A little confused on using HRM to log exercises

blazepurr wrote: »

TheReloader wrote: »

I'd be suspicious of the HRM for strength exercises, even if it's an option on your app. They tend to calculate way, way too high. This is due to your heart rate being elevated while you are resting.

For example, in a 1 hour long strength training session, you may only really be lifting for 15 minutes or so!


But to answer your question:
When you add an exercise, you can manually punch in the calories.

I pause my polar whenever I stop for a rest, does that make it more accurate for strength training? I don't mean lifting heavy at the gym. Like squats and dumbbell body moves

More accurate, sure, because it's reading lower. But the calculations in the software are done based on an athlete doing aerobic, and not anaerobic exercise.

In the end, just do what feels right. If you lose weight too fast, eat more calories. If you lose weight too slow, eat less calories for it.

Oh! I see!

Weight lifting exercises only records reps. Most people don't even use it.
Just use Cardio and pick strength training as the type of cardio exercise.

Yes, you must add Strength Training which is listed under cardio section for calorie burn. The lifting section is merely to keep progress on your lifts.

That calorie burn may seem low compared to cardio for equal time, but it's true, it is less.

And no, that Polar model has no intention of going beyond the bounds of their faq where they state the proper use of calorie estimates from HRM's. The weight lifting features are for timers and letting you know HR has recovered enough.

But even that's not totally true, because if you are fit, your HR can recover faster than your muscles may be ready for another big lift.

if you're using a HRM chest strap (paired to the phone meaning an App is reading the HRM instead of the usual Polar watch), just use it on whether you're on cardio or weights exercise. The calories captured for both will be pretty accurate, since the your actual heart rate is plotted against TIME or EFFORT. If you need to log them separately, start with cardio then STOP/RESET the monitor. Start again for weights. Unless you are doing a combination of weights with HIIT (high intensity intervals), your calorie output would usually be a lot lower than pure cardio workout like treadmill or running. I also suggest you don't "pause" your monitor in between workouts. Better to have an interval timer where you can set, say 40 secs of exercise, and then 20 secs of rest. Each change from exercise to rest makes a loud beep so you know if you are on rest mode. If a certain weight workout raises your heart rate, the 20 secs mode will probably lower that by 4-5 bpms, but that also means its easier to pick up on your workout HR again for the next round.

hope this helps. im a runner who does HR-training but what i have here is purely experiential.

I personally keep my HRM going. I also do HIT. So ill do 2 mins high intensity 1 min low intensity. Same difference when lifting weights as how far your heart rate spikes and drops. So whatever I do in the hour at the gym I just hit stop grab the calories and put it all under cardio.

FatJockSing wrote: »

I asked he Tech Support at Polar a few years ago as there are SO MANY people who say they dont work for strength training. The HRM's are suited for all activity that raises the heart. We burn calories even while sleeping - and the measure of our burn is scientifically linked to HR. So if your heart is pumping, you are alive, and burning . . . If it is above 90bpm, the HRM is spot on accurate!! No need to pause, just switch on and go . . . .

The problem with that theory is that heart rate doesn't correlate directly to energy expenditure.

TheReloader wrote: »

FatJockSing wrote: »

I asked he Tech Support at Polar a few years ago as there are SO MANY people who say they dont work for strength training. The HRM's are suited for all activity that raises the heart. We burn calories even while sleeping - and the measure of our burn is scientifically linked to HR. So if your heart is pumping, you are alive, and burning . . . If it is above 90bpm, the HRM is spot on accurate!! No need to pause, just switch on and go . . . .

The problem with that theory is that heart rate doesn't correlate directly to energy expenditure.

This correct. If not, people could just watch scary movies and burn calories.

Lifting weights does burn calories, but not anywhere near what one does for running or cycling.

I'm pretty sure the instructions in the majority of HRM state for it to get a most accurate reading you need a "steady state of cardio". Lifting is not cardio nor steady.

FatJockSing wrote: »

If it is above 90bpm, the HRM is spot on accurate!! No need to pause, just switch on and go . . . .

No where near spot on accurate - even with a nicer Polar that has all the stats filled in with lab measured results.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

Unless "spot on" includes a potential variance of 10-30% off actual measured results. But I think the phrase there would be - "maybe close enough".

Shoot, even for walking and running - calculator formula is more accurate than HRM.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

EvelineUK wrote: »

As I'm still reasonably unfit, it takes a while for my heartrate to drop after exercise. Should I leave my HRM going (and synching it to MFP) until it's dropped under 90's before turning it off, or should I stop it as soon as I stop my workout?

I've been letting it run and not sure if that is 'fair'?

And you have just given an excellent example of why HR can't always be tied to energy expended.

You've just stopped your workout, and if unfit, your HR may drop 10 bpm from a rather high value.
But you are standing there doing nothing but breathing hard, but your HRM is giving this calorie burn pretty close to what you were doing when actually moving.
Are you really still burning anywhere near that much - not a chance.
While the heart beating faster does burn a tad more energy as a muscle itself, it's no where near what the HRM thinks by that inflated HR reading.

And that is exactly the effect doing non-steady state cardio too, or anaerobic.
When you do cardio and increase effort (notice this next time), your effort goes up (pace, incline, tension, ect) but your HR lags behind somewhat for a few seconds. But you are burning more doing more. Then HR will shoot up higher.
But if you stay at that effort for 2-4 min, the HR will lower to where it really needs to be - it like overshoots at first, to make up for the lag it had at first providing the needed oxygen.

But if your workout is constantly changing efforts or loads on your body, your HR never drops to what was truly needed, always on the inflated side except for that initial few seconds of lag time going up. But it never takes seconds to lower back down when the effort gets easy.

Hence steady-state cardio being the full description, merely because otherwise you'll have inflated HR. More out of shape, the more inflated.