Calories Burned on HRM - Can it Really be This Low?

Options
2»

Replies

  • Kandierinc
    Kandierinc Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    I have a Polar FT7 HRM and was SHOCKED when I first started using it for my workouts.:noway:

    From everything I read online, the truth is that the exercise machines at the gym are overestimating our burns b/c it is a generic formula. The HRM is tailored to your specific stats- weight, age, height, max HR, etc. mine even adjusts my calorie burns (lower) as my heart has gotten healthier. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think that it is common to overestimate how many calories we burn...:ohwell: If you are eating back your exercise calories, at least now you will have a more accurate number..

    I'm interested very in seeing how others respond. Good luck!!

    Thanks, I think this is the case, it is shocking but as you say this HRM does have all my personal stats. I was just having trouble believing.

    Thanks to everyone for taking the time to comment! :-)
  • AlsDonkBoxSquat
    AlsDonkBoxSquat Posts: 6,128 Member
    Options
    That doesn't seem right at all. What does it say your heart rate is? Im 5'7 171lbs. Today I rode my bike for 50 min. And burned 508 calories. My heart rate was 147. Im sure your pump class is more intense than my bike ride.

    My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.

    this does seem about right. Lift more weight in pump class to get your hr up and you'll burn more. You shouldn't really get to the end of a track and think "yeah, I could do that again."
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    Options
    That doesn't seem right at all. What does it say your heart rate is? Im 5'7 171lbs. Today I rode my bike for 50 min. And burned 508 calories. My heart rate was 147. Im sure your pump class is more intense than my bike ride.

    My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.
    It sounds to me like it might be accurate. I'm a bit smaller than you, but I'm 45. When I run, my HR gets up to about 170 and I burn around 110 calories per mile. That would put me at around 300 calories for 35 minutes.

    It seems like you might be in the same situation as my sister. Her resting HR is really low (in the 40s) and when working out her HR never gets very high and her calorie burns are lower as a result. She finds it frustrating but she'll probably outlive me by a decade with a heart that strong.
  • JohnSerra
    JohnSerra Posts: 6
    Options
    Hi, yes, its about right on the exercise machine. I have a spinning bike which is very similar. The real way to burn calories is to get your heart rate up a little. I am 57 and a good rate for me is 128 beats per minute (BPM) after I have warmed up (about 10 minutes cycling). It will increase as you become tired during the time you are on the machine, but if mine wanders above 135BPM I take tension off the bike to bring it down again. I burn about 180 calories in about 30 minutes. P.S you are going to need water and a towel near the machine. I also use a cheap tall fan (cycling on a real bike burns more 280 - 350 per 30 mins) All the best John..
  • Kandierinc
    Kandierinc Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    That sounds about right for your height and weight. People who weigh more burn more calories. I'm 5'9 and about 173lbs and I'd probably burn more than you but not by much. When I started (at about 230 lbs) the same workout I do now I almost doubled my calorie burn (running about 3miles a day I used to burn ~500 calories, now it's about ~300). The ellipticals are usually wrong because they just approximate based on your age and weight (and maybe height). they usually do not ask for gender which is a huge difference (men burn more than women)

    Thanks - I feared this might be the case! I would prefer to be under on calorie rather than eating back calories I haven't actually burned, its just quite a jump down from what I thought I was burning.


    Yeah it was extremely depressing for me as well, but it's certainly better knowing the more accurate number so you don't overeat. Also at your weight I wouldnt even be worrying as much about how much you burn but more about how good your workout is. For example you want to make sure you are getting enough strength training (which burns less than cardio) because then your muscles are burning more when you are just sitting around which at your weight counts more than any actual workout. It sounds like you are doing that though with body pump which I am guessing is circuit training of some kind which is the best kind!

    Thanks again - pump is a weights based class with a bot of cardio thrown in so I know its not going to burn as much as a run but its still quite a hard work out.

    I definitely plan to keep doping these classes as you say strength class is great for you.
  • Kandierinc
    Kandierinc Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    Every manufacturer uses a different method to calculate calories burned based on HR. First off, I'd check your HRM to make sure it's taking accurate readings of your HR (you can do this by seeing what the HRM says, and then manually taking your HR to compare.) I found an online calculator for calories burned on HR that I really like, which is here: http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/ (Be sure to read her notes about VO2 max - I use 35 to calculate mine.)

    I ran your numbers through that calculator using an HR of 110 for the body pump workout, and it came back with 192. I know that lower weight people have lower calorie burns, but 90 cals for a 45 min workout seems really low to me.

    The key thing is to compare apples to apples - pick a method and use that to compare workouts consistently. Regardless of what the machine says, your body will tell you if you're doing enough/too much.

    Thanks very much for the link and advice - that is really useful!

    (Edited to put in your actual HR, which I saw you give in a comment after I originally posted this.)
  • Nomomush
    Nomomush Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    Here's a couple of things to do before you get another:

    1. Make sure your chest strap is not losing connection.
    2. Make sure your watch that is doing the calculation starts your calorie count and a good signal is reached before starting the exercise.
    3. Get on a stationary machine and see what you get for a reading. Some/most machines will read your chest strap readings and compare it to your watch.
    4. Verify your input into the watch (age, gender, height,) etc is correct.
    5. Last but not least-- if the above are correct, it's most likely that your level of perceived exertion is not in line with heart rate exertion.

    Hope that helps
  • epj78
    epj78 Posts: 643 Member
    Options
    That doesn't seem right at all. What does it say your heart rate is? Im 5'7 171lbs. Today I rode my bike for 50 min. And burned 508 calories. My heart rate was 147. Im sure your pump class is more intense than my bike ride.

    My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.

    At 110 on average that sounds right, and your run also sounds correct. My heart is at 177 on my runs and I burn a little more than that (plus I weigh 30 more lbs than you)

    My HR Is always much higher. So if yours is around that, then, yep, it is probably accurate. I'm usually up in the 170's also on my runs. And burn around 300 calories in 35 minutes ---- and I weigh a lot more then you! So, it seems right in that perspective. The body pump class I would think your HR would get higher though.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.

    My initial thought was no, it didn't sound right. But with this info, it does sound reasonable.
  • Kandierinc
    Kandierinc Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    I think I under cut myself on the running/ high intensity hear rate I think its more in the 160s but it was definitely around 110 average today during pump so I guess it must be pretty accurate.

    I guess I am just going to have to work a bit harder!

    Thanks everyone.
  • Givemewings
    Givemewings Posts: 864 Member
    Options
    That doesn't seem right at all. What does it say your heart rate is? Im 5'7 171lbs. Today I rode my bike for 50 min. And burned 508 calories. My heart rate was 147. Im sure your pump class is more intense than my bike ride.

    My heart rate was about 110 on average in the pump class. When I ran the other day my hear rate was about 150 on average and on a 35 minute run it came back at under 250 cals burned.
    The running cals sound ok to me. I have found as I have got fitter it is more difficult to burn calories.
  • n_unocero
    n_unocero Posts: 445 Member
    Options

    Thanks again - pump is a weights based class with a bot of cardio thrown in so I know its not going to burn as much as a run but its still quite a hard work out.

    I definitely plan to keep doping these classes as you say strength class is great for you.

    just because it's weights with some cardio doesn't mean you can't burn more than on your run. you say your HR is only 150 on your runs...but in this class if you can get your heart rate up to about 180 during the cardio, and then let it recover during the weights you will probably burn more cals (and fat!) than on your runs. Long cardio is good, but try switching it up and doing intervals where you go as hard as you can to get your HR up high (180-190), and then relax and let your HR come down (to about 120-130). keep your body guessing and you'll burn more cals!
  • chedges9090
    chedges9090 Posts: 208 Member
    Options
    You are getting lots of good advice. My personal trainer set up my HRM for me. We did what was called Heart Rate training.. and I needed to stay in that range to see the best calorie burn. He asked my age, weight.. and my resting HR to figure out that number. I was very very suprised at what level of excercise I needed to be at .. and stay at.. to get that calorie burn. I wish I could remember my numbers.. but, I don't. Also, I am on blood pressure medicine.. so, it skewed my numbers a little.

    However, you get the picture :) Good Luck
  • JamesBurkes
    JamesBurkes Posts: 382 Member
    Options
    I really think HRMs are only VERY broad guesstimates at best. I wore mine for an hour while typing at the computer and it said that if I had only typed for 24 hours I would have burned 7000 calories! Similarly, for an RPM (similar to spinning) class where my heart rate was very high (between 80 and 90%% for much of it, I was panting hard all the way through and was exhausted by the end), my HRM said I had burned 700 calories in 45 minutes whereas the bike computer said I had burned 550. Yet when I pedalled at an easy 65% of my max heart rate the next day, it said I had burned 600 for the same time period, and the bike said 450. They really are all over the place.

    In addition, some use algorithms which limit them - mine is based on heart rate, age, gender and weight but the algorithm it uses is based on "moderately fast running." My experiments with it seem to show that unless you are doing moderately fast running (or something similar, like a steady bike ride) it has real issues and conjures up all sorts of numbers - especially if the activity isn't constant or includes rests (such as weight training). After all, your heart rate isn't what is burning the calories - it is the supposed exertion it represents while you are supposedly using your body. If you are resting somewhere, your heart rate may be sky high but your calorie burn is actually quite low as all you are doing is leaning forward and gasping. I do a lot of things on the exercise bike, and the bike computer's numbers are consistently lower than the HRM, so I normally use the lower figure. (This is also why I don't think they are very good for measuring calories burned during interval training as they take no account of the rests, or the metabolic increase afterwards etc etc).

    Then again, 90 is very low for a body pump class - you'd burn a similar amount just watching TV! However, it also has to be said that 110 beats per minute is low for Body Pump, considering you're 29. Are you maybe just "going through the motions" a bit? It could be worth pushing yourself a bit more......
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    Options
    I really think HRMs are only VERY broad guesstimates at best. I wore mine for an hour while typing at the computer and it said that if I had only typed for 24 hours I would have burned 7000 calories! Similarly, for an RPM (similar to spinning) class where my heart rate was very high (between 80 and 90%% for much of it, I was panting hard all the way through and was exhausted by the end), my HRM said I had burned 700 calories in 45 minutes whereas the bike computer said I had burned 550. Yet when I pedalled at an easy 65% of my max heart rate the next day, it said I had burned 600 for the same time period, and the bike said 450. They really are all over the place.
    Most HRMs don't measure calorie burns very well if your heart rate isn't elevated. They aren't designed to. Sitting at a computer won't get you an accurate calorie burn, as a result. I think a better measure of an HRM's effectiveness is to run or walk for a mile. It's pretty standard that running above 4.5 MPH or walking below 4.5 MPH for one mile will burn around 100 calories. If your HRM is giving you a result around that number, it's doing a good job.

Categories