Calories Burned by Heart Rate

ewarshaw
ewarshaw Posts: 40 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
Good Morning Folks,

I'm looking for a little feedback on this. As part of my Elliptical training yesterday, I spent 15 minutes in Heart Rate mode (after 30 minutes of Interval Training). When I was done, for that segment, my machine said I had burned about 110 calories (I have a Spirit XE295). The settings are adjusted for my age and weight, and they are significantly lower than what auto-populates when I first enter the exercise on MFP, so I've always considered the results to be in the neighborhood of correct.
I noticed while exercising that even though I was in HR mode, the calories burned still was related to effort, not heart rate I get that this mode is designed for you to be able to monitor heart rate and it will keep you in the zone you tell it to. I went to Shapesense.com because they had a heart rate calorie calculator. This calculator told me that I had actually used 189 calories (based on my HR average, which was 122). When I entered an estimated VO2max number using their calculator, it came back at 207.
Does anyone have any words of wisdom to offer when using heart rate results for calories burned instead of exertion? Will Targeted HR training produce more calories burned than machine calculated?
Thanks.

Replies

  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,445 Member
    Your VO2max is 122? Unless you are Lance Armstrong I am betting this is wrong (with extra doping thrown in for good measure).

    AFAIK, you burn the same number of calories regardless of heart rate.
  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    ewarshaw wrote: »
    Good Morning Folks,

    I'm looking for a little feedback on this. As part of my Elliptical training yesterday, I spent 15 minutes in Heart Rate mode (after 30 minutes of Interval Training). When I was done, for that segment, my machine said I had burned about 110 calories (I have a Spirit XE295). The settings are adjusted for my age and weight, and they are significantly lower than what auto-populates when I first enter the exercise on MFP, so I've always considered the results to be in the neighborhood of correct.
    I noticed while exercising that even though I was in HR mode, the calories burned still was related to effort, not heart rate I get that this mode is designed for you to be able to monitor heart rate and it will keep you in the zone you tell it to. I went to Shapesense.com because they had a heart rate calorie calculator. This calculator told me that I had actually used 189 calories (based on my HR average, which was 122). When I entered an estimated VO2max number using their calculator, it came back at 207.
    Does anyone have any words of wisdom to offer when using heart rate results for calories burned instead of exertion? Will Targeted HR training produce more calories burned than machine calculated?
    Thanks.

    -Estimated V02Max is wildly inaccurate. And pointless really unless you are training for the Olympics.
    -Heart rate monitors on machines aren't terribly accurate.
    -Since you don't gave your age, I'm not sure what your max heart rate is. Is that what you meant for that 207 number? If so you and I have similar heart rate maxes. 120 is an easy walk for me. So yeah, I could see how 15 minutes of an easy walk would be ~100 calories.
    -Heart rate burning zones are kind of silly (there's a good youtube video on it). Basically if you averaged 140 BPM for the same amount of time, you would burn more calories. There's a point at which, you will burn MORE fat for the same amount of time because you are burning more CALORIES than if you had stayed in the silly fat burning HR zone.

    My advice is to focus on physical fitness, pushing yourself, and only use HR as a record of where you were and are going. How you feel is a lot more important.
  • ewarshaw
    ewarshaw Posts: 40 Member
    No. My VO2max was 56. 122 was my average heart rate during the cardio portion of my workout. This was measured with a Polar chest band sending signals to the machine.
    dewd2 wrote: »
    Your VO2max is 122? Unless you are Lance Armstrong I am betting this is wrong (with extra doping thrown in for good measure).

    AFAIK, you burn the same number of calories regardless of heart rate.

    No. My VO2max was 56. 122 was my average heart rate during the cardio portion of my workout. This was measured with a Polar chest band sending signals to the machine.
  • ewarshaw
    ewarshaw Posts: 40 Member
    blues4miles wrote: »
    ewarshaw wrote: »
    Good Morning Folks,

    I'm looking for a little feedback on this. As part of my Elliptical training yesterday, I spent 15 minutes in Heart Rate mode (after 30 minutes of Interval Training). When I was done, for that segment, my machine said I had burned about 110 calories (I have a Spirit XE295). The settings are adjusted for my age and weight, and they are significantly lower than what auto-populates when I first enter the exercise on MFP, so I've always considered the results to be in the neighborhood of correct.
    I noticed while exercising that even though I was in HR mode, the calories burned still was related to effort, not heart rate I get that this mode is designed for you to be able to monitor heart rate and it will keep you in the zone you tell it to. I went to Shapesense.com because they had a heart rate calorie calculator. This calculator told me that I had actually used 189 calories (based on my HR average, which was 122). When I entered an estimated VO2max number using their calculator, it came back at 207.
    Does anyone have any words of wisdom to offer when using heart rate results for calories burned instead of exertion? Will Targeted HR training produce more calories burned than machine calculated?
    Thanks.

    -Estimated V02Max is wildly inaccurate. And pointless really unless you are training for the Olympics.
    -Heart rate monitors on machines aren't terribly accurate.
    -Since you don't gave your age, I'm not sure what your max heart rate is. Is that what you meant for that 207 number? If so you and I have similar heart rate maxes. 120 is an easy walk for me. So yeah, I could see how 15 minutes of an easy walk would be ~100 calories.
    -Heart rate burning zones are kind of silly (there's a good youtube video on it). Basically if you averaged 140 BPM for the same amount of time, you would burn more calories. There's a point at which, you will burn MORE fat for the same amount of time because you are burning more CALORIES than if you had stayed in the silly fat burning HR zone.

    My advice is to focus on physical fitness, pushing yourself, and only use HR as a record of where you were and are going. How you feel is a lot more important.

    _______________

    I am 55 years old. My max heart rate according to the standard formula is 165. I realize the machine counters aren't pinpoint, but I do see where it adjusts according to the amount of exertion.
    I really only mentioned the VO2max because it increased the burned calorie count (going from 186 on just heart rate calculation to 207 adding the VO2max calculation).
    Do you, by chance, have the name of the YouTube video? I get the feeling you aren't overly impressed with the philosophy that there is a fat burning zone and a cardio zone for targeted heart rate. I have to rely on published information, and sifting through it all can be a little mind-boggling, and tough to tell what is good advice or not. I mostly go off information that is repeated several times. Don't even get me started on the fitness advice given on Abraham Lincoln's website.
  • sheermomentum
    sheermomentum Posts: 827 Member
    Calculations using heart rate monitors are done by assuming that heart rate is an indication of exertion level - its an indirect measure of exertion. So when you say "using heart rate instead of exertion," you're really not using something different, just trying to get at it in a different way.

    When you talk about targeted heart rate training, you mean trying to say in the "fat burning zone," right? If so, then I'd say don't try. You'll burn the most calories overall by working at the highest level of exertion that you comfortably sustain for the duration of your workout. In the end it won't matter if you were in the so-called fat burning zone or not.
  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,445 Member
    Zones, V02max, and Lactic Threshold are useful if you are training for something. Fat burning zones and cardio zones are marketing terms and have little value for weight loss.

    To use zones effectively you have to first know your actual max heart rate. The only way to do this is to run like hell and see how high it goes (there are guides on the net to help you do this safely - assuming your doctor okays it first). Once you have that information, you can get the other numbers with a few more tests.

    Lactic Threshold is the most useful as it tells you how hard to push your training. But even that is not 100% and you still need to use other methods to train properly (other than using heart rate).

    This is probably more than you wanted to know. The bottom line is knowing your heart rate and using this information effectively is a little harder than following some fat burning zone marketing brochure.

    Good luck.
  • ewarshaw
    ewarshaw Posts: 40 Member
    Thanks for the responses. I'm feeling a little foolish for falling into the marketing magic. I appreciate the advice.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories