HRM

Options
barthel2387
barthel2387 Posts: 15 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
hello! I finally got a polar HRM! Question for anyone who knows a thing or two about them.

I put in all my information, height 5'10, female, weight 160 ect. I ran 1.5 miles, sprints for 1 mile, and and jogged .5 mile for a total of 3. According to my HRM, i was at an average heart rate of 170 and it said i burned 500 calories!! This sounds a bit much for sure! it linked up to the treadmill and was showing my heart rate on the screen too which was kind of odd and the treadmill only said i burned around 350. I am not sure how to tell if it is even the slightest correct.

Replies

  • ScubaSteve1962
    ScubaSteve1962 Posts: 609 Member
    Options
    which one do you have? Most polar sensors will link up to most cardio equipment. If you're using the heart/cardio program it will use your heart rate to control the machine. I probably gave you that odd reading because you didn't have a steady state heart rate.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    barthel2387 wrote: »
    ... and the treadmill only said i burned around 350.

    If you go back to first principles and use the MET value you'll have burned about 300 cals in 3 miles.

    The over-read is because you've tried to assess calories whilst doing an activity that's not steady state, so HR isn't a good indicator of calories expended.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    HRMs will over inflate sprints/intervals as they are not designed to track calories burned for things like this.
  • barthel2387
    barthel2387 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    So if I did a steady pace and my heart rate was still at around 170, would this be the correct calories burned? How do you track sprint if HRM inflates calories burned or is it only the distance that matter?

    and what is MET value?
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    barthel2387 wrote: »
    hello! I finally got a polar HRM! Question for anyone who knows a thing or two about them.

    I put in all my information, height 5'10, female, weight 160 ect. I ran 1.5 miles, sprints for 1 mile, and and jogged .5 mile for a total of 3. According to my HRM, i was at an average heart rate of 170 and it said i burned 500 calories!! ]

    Yeah...no.

    275-ish.


  • barthel2387
    barthel2387 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    ok, please elaborate how you are coming up with 275.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited August 2015
    Options
    barthel2387 wrote: »
    ok, please elaborate how you are coming up with 275.

    3 miles of running * 160 pounds body weight * .6 (some use .65)

  • barthel2387
    barthel2387 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    so intensity has nothing to do with how much you burn? just mileage and age
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    barthel2387 wrote: »
    so intensity has nothing to do with how much you burn? just mileage and age

    Broadly distance and weight. The MET is a factoring value, that has some change due to pace but not significant enough to matter over 3 miles.
  • sheldonklein
    sheldonklein Posts: 854 Member
    Options
    I remain mystified by the vagaries of exercise burn estimates. If there is a simple formula with reasonable accuracy, say +/- 10%, why did RunKeeper give me 600 calories for 3.5 miles this evening, when the formula says about 400 - 430. I may be naive, but I assume the RunKeeper programmer could look me in the eye and tell me that they believe they are giving a reasonable estimate.

Categories