Is my HRM lying to me......This doesnt seem possible.
collinsje308
Posts: 17 Member
So usually for my cardio portion of my work out I ride the bike at the gym. But last night my quads were pretty sore due to starting a new lifting routine. So I decided to walk on the treadmill at 3.6 MPH and on a 10% incline for 30 minutes. I have a polar ft4 HMR (with a chest strap) that I wear while doing my cardio. Now I felt like walking up that incline the whole time was way more work than riding the bike was but I didn't feel that it was as taxing on my legs. And I was out of breath and sweating like a pig, but my HMR was telling my that I burned 580ish calories in that half hour. I did notice that my HR was quite a bit above what it is when I ride the bike. But still to but that much in a half hour seems like a bit much.
I am 270lbs, 6 foot 1 inch tall. And have only been really exercising and watching what I eat since October.
So I guess my question is does this seem at all possible or is my HRM trying to trick me?
I am 270lbs, 6 foot 1 inch tall. And have only been really exercising and watching what I eat since October.
So I guess my question is does this seem at all possible or is my HRM trying to trick me?
0
Replies
-
It's probably reporting gross calories burned and not net. So you'd want to subtract your BMR calories from that number.
I found this calculator online and it gives about the same Gross calories burned as what your HRM is giving you.
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
0 -
collinsje308 wrote: »So usually for my cardio portion of my work out I ride the bike at the gym. But last night my quads were pretty sore due to starting a new lifting routine. So I decided to walk on the treadmill at 3.6 MPH and on a 10% incline for 30 minutes. I have a polar ft4 HMR (with a chest strap) that I wear while doing my cardio. Now I felt like walking up that incline the whole time was way more work than riding the bike was but I didn't feel that it was as taxing on my legs. And I was out of breath and sweating like a pig, but my HMR was telling my that I burned 580ish calories in that half hour. I did notice that my HR was quite a bit above what it is when I ride the bike. But still to but that much in a half hour seems like a bit much.
I am 270lbs, 6 foot 1 inch tall. And have only been really exercising and watching what I eat since October.
So I guess my question is does this seem at all possible or is my HRM trying to trick me?
I am 120 pounds at 5'4 and burn roughly 300-ish calories when i'm REALLY pushing myself for 30 minutes.
You say that you are both taller, weigh more, and that your heart rate was significantly higher and it was much harder than your normal cardio level?
Meh, it's possible that it's accurate.0 -
Using the HRM for things outside of its design parameters and getting flawed numbers as a result ... just as you were told when posting this same topic in the fitness and exercise area of the forum.0
-
collinsje308 wrote: »So usually for my cardio portion of my work out I ride the bike at the gym. But last night my quads were pretty sore due to starting a new lifting routine. So I decided to walk on the treadmill at 3.6 MPH and on a 10% incline for 30 minutes. I have a polar ft4 HMR (with a chest strap) that I wear while doing my cardio. Now I felt like walking up that incline the whole time was way more work than riding the bike was but I didn't feel that it was as taxing on my legs. And I was out of breath and sweating like a pig, but my HMR was telling my that I burned 580ish calories in that half hour. I did notice that my HR was quite a bit above what it is when I ride the bike. But still to but that much in a half hour seems like a bit much.
I am 270lbs, 6 foot 1 inch tall. And have only been really exercising and watching what I eat since October.
So I guess my question is does this seem at all possible or is my HRM trying to trick me?
When you set your HR monitor up did you put the correct height and weight in? That can screw with the calorie burn if you didn't.0 -
I think it could be close - walking at a 10% incline is very taxing...my heart rate jumps pretty high when I get to 6%.0
-
Former Marathon runner here. I got old and only run Half Marathons now.
I burn about 1200 an hour when running hard (7:30 /mile or faster pace.)
A half hour of HARD running puts me at 600-ish, right where you're at. (Half hour and 580).
Doesn't seem out of line given our weight and training/fitness differences.
What numbers were you expecting.0 -
Most people's average HR for running is higher than for cycling. You obviously use more muscles while running than cycling. I've been using a HRM for years and I find this to be true for myself. The trick is to find your aerobic level for each activity and adjust your workouts accordingly.0
-
That is certainly in the ballpark.0
-
what on earth is that BMR nonsense?
If your settings and weight are correct on your HMR and you're using it for steady state cardio like walking at a 10% incline for a steady 30 minutes then yes that's close to correct
for steady state cardio I tend to burn about 180 calories 20 mins elliptical at high resistance - I'm 5'8 and 168lbs - this has gone down about 20 calories since dropping my weight 3lbs
BUt they're all estimates - I'd just eat back 75% to be safe0 -
A 10% incline is not enough to over triple caloric burn from walking. It isn't enough to even double the burn according to studies.
HRMs are designed to come close to accurate when calculating a narrow range of steady state cardio activities. Walking is one that most HRMs, especially the lower end ones, struggle to get accurate. The result is the HR is plugged into a formula that is based on another activity ... in this case it looks like it tried calculating gross calories from running rather than net from walking ... and the number you get is wrong.0 -
FYI - I just found this...
The USAT (triathlon) Coaches manual now states that the average bike HR is about 5-10 beats per minute below the comparable run heart rate.
Keep in mind that everybody is different, so your numbers may be significantly different. So again, try to find your aerobic level for both running and cycling and adjust your workouts accordingly.
Good luck!
0 -
what on earth is that BMR nonsense?
If your settings and weight are correct on your HMR and you're using it for steady state cardio like walking at a 10% incline for a steady 30 minutes then yes that's close to correct
for steady state cardio I tend to burn about 180 calories 20 mins elliptical at high resistance - I'm 5'8 and 168lbs - this has gone down about 20 calories since dropping my weight 3lbs
BUt they're all estimates - I'd just eat back 75% to be safe
The previous comment about BMR isn't nonsense. If you accounting for your normal daily calorie burn and then adding activities to it, you end up counting some calories twice.0 -
Given the weight / height / time differences between my 180 burn and his 580 burn I wouldn't be surprised if that was a close estimate
I think people over-complicate this - it's a guideline
Eat back a proportion and if you lose too much weight over the next couple of weeks, eat more, if you lose too little eat less, you'll gradually work it out0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »what on earth is that BMR nonsense?
If your settings and weight are correct on your HMR and you're using it for steady state cardio like walking at a 10% incline for a steady 30 minutes then yes that's close to correct
for steady state cardio I tend to burn about 180 calories 20 mins elliptical at high resistance - I'm 5'8 and 168lbs - this has gone down about 20 calories since dropping my weight 3lbs
BUt they're all estimates - I'd just eat back 75% to be safe
The previous comment about BMR isn't nonsense. If you accounting for your normal daily calorie burn and then adding activities to it, you end up counting some calories twice.
Not with the Polar. It already shows only the calories you burn above your BMR.0 -
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/articles/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn.aspxwhat on earth is that BMR nonsense?
When you aren't using a device like Fitbit that is linked with MFP, then you only want to log net calories or you end up double counting a bit. With fitbit, you log gross, because fitbit will replace even your BMR calories with whatever you log (I've tested it by logging 1 calorie for a 30 min duration). MFP doesn't do that on it's own however. Whatever you log it adds on top of what it already thought you were going to burn. So when logging you generally only want to log the Net, so as not to double count the calories MFP has already taken into account.
0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/articles/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn.aspxwhat on earth is that BMR nonsense?
When you aren't using a device like Fitbit that is linked with MFP, then you only want to log net calories or you end up double counting a bit. With fitbit, you log gross, because fitbit will replace even your BMR calories with whatever you log (I've tested it by logging 1 calorie for a 30 min duration). MFP doesn't do that on it's own however. Whatever you log it adds on top of what it already thought you were going to burn. So when logging you generally only want to log the Net, so as not to double count the calories MFP has already taken into account.
That's true but OP is using a Polar watch. Polar only provides calories burned over your BMR.
Either way, the difference is almost always negligible considering logging and packaging inaccuracies.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »what on earth is that BMR nonsense?
If your settings and weight are correct on your HMR and you're using it for steady state cardio like walking at a 10% incline for a steady 30 minutes then yes that's close to correct
for steady state cardio I tend to burn about 180 calories 20 mins elliptical at high resistance - I'm 5'8 and 168lbs - this has gone down about 20 calories since dropping my weight 3lbs
BUt they're all estimates - I'd just eat back 75% to be safe
The previous comment about BMR isn't nonsense. If you accounting for your normal daily calorie burn and then adding activities to it, you end up counting some calories twice.
Not with the Polar. It already shows only the calories you burn above your BMR.
In that case, the result is no longer in the ballpark but about 75 to 100 calories too high, because we would expect the OP to burn 561 calories.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »what on earth is that BMR nonsense?
If your settings and weight are correct on your HMR and you're using it for steady state cardio like walking at a 10% incline for a steady 30 minutes then yes that's close to correct
for steady state cardio I tend to burn about 180 calories 20 mins elliptical at high resistance - I'm 5'8 and 168lbs - this has gone down about 20 calories since dropping my weight 3lbs
BUt they're all estimates - I'd just eat back 75% to be safe
The previous comment about BMR isn't nonsense. If you accounting for your normal daily calorie burn and then adding activities to it, you end up counting some calories twice.
Not with the Polar. It already shows only the calories you burn above your BMR.
In that case, the result is no longer in the ballpark but about 75 to 100 calories too high, because we would expect the OP to burn 561 calories.
He claimed it said he burned 580 calories. Thats only 19 calories off.
I'm confused.0 -
270 * .3 * 1.8 = 145.8 net calories from walking that distance on flat ground. Doubling of calories from incline happens around 12 degrees, which is 13.333% ....
Not an accurate estimate from the HRM.
Next.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »270 * .3 * 1.8 = 145.8 net calories from walking that distance on flat ground. Doubling of calories from incline happens around 12 degrees, which is 13.333% ....
Not an accurate estimate from the HRM.
Next.
Can you please put units on the those numbers.....they are meaningless with out them.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »what on earth is that BMR nonsense?
If your settings and weight are correct on your HMR and you're using it for steady state cardio like walking at a 10% incline for a steady 30 minutes then yes that's close to correct
for steady state cardio I tend to burn about 180 calories 20 mins elliptical at high resistance - I'm 5'8 and 168lbs - this has gone down about 20 calories since dropping my weight 3lbs
BUt they're all estimates - I'd just eat back 75% to be safe
The previous comment about BMR isn't nonsense. If you accounting for your normal daily calorie burn and then adding activities to it, you end up counting some calories twice.
Not with the Polar. It already shows only the calories you burn above your BMR.
In that case, the result is no longer in the ballpark but about 75 to 100 calories too high, because we would expect the OP to burn 561 calories.
He claimed it said he burned 580 calories. Thats only 19 calories off.
I'm confused.
The link I posted above, based on his speed/incline/weight/time gives a Gross burn of 561 with a Net being closer to 500. If the HRM is giving Net calories, it looks to be on the high side.
0 -
this is fascinating
0 -
collinsje308 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »270 * .3 * 1.8 = 145.8 net calories from walking that distance on flat ground. Doubling of calories from incline happens around 12 degrees, which is 13.333% ....
Not an accurate estimate from the HRM.
Next.
Can you please put units on the those numbers.....they are meaningless with out them.
Miles * weight in pounds * .3 = net calories from walking on relatively flat ground.
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single0 -
Another way to estimate it-
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories/walking
walking, 2.9 to 3.5 mph, uphill, 6% to 15% grade shows a mets value of 8.0.
Your BMR estimate is around 1.6 calories per minute. 1.6 calories times 8mets times 30 minutes = 384 calories. You walked a little faster so maybe round up. Use 7mets for a 'net burn' estimate.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »what on earth is that BMR nonsense?
If your settings and weight are correct on your HMR and you're using it for steady state cardio like walking at a 10% incline for a steady 30 minutes then yes that's close to correct
for steady state cardio I tend to burn about 180 calories 20 mins elliptical at high resistance - I'm 5'8 and 168lbs - this has gone down about 20 calories since dropping my weight 3lbs
BUt they're all estimates - I'd just eat back 75% to be safe
The previous comment about BMR isn't nonsense. If you accounting for your normal daily calorie burn and then adding activities to it, you end up counting some calories twice.
Not with the Polar. It already shows only the calories you burn above your BMR.
In that case, the result is no longer in the ballpark but about 75 to 100 calories too high, because we would expect the OP to burn 561 calories.
He claimed it said he burned 580 calories. Thats only 19 calories off.
I'm confused.
It is only 19 off of the whole calorie burn. But you said that Polar removes the calories from BMR. So the value from the Polar should be much lower. On top of which, the 561 is probably on the high side also.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions