Whats the most Burned

Heart rate monitors are only good for steady state cardio. They aren't meant to give you calorie burns for cleaning your house or mowing the lawn.

I've gotten as high as 2800 from my zip. That was a day that I was steadily active, including working out at the gym for an hour and a half and then walking 2 miles in the evening. I definitely just use the burn as a rough estimate but from my idea of my TDEE, I think it's fairly accurate. I'm 5'7" and 160 btw, prob between 170-180 then.

senecarr wrote: »

Don't think this day was accurate:

This makes me want to get back to my FitBit. Although I often felt it was seriously overestimating my burns. I was getting around 2800/day on work days. Granted I'm on my feet and walking for 8 hours, but I doubt that it would be anywhere near that considering the rest of the day was on my butt.

OP, these trackers are estimates, and are notoriously off for most daily activities. While it is motivating to see these numbers, I wouldn't put much faith into them.

Machka9 wrote: »

prettyleelee wrote: »

So I am wondering what has been the most you have burned in a day?

I'm a long distance cyclist.

Probably the most calories I burned in a day would have been on the 24-hour time trial I did in 2006.

I covered 462.4 km in 24 hours.

So, using the calculation that we burn 100 cal for every 5 km while cycling ... that's 9248 cal.

Massive burn off!

Impressive. I burnt 3500 on a fast 40 miles yesterday At 19.7 mph average

Cycling is a great sport. You can make it a relaxing ride with friends, a personal challenge race, a competitive event, and it all is great fitness

I strongly recommend cycling as a lifestyle hobby to a new fitness person.

professionalHobbyist wrote: »

Machka9 wrote: »

prettyleelee wrote: »

So I am wondering what has been the most you have burned in a day?

I'm a long distance cyclist.

Probably the most calories I burned in a day would have been on the 24-hour time trial I did in 2006.

I covered 462.4 km in 24 hours.

So, using the calculation that we burn 100 cal for every 5 km while cycling ... that's 9248 cal.

Massive burn off!

Impressive. I burnt 3500 on a fast 40 miles yesterday At 19.7 mph average

Cycling is a great sport. You can make it a relaxing ride with friends, a personal challenge race, a competitive event, and it all is great fitness

I strongly recommend cycling as a lifestyle hobby to a new fitness person.

Back in those days ... when I was heavily into long distance cycling (2000-2007) ... I was also very slender. I deliberately gained some weight in the winter so that I would have a bit to work with once the season started. And by the end of the season, when I was doing the biggest rides, I was usually underweight. It was really difficult to eat enough.

HRM's are for steady state of cardio and even then they aren't perfect. Pushing a lawn mower and cleaning could be tiring to some, but its hardly a cardio activity. Go run miles, swim, or jump rump for an hour and you will see a big difference between that and mowing a lawn. That cal burn you read is massively off.

*Edit to add that it doesn't mean you didn't burn calories, just not the amount a HRM would read.

prettyleelee wrote: »

Am I correct?

No

brianpperkins wrote: »

So many inflated burns in this thread. HRMs are not accurate for caloric estimates from lawn mowing and house cleaning. 87.5 calories per mile from cycling is inflated as well unless that person is averaging almost 400 watts of constant output ... well beyond what Tour de France riders produce.

100 cal for every 5 km = approx. 100 cal for 3 miles ... or 33.33 calories/mile.

40 cal/mile is a fairly common calorie estimate, but even that has come under question. More recently, I've heard 35 cal/mile ... and 30 cal/mile ... and even as low as 25 cal/mile.

Meanwhile, I'll stick with the 100 cal/5 km (33.33 cal/mile). It seems to work for me.

Machka9 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

So many inflated burns in this thread. HRMs are not accurate for caloric estimates from lawn mowing and house cleaning. 87.5 calories per mile from cycling is inflated as well unless that person is averaging almost 400 watts of constant output ... well beyond what Tour de France riders produce.

100 cal for every 5 km = approx. 100 cal for 3 miles ... or 33.33 calories/mile.

40 cal/mile is a fairly common calorie estimate, but even that has come under question. More recently, I've heard 35 cal/mile ... and 30 cal/mile ... and even as low as 25 cal/mile.

Meanwhile, I'll stick with the 100 cal/5 km (33.33 cal/mile). It seems to work for me.

Those numbers are pretty good, with the usual caveats that go with cycling burns. What gets me in the same range is to take 2/3 of Strava's numbers.

prettyleelee wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

prettyleelee wrote: »

Am I correct?

No

rabbitjb wrote: »

Adding my voice to the no ...that's not correct, sorry

Mr_Knight wrote: »

prettyleelee wrote: »

Now real question as long as you are keeping a steady upbeat heart rate isn't that all that matters?

For what? Calorie burn? No.

So what is a HRM for? It has always been explained it is used when doing constant activity that raises your HR beyond your normal resting heart rate?

If this is not true please explain it to me. When you say cardio what is cardio just running, Biking, Swimming, dancing?

A HRM is for monitoring your heart rate. It is NOT a calorie measure. They do offer calorie burned estimations but as others have noted, the algorithms used are based on steady state cardio exercise.
Also, heart rate and calories burned are not directly related.

This is a really great blog that explains in more detail

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

prettyleelee wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

prettyleelee wrote: »

Am I correct?

No

rabbitjb wrote: »

Adding my voice to the no ...that's not correct, sorry

Mr_Knight wrote: »

prettyleelee wrote: »

Now real question as long as you are keeping a steady upbeat heart rate isn't that all that matters?

For what? Calorie burn? No.

So what is a HRM for?

Measuring heart rate.

In a very lmited set of circumstances HR can provide some insight into calorie expenditure.

prettyleelee wrote: »

I think maybe I confused you all. The HRM did not give me the calorie count my Garmin did. Also wouldn't walking count as a cardio movement. We sometimes forget that cardio can be more than running, swimming. While I was doing my pushing of a mower I was able to keep my heart rate at above 142 for 2.5 hours wouldn't that be considered in the 50% .

Again I am not using it to measure Calorie loss my HRM is hooked into my Garmin it gave me those numbers. I also know that they are off for the day.

Which Garmin?
Are you talking a calorie burn for the whole day?

We are not forgetting that cardio can be other activities besides running and swimming, we were discussing it within the context of what a HRM would be useful for measuring since your OP said you used your HRM and fitness tracker. Which did you use?

Walking "counts" as cardio but as people have said numerous times it does not fall within the parameters that a HRM would be accurate for. It is a lower intensity cardio activity that a HRM is not useful for estimating calories.