Whats the most Burned
Options
Replies
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »Am I correct?
NoAdding my voice to the no ...that's not correct, sorryprettyleelee 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?0 -
prettyleelee wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »Am I correct?
NoAdding my voice to the no ...that's not correct, sorryprettyleelee 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?
Yes - HRMs compare your resting heart rate against your exertion heart rate.....then use a formula. It's ONE formula. One formula can't work for everything. A HRM was designed for steady state cardio: biking, running, swimming....in mind. Not pushing, not lifting, not stretching, not intervals (heart rate up & down). Besides heart rate isn't everything really. It's all way too complex for just one formula.0 -
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.
0 -
prettyleelee wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »Am I correct?
NoAdding my voice to the no ...that's not correct, sorryprettyleelee 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?
HRM = Heart Rate Monitor
That's exactly what it's for - measuring your heart rate.
There is no "C" in "HRM".It has always been explained it is used when doing constant activity that raises your HR beyond your normal resting heart rate?
Sure - for measuring heart rate.
Not calories.
0 -
prettyleelee wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »Am I correct?
NoAdding my voice to the no ...that's not correct, sorryprettyleelee 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-214720 -
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.0 -
prettyleelee wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »prettyleelee wrote: »Am I correct?
NoAdding my voice to the no ...that's not correct, sorryprettyleelee 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.
0 -
prettyleelee wrote: »The HRM did not give me the calorie count my Garmin did...my HRM is hooked into my Garmin it gave me those numbers.
So a Garmin HRM
Being a Garmin doesn't matter here, HR doesn't extrapolate to cals for what you describe.0 -
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.0 -
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.
There is a person in this thread claiming a 3500 calorie burn from a 40 mile ride ... 87.5 calories claimed per mile. Unfortunately that is just one of the gross exaggerations often seen on MFP.0 -
My FitBit has my best burn as 6247.0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »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.
It is a Garmin Vivofit 2 with the HRM that you wear around your chest while working out or doing cardio activities.
Also that is a count for the entire day (scrubbing the house and mowing the lawn) not just that one activity. I have been told as long as I am keeping my heart rate above normal movement that's what the HRM is for.
I guess I am asking why wouldn't you wear it while pushing a lawn your body is working considerably hard and is consistently moving is it not? So why wouldn't you wear it for that?
Also some people don't run but they do speed walk would you not wear it for that item either?0 -
Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.0
-
I used to do fitnessblender 1000 calorie workouts at least one of my 5 workout days. I often burned more than that though, about 1200, I used a wrist hr monitor/calorie tracker, it was on the wrist so I constantly checked my hr since it doesn't constantly track it like a chest strap. I read somewhere that you get a more accurate calculation the more you track your heart rate, so I checked it between each set.0
-
I burn around 3,000 per day on average (based upon MFP and Fitbit) I underestimate. My best day last month was 3200 burned in exercise calories alone.0
-
My fitbit doesn't have a HRM but my calorie burn for the entire day has been as high as 3500 (on a workout day, doing cardio). My normal is 2809.0
-
prettyleelee wrote: »Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.
There's nothing wrong with wearing an HRM.
At this point I'm confused about what you are trying to accomplish, to be honest. Are you asking if push-mowing a 2.5 acre lot is "cardio"? It depends on how fit someone is and what they are trying to accomplish.
If you're looking to eat more to cover the calories burned by that activity...be very careful. The less fit you are, the bigger the calorie over-estimation.
0 -
myfitnesspal told me about 3,300kcal for the marathon I ran last year. Not sure how accurate it is though.0
-
prettyleelee wrote: »Note: I am not trying to argue with anyone I am seeking a better understanding as to why if my heart rate is up and I am moving why I wouldn't wear a HRM.
There's nothing wrong with wearing an HRM.
At this point I'm confused about what you are trying to accomplish, to be honest. Are you asking if push-mowing a 2.5 acre lot is "cardio"? It depends on how fit someone is and what they are trying to accomplish.
If you're looking to eat more to cover the calories burned by that activity...be very careful. The less fit you are, the bigger the calorie over-estimation.
No I'm not trying to eat my calories back. I am still new to hrm, tracking steps, calories, and everything else.
Someone said that a Hrm is only for cardiovascular like riding a bike, swimming, running. I am wondering why you wouldn't wear it while mowing or speed walking. Because isn't your heart above its normal standing and isn't your body in a continuous motion while doing it?0 -
Hmmm reading some of the posts here makes me question if I want to spend the extra to get the fitbit with a HRM.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 976 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions