Heart rate during workout

Everyone else's heartrate will be totally individual.
Mine: min 48, max 176 (tested).
Very rough exercise average HR for an hour about 155, two hours 145, 4+ hours 135.

You have highlighted why HRM calorie estimates for overweight/unfit people should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Extremely unlikely you had the fitness to burn 1000 cals an hour.

Tracking your resting HR over time is a good way to judge fitness improvements.
By getting fitter your heart will be working better (pumping volume) and your HR will reduce and your HRM will be fooled into thinking you are burning less. If you are keeping the perceived exertion the same you could actually be burning more.
But having three stone less to move (well done you!), if your exercise is weight bearing, you will burn less calories for moving your mass the same distance - remember to keep your weight settings in your HRM up to date.

jodieelol wrote: »

@sijomial Would you say the estimation in calories burnt for overweight people is unreliable using a HRM over a fit person? If so why is that? (Trying to learn as much as I can)

My resting heart rate used to be between 75-80 BPM and for the last few weeks it's been between 55-60 BPM

And thank you, it's been quite a journey so far and I've never been happier, healthier or fitter.
My weight, age and height is taken into account with my HRM and I update my weight weekly

There isn't a real relationship between HR and calories. Heartrate is just used as a proxy for oxygen uptake but to measure oxygen uptake you need to be in a sports science lab wearing a mask hooked up to a gas analyser - not too convenient!

So basic HRMs make assumptions - sees a high HR and assumes you have an average fitness level for example.

In "real life" there's huge variations between HR and the energy you are producing.
I've been on power meter equipped bikes and seen the same power levels (remember calories = energy) from my 150bpm to a youngster next to me at 180bpm and a super fit semi-pro rider barely ticking over at 125bpm.
Our actual calorie burn would have been very similar.

I'm very fit but a friend who is an exceptional cyclist can produce my max one hour power for four hours or alternatively produce 30% more power for an hour all at a similar HR to me.

HRMs are accurate for recording HR only. Can still make them "reasonable" and certainly usable for calorie estimates if a little common sense is used - the need for accuracy in exercise estimates is dreadfully over-stated on here.

My resting heart rate used to be between 75-80 BPM and for the last few weeks it's been between 55-60 BPM

That's excellent progress.

If your heart rate is dropping for the same activity it means you have built fitness and you will need to increase your workout to get the same intensity. Keep in mind that even at the same heart rate, you won't burn the same calories since you weigh less now. Smaller people burn fewer calories than bigger people in general.

My data now as a 155 lb 5'5" 44 year old woman with a high level of fitness compared to the typical U.S. woman my age.... Average fitness compared to people at running events in my community. Below average fitness compared to triathletes because I am new at biking/swimming and training for my first sprint triathlon:

Resting: low 40s

Normal walking pace: 80-90

Relaxing run, fitness walking, swimming laps at an intensity that I could sustain for a mile or so, biking for easy training on a flat greenway: 115-125ish

An average running pace when not leisurely but not pushing hard either, race walking, harder biking; freestyle swimming this intensity would be a struggle because my breathing technique is a hot mess right now.... 130-150

Half marathon racing pace: 155-160ish
Running hard, but sustainable for a little while: 160-170
5k racing pace: 170ish
Interval training: low/mid 170s at max... Can't sustain this for very long
Max: 180s? Just an estimate, haven't tested.


When I was closer to 250lbs and unfit, I was 70-80 at rest, walking around at 110-120, and running and fitness walking would run me to 160-165ish at which point I was miserable and would drop the intensity back down to easy. The biggest change I have seen is that I'm not just at "workout" zone vs "rest" zone but have a variety of zones I work in depending on my goals and know how to regulate myself to reach the intensity I want, especially with running.

sijomial wrote: »

jodieelol wrote: »

@sijomial Would you say the estimation in calories burnt for overweight people is unreliable using a HRM over a fit person? If so why is that? (Trying to learn as much as I can)

My resting heart rate used to be between 75-80 BPM and for the last few weeks it's been between 55-60 BPM

And thank you, it's been quite a journey so far and I've never been happier, healthier or fitter.
My weight, age and height is taken into account with my HRM and I update my weight weekly

There isn't a real relationship between HR and calories. Heartrate is just used as a proxy for oxygen uptake but to measure oxygen uptake you need to be in a sports science lab wearing a mask hooked up to a gas analyser - not too convenient!

So basic HRMs make assumptions - sees a high HR and assumes you have an average fitness level for example.

In "real life" there's huge variations between HR and the energy you are producing.
I've been on power meter equipped bikes and seen the same power levels (remember calories = energy) from my 150bpm to a youngster next to me at 180bpm and a super fit semi-pro rider barely ticking over at 125bpm.
Our actual calorie burn would have been very similar.

I'm very fit but a friend who is an exceptional cyclist can produce my max one hour power for four hours or alternatively produce 30% more power for an hour all at a similar HR to me.

HRMs are accurate for recording HR only. Can still make them "reasonable" and certainly usable for calorie estimates if a little common sense is used - the need for accuracy in exercise estimates is dreadfully over-stated on here.

My resting heart rate used to be between 75-80 BPM and for the last few weeks it's been between 55-60 BPM

That's excellent progress.

This is one of the most sensible posts I've seen on here in a long time.

cityruss wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

jodieelol wrote: »

@sijomial Would you say the estimation in calories burnt for overweight people is unreliable using a HRM over a fit person? If so why is that? (Trying to learn as much as I can)

My resting heart rate used to be between 75-80 BPM and for the last few weeks it's been between 55-60 BPM

And thank you, it's been quite a journey so far and I've never been happier, healthier or fitter.
My weight, age and height is taken into account with my HRM and I update my weight weekly

There isn't a real relationship between HR and calories. Heartrate is just used as a proxy for oxygen uptake but to measure oxygen uptake you need to be in a sports science lab wearing a mask hooked up to a gas analyser - not too convenient!

So basic HRMs make assumptions - sees a high HR and assumes you have an average fitness level for example.

In "real life" there's huge variations between HR and the energy you are producing.
I've been on power meter equipped bikes and seen the same power levels (remember calories = energy) from my 150bpm to a youngster next to me at 180bpm and a super fit semi-pro rider barely ticking over at 125bpm.
Our actual calorie burn would have been very similar.

I'm very fit but a friend who is an exceptional cyclist can produce my max one hour power for four hours or alternatively produce 30% more power for an hour all at a similar HR to me.

HRMs are accurate for recording HR only. Can still make them "reasonable" and certainly usable for calorie estimates if a little common sense is used - the need for accuracy in exercise estimates is dreadfully over-stated on here.

My resting heart rate used to be between 75-80 BPM and for the last few weeks it's been between 55-60 BPM

That's excellent progress.

This is one of the most sensible posts I've seen on here in a long time.

Yup. Too many people have bought into the HRM for calorie purposes.

jodieelol wrote: »

@Hornsby I was certainly one of those people! I'm glad I know different now

dougozz wrote: »

I work out until I almost throw up then you know you reached your max heart rate

Nah. The world is (perhaps) divided into exercise throw-up-ers and exercise non-throw-up-ers.

My tested max is 181, from a rowing machine maximal step test. Getting there is, um, intense, but there has never been the slightest inclination to throw up, and there isn't even if I keep at max effort until the ol' body just simply won't anymore.

However, I have team-mates who, it seems, stand a chance of throwing up anytime they get near anaerobic threshold. (Well, I suspect it's really a lactate tolerance thing, or maybe even a psychological stress thing, not an AT thing at all, but that's a whole 'nother discussion).

There's a reason you never see an RPE scale with "feeling like throwing up" on it. Not a good guide.

(I know you were joking around. Me, too, kinda . . . but I really would hate to see some non-throw-up-er try to go so hard they throw up, just to find their MHR. Yowch.)

Back on topic: If I'm actually training, my heart rate is whatever it needs to be for that day's workout goal. If I'm just funning around for general entertainment & fitness purposes, I usually don't go past estimated AT range (low 150s) . . . and it's actually gotten darned hard to keep it up where I want it during workouts, now that it has 2/3 as much body to pump blood through (most of my training was done as a fat person). Resting is mid-40s, so aerobic range starts in the upper 120s.

I'm 60 y/o, 5'5", weigh 120, started in the 180s. Other than this recent "hard to keep it high enough" thing at a light body weight, my heart rate's behavior didn't change very quickly when I was consistently fat, after I'd established a decent base level of aerobic fitness. (I've been pretty active for around 14 years, and only lost weight in the last year and a half).

My resting rate would vary downward a bit when I was training more seriously, and drift upward if I was lazier for a while. The time it took for my rate to drop below aerobic range after the workout gradually got shorter and shorter, if I was working out consistently.

But, after developing a base fitness level, the heart rate I'd get for a specific workout didn't seem to change very rapidly at all. This is for something like a rowing machine workout, which gives me enough data that I can repeat the same workout duration/power/speed pretty easily over time. I don't have great data from the first couple of years of building base, but I'll bet the changes were quicker earlier on.