on this process. Either this thing will work, or it won't. I just don't really know a very useful strategy for cross-checking it against anything short of dealing with a bariatric specialist lol.

    I have the same Timex. Doing Insanity I usually burn 700 to 800 calories in an hour. My heart rate is usuall 75-90% of max (175). Your 500 in 30 minutes does seem a bit high.
  • Huffdogg
    Huffdogg Posts: 1,934 Member
    Options
    Surely you have already learned your calorie burn rate before now, right? You can tell about how much you are burning (within 100-200 cals) after you've done it for a while.

    Honestly, not really. I never even thought about a calorie until I started using MFP, and when I did, I just trusted the numbers that came up in the database. Since then, I've educated myself quite a bit and it's only now that I'm starting to question all of this stuff. I can't even fathom how I would think to know my burn rate lol.
  • darrenham
    darrenham Posts: 110 Member
    Options
    Neither HRM nor treadmill counters are accurate measures of calories burned.

    A HRM is just that, a Heart Rate Monitor. This has nothing to do with how many calories you're burning.

    A HRM may provide a calorie function, but this is a poor estimate relying on tons of assumptions. The estimates on here are likely to be more accurate than a HRM, because they take the nature of the exercise into account.

    By all means by a HRM if you're interested in Heart Rate zones for training purposes, but for calorie counting purposes, you're better off with a textbook.
  • Huffdogg
    Huffdogg Posts: 1,934 Member
    Options
    By all means by a HRM if you're interested in Heart Rate zones for training purposes, but for calorie counting purposes, you're better off with a textbook.

    I have dug online over and over for a more accurate way of tracking my caloric burn, but everything keeps directing me to silly online "calculators." Can you school me a bit on how I can better figure this out myself? I don't mind crunching numbers myself; I just assumed that there was a bodyweight/heart rate equation that was reasonably accurate since it seemed to be a common entity in the fitness world. I'm just starting to get into the "fine tuning" part of my fitness efforts, so I'd like to get as much ammo as I can to work this process properly.
  • darrenham
    darrenham Posts: 110 Member
    Options
    By all means by a HRM if you're interested in Heart Rate zones for training purposes, but for calorie counting purposes, you're better off with a textbook.

    I have dug online over and over for a more accurate way of tracking my caloric burn, but everything keeps directing me to silly online "calculators." Can you school me a bit on how I can better figure this out myself? I don't mind crunching numbers myself; I just assumed that there was a bodyweight/heart rate equation that was reasonably accurate since it seemed to be a common entity in the fitness world. I'm just starting to get into the "fine tuning" part of my fitness efforts, so I'd like to get as much ammo as I can to work this process properly.

    Personally, I wouldn't bother. Do what you're doing and eat what you're eating. Weigh yourself at weekly intervals at exactly the same time of day (mine is before breakfast on a Tuesday). If you're putting on weight, the exercise you're doing is burning less calories than you think, and vice versa. Then it's up to you whether you'd find it easier to adjust your diet, or your exercise.

    If you want a reference just as a guide then either use any one of the online calculators (including this site), or find yourself an exercise reference book. A reference book normally quotes the values as kcals/kg of body weight. But again, they're estimates based on large groups of people. What you could do though is combine one of these calculators/books with the above method to work out how accurate the estimates are for you.

    The only way to get an accurate representation is to go to a Sports Physiology facility and have an expired gas analysis done whilst you do the exercise you're interested in. You might be able to catch them when they need subjects for an experiment or for teaching, so it's worth dropping your local university an e-mail, but if not, then expect to pay for the privilege.

    Really though, the exact numbers don't matter too much. I use MFP and nothing else but the scales, but because the numbers may not be accurate, I always under estimate my exercise on here. I only ever record cardio and don't record my lifting sessions at the gym. That way I know that if it's over-reading my burn, then I'm negating it, and if it's under-reading it, I'm gonna lose weight quicker than MFP says I will.

    Hope that's helpful.

Categories