Heart rate monitor and calorie burn?

1000 cals in an hour? Unlikely.

It may be a good indicator during the workout, but not for the stretching portion, as your HR is elevated from the earlier work not the stretching. Keep in mind that HR does not lead to calorie burn, the equation in the watch assumes work done using HR as a proxy. HRM's are pretty good at estimating calorie burns during steady state cardio only, and if your Max HR matches what is in the calculation 220-age, or one you inputted into the device.

For anything other than steady state cardio, HRMs will not be a good estimate at all.

For 64 minutes of work, I would typically guess 500- 800 cals, depending on the exercise and intensity. 1000 seems really high unless you are, as another poster stated well over 250 lbs.

Seconding the opinion that the nature of the activity and the environment will distort HR-based calorie estimates, possibly severely. And if the device doesn't know your personal accurate HR range (measured AM resting to measured max), it will be materially less accurate. (Age based HRmax formulas can be substantially off.)

Lots of things raise HR without burning extra calories: Hot environment, strain (as in weight training), emotional reactions, dehydration, suboptimal breathing patterns, and more.

Fitness level influences accuracy. It's generally incorrect to think that a fit person burns materially fewer calories doing activity X for Y time at Z intensity compared to an unfit person of the same size/age/etc. However, the fit person will typically do that activity at a lower heart rate, so the HRM will produce a lower calorie estimate.

The activity type matters because things with a strength component tend to elevate heart rate partly because of strain; things with an interval component tend to distort estimates because HR in the rest/easy phases doesn't drop as far/fast as the actual calorie burn of the workload does - in this sense, it could be slightly less inaccurate for a fit person because their HR will drop quicker during the easy phases.

Use alternate calorie estimates as a cross-check on whatever the HRM says (machine estimates, MFP database or other MET-oriented estimator, sport-specific estimator, etc.). Pick whichever estimate is lowest. Even then, the "eat back 50% to start" rule might be sensible.

My personal experience with UA is they over estimate everything wildly. I've used UA record and mapmyfitness. For 3.5 mile dog walk they had me burning over 800 cals. For 1 hr weight lifting they have burning from 450 to 600. I even burnt 300 cal in a 30 min yoga session. So my opinion of UA and their algorithms is not very good.
I like the software and connectibility but, their calorie estimations are way off. Note : I use a wristbased HRM so I don't have the accuracy of a chest based one. But still I feel like there is something majorly wrong with UA calorie algorithms.

I gotta believe all of these things are based on formulas that are derived from population studies, under the covers, so will have all the statistical weaknesses of estimates of that type. If so, any given device may be closer for some people and further away for others, for reasons that have nothing to do with how "good" the device/algorithms are . . . on top of any variation attributable to the algorithmic/research "goodness" of that device. Just a guess, though.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

I gotta believe all of these things are based on formulas that are derived from population studies, under the covers, so will have all the statistical weaknesses of estimates of that type. If so, any given device may be closer for some people and further away for others, for reasons that have nothing to do with how "good" the device/algorithms are . . . on top of any variation attributable to the algorithmic/research "goodness" of that device. Just a guess, though.

You're right, it's all based on best estimate based on the average person. That includes devices, apps, and even MFP's manual entries for exercise. Only way to know for sure how accurate your setup may be is to use the same hardware/software/app combo over a long period of months, monitor your loss or gain based on what you estimate it should be. If it's not as much loss, then it's overestimating, adjust as necessary. If your loss increases beyond what you expected then adjust as necessary the other way. Takes months to know how accurate your setup may be for you, and it's always going to be different for someone else. Then.. as you lose weight and become more fit.. guess what.. the actual burns change. It's a moving target, best you can do is be consistent with exercise, and be consistent with what you believe is accurate for your apps/devices. MFP allows you to adjust your entries even after an app auto-enters a workout for you. I do it every day.

You'll see a lot of people say "my device is better because....". Honestly, use what you like and what works for you. Spent $400 on a nice smart watch.. use it. Don't let anyone tell you it sucks at estimating calories. Simply watch your goals and your weight loss/gain trends, and adjust those calorie burns how you need in order for them to be accurate over time. Just my .02. Enjoy yourself.

bertabugg wrote: »

It depends on your weight and exercise your doing. I ride my stationary bike 70 minutes a day on uphill, level 10 with a 16.4-18.0 MPH and I burn 830-845, when I ride my regular bike for 60 minutes including stops and lights, I average 675-800 calories burned.

You should be racing of you can do 222 watts for an hour.

bertabugg wrote: »

It depends on your weight and exercise your doing. I ride my stationary bike 70 minutes a day on uphill, level 10 with a 16.4-18.0 MPH and I burn 830-845, when I ride my regular bike for 60 minutes including stops and lights, I average 675-800 calories burned.

I have a female friend who produces less power than your supposed calorie burns would indicate - she has just qualified for the world championships after averaging 23mph for 80 miles.

Remember that a stationary bike does zero MPH and travels no distance.
If it measured power (watts) it could be very accurate but otherwise take with a huge pinch of salt.

Sorry but your burns look horribly inflated both indoors and outdoors.

how do I calculate calories burned if my band, bike and I phone app are lying? I have lost 46 pounds eating daily calories and eating back exercise calories as well. Super confused..

bertabugg wrote: »

how do I calculate calories burned if my band, bike and I phone app are lying? I have lost 46 pounds eating daily calories and eating back exercise calories as well. Super confused..

@bertabugg
Do you need accuracy then?
That your overall calorie balance works is the aim of all the estimating of BMR, activity multipliers, food and exercise logging. It becomes an issue if your routine changes though as that balance of inaccuracy changes.
I lost my weight using 30% exaggerated burns from my Polar HRM.

But using poor methods can't be a basis of comparing burns between people. If you used a power meter (very accurate calculation for cycling) then that's a good comparison.

If you want (rather than need) to try a different method for outdoor riding you could try Strava on your phone, it tries to estimate your power from what you tell it about you, your bike, terrain, speed etc. Whilst not empirically accurate it's likely to be a more reasonable estimate.