Calorie Burn using HRM

sallymason88
sallymason88 Posts: 69 Member
edited November 28 in Fitness and Exercise
Is the most accurate indication of calorie burn achieved using a HRM with chest strap ?. I have just bought one, and entered height , weight etc. I only eat back a proportion of my calorie burn, so it isnt really that important, I just wondered if it was a better indication than most others, ie mfp, machines etc.

Replies

  • woofer00
    woofer00 Posts: 123 Member
    Depends. HRM in long duration steady state activity works decently well, but for activities like weight lifting, it's poor.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    sallymason88 wrote: »
    Is the most accurate indication of calorie burn achieved using a HRM with chest strap ?. I have just bought one, and entered height , weight etc. I only eat back a proportion of my calorie burn, so it isnt really that important, I just wondered if it was a better indication than most others, ie mfp, machines etc.

    Any device is only as good as the algorithms and the inputs it uses. HRMs are best suited for steady state stuff, since the HR doesn't rise and fall in immediate response to load. I use just about anything over MFP, and often check out accepted formulas to test apps, machines, etc and figure out what is a reasonable calorie burn. You might be able to do the same with your HRM and figure out the strong and weak points.
  • sallymason88
    sallymason88 Posts: 69 Member
    edited January 2016
    I believe then, as my activity is steady state that it could be a decent guide then ? I am fast pace walking over a couple of hours and cardio with weights, kettlebells etc, not weightlifting in the traditional sense. It is not a big issue, I am just curious, and still learning.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    @sallymason88 The HRM will probably work well for the walking, but would likely be hit and miss with the circuit type stuff. If you transition quick doing circuit stuff it might be close, but usually if you are using different exercises and weights your HR is up and down a bit.

    For the walking you can also compare to standard formulas. That will give you an idea of where the HRM you have compares, and might also help you determine gross vs net calories if your HRM doesn't do that break down with the software.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    sallymason88 wrote: »
    I believe then, as my activity is steady state that it could be a decent guide then ? I am fast pace walking over a couple of hours and cardio with weights, kettlebells etc, not weightlifting in the traditional sense. It is not a big issue, I am just curious, and still learning.

    So two parts to a response. Chest strap vs optical the difference isn't significant. There are more problems with optical than chest strap around suitability, but not enough to be meaningful.

    As far as the exercise you're doing is concerned, that's more about whether HR is a meaningful indicator of calorie expenditure in the context that you're using it. As upthread, HRMs are designed based on research carried out on steady state, aerobic range, CV activity. Both of those points are important.

    HR doesn't fluctuate in a way that relates to calorie expenditure, so if one is doing something where HR fluctuates then the HRM is likely to give an overestimation of calorie expenditure. Any type of circuit training is affected by that.

    If ones HR isn't in the aerobic range, either too low or too high, then the relationship between HR and calorie expenditure isn't particularly close. As you're talking about walking your HR shouldn't be all that high, so may not get into the aerobic range.

    Essentially it's likely to give you an overestimation in both cases.
  • sallymason88
    sallymason88 Posts: 69 Member
    Thank you for the replies. It makes more sense now. so if i make sure that i only eat up to half my exercise calories back, i wont go far wrong I am thinking . When I walk, I walk as fast as i can, which is quite fast. It is quicker than 3 miles an hour working on distance and how long i takes me.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories