The problem with HRM's

twooliver
twooliver Posts: 450 Member
edited September 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
I was out walking with a friend today and explained my frustration with how now that I've developed some stamina that it takes longer to burn calories. For instance when I started Zumba, my HRM calculate around 450 calories burned and now I burn about 250 for the same workout. Now my friend teaches Kinesiology & Applied Physiology at a local college and explained that you can't rely completely on your heart rate to calculate calories burned. She explained that it is your metabolic rate that burns calories, which does not necessarily match your heart rate. She suspects I'm burning more than the HRM is calculating. The problem is, how in the heck can I calculate my metabolic rate? Can't someone invent a comparable apparatus? Hohummmm....and I thought the HRM was the end all be all for calculating calories burned...

Replies

  • ladyhawk00
    ladyhawk00 Posts: 2,457 Member
    Here's a great explanation of HRM's and what they can and cannot do.

    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

    If you want more complete info on what you are burning on a daily basis, you might want to get RMR (Resting Metabolic Rate) tested. Many gyms can do it (even if you aren't a member), usually $50-100.
  • catcrazy
    catcrazy Posts: 1,740 Member
    I rely more on my V02 max combined with my average heart rate while exercising...if i was to go on my HRM it would have me eating a shed load that I simply hadn't earned...I have a very low V02 max because of emphysema and asthma, it REALLY knocks calories burned down
  • mimi7grands
    mimi7grands Posts: 616
    I don't use a HRM. I take meds for atrial fib that slow my heart way down - often in the low 50's. I figure calorie counts wouldn't be accurate anyway so I go by how I feel. If I'm working, breathing hard but not too hard, I figure I'm good. Beyond that, I can see how I do with my weight. Basically, I intuit my way along. Works for me.
  • Arizona_JR
    Arizona_JR Posts: 275
    Here's a great explanation of HRM's and what they can and cannot do.

    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

    If you want more complete info on what you are burning on a daily basis, you might want to get RMR (Resting Metabolic Rate) tested. Many gyms can do it (even if you aren't a member), usually $50-100.

    Thanks for posting that link. It was very helpful for me.
  • ladyhawk00
    ladyhawk00 Posts: 2,457 Member
    Here's a great explanation of HRM's and what they can and cannot do.

    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

    If you want more complete info on what you are burning on a daily basis, you might want to get RMR (Resting Metabolic Rate) tested. Many gyms can do it (even if you aren't a member), usually $50-100.

    Thanks for posting that link. It was very helpful for me.

    Quite welcome :smile:
  • cherubcrnp
    cherubcrnp Posts: 717 Member
    Here's a great explanation of HRM's and what they can and cannot do.

    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

    If you want more complete info on what you are burning on a daily basis, you might want to get RMR (Resting Metabolic Rate) tested. Many gyms can do it (even if you aren't a member), usually $50-100.

    An excellent article and very true

    Pam
  • twooliver
    twooliver Posts: 450 Member
    The article still doesn't address the metabolic rate...which is the source of where calories are burned...will do some research..
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    Since your friend teaches Kinesiology, ask her if they have a metabolic cart at her school. If so, she may be able to hook you up to it and get your accurate VO2 information to determine your calorie burns from various activities. She should also be able to give you the formulas for determining calorie burns from that info.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I was out walking with a friend today and explained my frustration with how now that I've developed some stamina that it takes longer to burn calories. For instance when I started Zumba, my HRM calculate around 450 calories burned and now I burn about 250 for the same workout. Now my friend teaches Kinesiology & Applied Physiology at a local college and explained that you can't rely completely on your heart rate to calculate calories burned. She explained that it is your metabolic rate that burns calories, which does not necessarily match your heart rate. She suspects I'm burning more than the HRM is calculating. The problem is, how in the heck can I calculate my metabolic rate? Can't someone invent a comparable apparatus? Hohummmm....and I thought the HRM was the end all be all for calculating calories burned...

    You have a good resource (your friend) for information.

    If you are walking or running, then actually the MFP tables should be as accurate as anything available. The equations for determining the energy cost of running and walking are fairly simple and well established (it's the cross trainers, classes, circuit training workouts where there is a huge amount of variability that tables like those on MFP become very inaccurate).

    You might be able to look at the relationship between heart rate while walking/running and the associated caloric burn to get a sense of your own "scale" of heart rate to calories expended.

    Now in a class like Zumba, the idea of mechanical efficiency becomes more significant. In other words, as your become more coordinated at the movements, the effort may become less and calorie burn may decrease (unlike running and walking that have more fixed energy costs). However, it is also likely true that your aerobic maximum has increased and that is driving your heart rate down (and underestimating your calories).

    If your heart rate is that much lower, then you should probably be looking for ways to increase your effort level or maybe add some other exercises (cardio machines) that allow you to work harder.
  • kenlad64
    kenlad64 Posts: 377 Member
    Mmmmmm
  • parvati
    parvati Posts: 432 Member
    Good article!
  • altushe
    altushe Posts: 57 Member
    For those that do NOT use an HRM, how do you determine/estimate your exercise calories? Do you use MFP or the calories burned on the machine/equipment that you use at the gym? The MFP exercise database doesn't have all the equipment and for some of them, the calories burned seemed so different than what the gym machines say - even those where you can customize to your weight.

    What do others here do? For those trying to lose or find maintenance calories, since we are supposed to (or at least recommended to) eat back exercise calories, this may help explain why my maintenance calories have been hard to determine…

    Thanks,
    altushe
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    I use the MFP calculation if it is listed, because I believe it uses METs. For anything not listed, I look up the MET level and multiply the MET level by my weight in kilograms to get calories per hour. METs are Metabolic Equivalents or how many times you normal metabolism you are burning doing that exercise. It is estimated that you burn 1 kilocalorie (Calorie) per kilogram of body weight per hour at rest. That's 1 MET. So, if you do an exercise that is 5 METs then you are burning 5 kilocalories (Calories) per kilogram of body weight per hour while you are doing that exercise. So, if you use METs to determine calorie burns, subtract the 1 kcal per kilo per hour that you would burn if you did nothing. The list I use to determine MET levels is: http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf

    So, here's an example of how I figure it. For a 220 pound person, divide their weight by 2.2 to get 100 kilograms of body weight. Say they are weight training, I look up weight training and find the following:

    6.0 METs--conditioning exercise--weight lifting (free weight, nautilus or universal-type), power lifting or body building, vigorous effort

    3.0 METs--conditioning exercise--weight lifting (free, nautilus or universal-type), light or moderate effort, light workout, general

    Now, we determine based on that persons effort which they are doing. Standard conditioning exercises or weight training videos (Think 30 Day Shred), I'd go with 3 METs, but someone who is lifting following a body building program where they are using weight that is all they can lift for no more then 10 reps without losing form, then I'd go with 6 METs. Personally, I subtract out the 1 MET for rest at this point, so I would multiply their weight in kilo's by either 2 or 5. So our 100 kilo exerciser would burn either 200 Calories or 500 Calories in an hour. Now, if they only did 30 minutes, I'd divide that by 2. You could also divide the total (200 or 500 Calories) by 60 to get Calories per minute and multiply by the number of minutes done. And yes, I'm glad my first degree was in Accounting because there is a ton of math in personal training. :wink:

    Oh, and for things that aren't listed on the METs compendium, I do a little research to find out if any fitness organizations or universities have studied that particular exercise to get a MET level. That's where I got 6.4 METs for kettlebell training. I can't remember if it was ACE or ACSM that did that research.
  • ladyhawk00
    ladyhawk00 Posts: 2,457 Member
    I use the MFP calculation if it is listed, because I believe it uses METs. For anything not listed, I look up the MET level and multiply the MET level by my weight in kilograms to get calories per hour. METs are Metabolic Equivalents or how many times you normal metabolism you are burning doing that exercise. It is estimated that you burn 1 kilocalorie (Calorie) per kilogram of body weight per hour at rest. That's 1 MET. So, if you do an exercise that is 5 METs then you are burning 5 kilocalories (Calories) per kilogram of body weight per hour while you are doing that exercise. So, if you use METs to determine calorie burns, subtract the 1 kcal per kilo per hour that you would burn if you did nothing. The list I use to determine MET levels is: http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf

    So, here's an example of how I figure it. For a 220 pound person, divide their weight by 2.2 to get 100 kilograms of body weight. Say they are weight training, I look up weight training and find the following:

    6.0 METs--conditioning exercise--weight lifting (free weight, nautilus or universal-type), power lifting or body building, vigorous effort

    3.0 METs--conditioning exercise--weight lifting (free, nautilus or universal-type), light or moderate effort, light workout, general

    Now, we determine based on that persons effort which they are doing. Standard conditioning exercises or weight training videos (Think 30 Day Shred), I'd go with 3 METs, but someone who is lifting following a body building program where they are using weight that is all they can lift for no more then 10 reps without losing form, then I'd go with 6 METs. Personally, I subtract out the 1 MET for rest at this point, so I would multiply their weight in kilo's by either 2 or 5. So our 100 kilo exerciser would burn either 200 Calories or 500 Calories in an hour. Now, if they only did 30 minutes, I'd divide that by 2. You could also divide the total (200 or 500 Calories) by 60 to get Calories per minute and multiply by the number of minutes done. And yes, I'm glad my first degree was in Accounting because there is a ton of math in personal training. :wink:

    Oh, and for things that aren't listed on the METs compendium, I do a little research to find out if any fitness organizations or universities have studied that particular exercise to get a MET level. That's where I got 6.4 METs for kettlebell training. I can't remember if it was ACE or ACSM that did that research.

    Excellent info! Thank you, Tonya.
  • Mrs_TrimWaistFatWallet
    Mrs_TrimWaistFatWallet Posts: 486
    My fiancé and I share a BodyMedia FIT, which uses a lot of other measurements like body termp to determine calories burned for the whole day. It seems way more accurate than MFP and even tells you how efficiently you're sleeping.
  • altushe
    altushe Posts: 57 Member
    Tonya:

    Thank you for your explanation of METS to better understand calories burned. Makes perfect sense and I am into numbers too (the basis of my career)!! Really appreciate it...

    altushe
  • tmthorn0927
    tmthorn0927 Posts: 155 Member
    bump for later :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories