How accurate is my heart rate monitor for calories burned? Is my heart rate elevated?

bunkeymonkey
bunkeymonkey Posts: 6 Member
edited December 2 in Health and Weight Loss
I have a Polar FT7M heart rate monitor which I use anytime I exercise. I walk the dog 5k, 4-5 times a week. According to my monitor, I have never burned less than 510 calories doing this. MFP estimates the calories at around 300. Now, I know the heart rate monitor should be more accurate. But am I really burning that many calories? I wonder if I don't have an elevated heart rate that makes it seem like I am working harder than I am, and therefore burning more. My stationary heart beat is around 112bpm, and 140-150 while walking (moderate pace), but I've seen it up to 165bpm. I get into the 180s jogging. Is this normal?

I'm asking because I'm worried about over eating from exercise calories. Normally I eat back 200-300 on the days I walk. So far I've seen very little scale movement this week (though I still have two days to go before "official" weigh day).

I'm 27, 5'5", and 218lbs.

Replies

  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    edited June 2016
    Walking is usually calculated by .30 x (your body weight) per mile. So around a 209 net calorie burn for you. HRMs aren't great for walking.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Hornsby nailed the calorie question, so I'll take the elevated heart rate - answer is what you describe could be normal for you, or it might not be. There's too much individual variation in heart rate ranges to tell (the 220 - age calculation for max heart rate is only correct for a subset of the population and your resting heart rate is unknown).

    If you're at all concerned, I'd recommend a stress test at your doctor's office. That'd give you a better idea of your 'normal' heart rate range for different exercise intensities and check cardiovascular function at the same time.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited June 2016
    My stationary heart beat is around 112bpm

    That's very high.
    A HRM isn't going to be at all accurate for calorie estimates for any exercise for you let alone walking when you are such an outlier in terms of HR.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    My stationary heart beat is around 112bpm

    That's very high.
    A HRM isn't going to be at all accurate for calorie estimates for any exercise for you let alone walking when you are such an outlier in terms of HR.

    Depends on what he means by stationary. It wouldn't be all that high for standing.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Walking is usually calculated by .30 x (your body weight) per mile. So around a 209 net calorie burn for you. HRMs aren't great for walking.

    That sounds extremely low. It's probably what I burn now in my 3.5 miles walk and I'm 80 pounds lighter (it takes me about an hour).

    Eating 200-300 back seems fine. If the scale isn't moving, it's probably because you're underestimating your food intake.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    edited June 2016
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Walking is usually calculated by .30 x (your body weight) per mile. So around a 209 net calorie burn for you. HRMs aren't great for walking.

    That sounds extremely low. It's probably what I burn now in my 3.5 miles walk and I'm 80 pounds lighter (it takes me about an hour).

    Eating 200-300 back seems fine. If the scale isn't moving, it's probably because you're underestimating your food intake.

    That's the formula for net cals for walking. Almost none of the regular walking calculators use it - instead they calculate gross cals burned. But gross cals aren't as useful for OP. OP wants to know how much he can eat back, and that'd be the net cal number.
  • melissafawnw
    melissafawnw Posts: 67 Member
    OP, define stationary. If that's your true resting heart rate, it's high, and I would consult with a cardiologist about that, and discuss exercise plans accordingly.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    OP, in case you don't know, resting heart rate should be taken when you've been lying down for several minutes and are completely relaxed. Actually, ideally it'd be before getting out of bed in the morning, but the aforementioned will do.
  • bunkeymonkey
    bunkeymonkey Posts: 6 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    My stationary heart beat is around 112bpm

    That's very high.
    A HRM isn't going to be at all accurate for calorie estimates for any exercise for you let alone walking when you are such an outlier in terms of HR.

    Depends on what he means by stationary. It wouldn't be all that high for standing.

    That was standing. I guess it never occurred to me to see what it was sitting down.
  • bunkeymonkey
    bunkeymonkey Posts: 6 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Walking is usually calculated by .30 x (your body weight) per mile. So around a 209 net calorie burn for you. HRMs aren't great for walking.

    That sounds extremely low. It's probably what I burn now in my 3.5 miles walk and I'm 80 pounds lighter (it takes me about an hour).

    Eating 200-300 back seems fine. If the scale isn't moving, it's probably because you're underestimating your food intake.

    That's the formula for net cals for walking. Almost none of the regular walking calculators use it - instead they calculate gross cals burned. But gross cals aren't as useful for OP. OP wants to know how much he can eat back, and that'd be the net cal number.

    I weigh all my food. The only stuff I am not strict on is fruit and veggies. I actually lost 70lbs a few years ago on MFP doing almost no exercise. It wasn't very healthy and I ended up going back to eating poorly and gaining it back. But that's why I was wondering about eating back the exercise calories. I consistently lost 2lbs a week when I was doing zero exercise, when this time around I AM trying to get more active and I haven't seen that much movement. I suspected I wasn't burning nearly as many as my HRM was saying and therefore was actually over my calories.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Walking is usually calculated by .30 x (your body weight) per mile. So around a 209 net calorie burn for you. HRMs aren't great for walking.

    That sounds extremely low. It's probably what I burn now in my 3.5 miles walk and I'm 80 pounds lighter (it takes me about an hour).

    Eating 200-300 back seems fine. If the scale isn't moving, it's probably because you're underestimating your food intake.

    It may sound low, but it isn't.
  • SallyKaPow
    SallyKaPow Posts: 61 Member
    Whilst everyone is different, just to give you a comparison... i do ironman triathlon which is a 2.4 mile swim, followed by a 112 mile bike ride, followed by a marathon and that burns around 6000 - 7000 calories over the course of 12 hours, so i really doubt that walking 5km (3 miles) would burn 500. I'd guess that 250-300 is probably about right.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    how long??
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,985 Member
    Francl27 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Walking is usually calculated by .30 x (your body weight) per mile. So around a 209 net calorie burn for you. HRMs aren't great for walking.

    That sounds extremely low. It's probably what I burn now in my 3.5 miles walk and I'm 80 pounds lighter (it takes me about an hour).

    Eating 200-300 back seems fine. If the scale isn't moving, it's probably because you're underestimating your food intake.

    This equation has been confirmed in quite a few papers. It's a good estimate for walking. Don't forget, walking is fairly low impact.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    bunkeymonkey wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    My stationary heart beat is around 112bpm

    That's very high.
    A HRM isn't going to be at all accurate for calorie estimates for any exercise for you let alone walking when you are such an outlier in terms of HR.

    Depends on what he means by stationary. It wouldn't be all that high for standing.

    That was standing. I guess it never occurred to me to see what it was sitting down.

    In that case ignore my post. Your heart has to pump a little harder when you are standing.

    For consistency follow @stealthq 's advice on how to take your resting heart rate to eliminate variables like digesting food, caffeine, stress, movement etc...

  • bunkeymonkey
    bunkeymonkey Posts: 6 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    bunkeymonkey wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    My stationary heart beat is around 112bpm

    That's very high.
    A HRM isn't going to be at all accurate for calorie estimates for any exercise for you let alone walking when you are such an outlier in terms of HR.

    Depends on what he means by stationary. It wouldn't be all that high for standing.

    That was standing. I guess it never occurred to me to see what it was sitting down.

    In that case ignore my post. Your heart has to pump a little harder when you are standing.

    For consistency follow @stealthq 's advice on how to take your resting heart rate to eliminate variables like digesting food, caffeine, stress, movement etc...

    Thanks. I knew that what my HRM was showing had to be way too high. I will use that equation from now on. :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories