Heart Rate Dilemma

yes..mfp way over estimates calories burned..the hrm is probably more accurate.

Go with the heart rate monitor number but I wouldn't recommend using hers anymore because it will give you a wrong caloric burn. Most decent HRM require an initial setup of height/weight & sex....combining that with your heart rate gives you a pretty decent estimation of how many calories you're burning. So if her data is on on the HRM and you used it...well it gave you a burn based on her stats, not yours. Def get one of your own and use it for the spin class.

I love spin also btw, take it 3-4 times a week. According to my HRM I burn between 300-450 calories each session (depending on how hard I work)

OK...so I have a similar but opposite dilemma. I have a Timex Zone Trainer that I got today, so first time using it. I have to admit, that the number of things this thing can do is confusing - I have to sit down and do an in depth read of the manual - BUT on Sunday, I did a 50 minute C210K workout on my treadmill. My Nike+ estimated I burned 555 cals. I'm ok with that. Today, I did 35 minutes, but I compared the output of the Nike+ to my new HRM. Nike+ says 380 cals burned. HRM says - wait for it - 664 calories (!). Really? More than Nike+ estimated for my run that was 15 minutes longer? I don't know what to believe now. Oh and for what it's worth, I'm 5'6" and 186 lbs.

Help???

Kathy

for most monitors, you enter weight, height, gender, and age. So that could make a huge difference if you said you were a 120lb 5' 60 year old woman vs say, a 180lb 6' 25 year old man

If you borrow someone's HRM and do not reset the setup data, then it is worthless (unless the person is your twin).

For someone of your size, 700 calories of 45 min of hard cycling is not an unreasonable number. That being said, if you are going off a calorie table, the accuracy of that number will as much coincidence as anything else. Because of differences in terrain, wind, and cycling style, it is next to impossible to use a general formula that's good in all cases. Way back when I was in my Ex Phys program, this topic was addressed specifically. The prof gave us a formula for estimating the energy cost of outdoor cycling, but then said it was useless because of the factors I mentioned above.

So is there is a difference in calories burnt between a

265 pound man exercising for 45 mins at a heart rate of 165
125 pound woman exercising for 45 mins at a heart rate of 165
450 pound man exercising for 45 mins at a heart rate of 165

Have all these people burnt the same calories because they have exercised for the same amount of time with the same heart rate?

For determining workout intensity (and, from that, calorie expenditure) heart rate is a relative number, not an absolute number. The actual number itself is irrelevant--what is important is the "percentage of maximum" that heart rate represents. Saying "exercise heart rate is 165" is meaningless; what is meaningful is if that 165 represents 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, etc, of maximum.

For more detail: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/calories-burned-during-exercise-it-s-the-intensity-not-the-heart-rate-that-counts-26524

you probably didn't reset the data for the HRM, including specifying you are male. yes, most HRM do guees, but it is an educated guess based on a few different data points, including sex, weight, age, and heart rate

i'm 6' 3" 218lbs, and my last spinning session, i did 45 minutes and burned about 900 calories according to my HRM. i was dripping with sweat at the end of it, keeping my heart rate up the entire time.

How far did you ride? For cycling you are going to burn around 40 or 50 calories per mile.

Did you update her HRM with your information? If not, it thought it was tracking results for a woman who weighs a lot less than you! When you get your FT7 (got mine yesterday), you will set it up for your gender, weight, age, etc... and it will be far more accurate MFP is just a guesstimate, as it doesn't take into account your personal stats like heart rate. Best of luck, I think you'll really love the FT7!

Try this...

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

It factors in your gender, age and weight with your heart rate. It's supposed to be accurate.

Did you have to enter your gender, age and weight in the heart rate monitor? If not, it's only guessing.

You could try using this formula:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/73315-calculate-calories-burned-based-heart/

So is there is a difference in calories burnt between a

265 pound man exercising for 45 mins at a heart rate of 165
125 pound woman exercising for 45 mins at a heart rate of 165
450 pound man exercising for 45 mins at a heart rate of 165

Have all these people burnt the same calories because they have exercised for the same amount of time with the same heart rate?

It's not just a question of heart rate and time. It's a question of how much energy it takes to move mass. Think of it like this, if the 125lb woman represented a five pound dumbell when you lift it it's not super heavy so it take less energy to move. The 265 pound man represents a 25 pound dumbell it takes more energy/effort to move that and the 450 pound man represents a 50 pound dumbell which is even harder to move. If you do the same number of reps with each you use more energy to move the larger dumbells. I tend to beleive that MFP is on the high side, but not so much that it would derail you using their numbers. Good luck and good job on the workout.

So is there is a difference in calories burnt between a

265 pound man exercising for 45 mins at a heart rate of 165
125 pound woman exercising for 45 mins at a heart rate of 165
450 pound man exercising for 45 mins at a heart rate of 165

Have all these people burnt the same calories because they have exercised for the same amount of time with the same heart rate?

For determining workout intensity (and, from that, calorie expenditure) heart rate is a relative number, not an absolute number. The actual number itself is irrelevant--what is important is the "percentage of maximum" that heart rate represents. Saying "exercise heart rate is 165" is meaningless; what is meaningful is if that 165 represents 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, etc, of maximum.

For more detail: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/calories-burned-during-exercise-it-s-the-intensity-not-the-heart-rate-that-counts-26524

OK...so for my question, that makes more sense. Nike+ does not calculate in heart rate at all, so it is just calculating based on distance, time, weight, sex and age. What I found last night was that the workout I had been doing was WAY intense. I spent 25 of 35 minutes outside of my zone....most if it above the ceiling #. That tells me a few things. I need to scale my workouts back and slow down a bit - hard for me because I'm super competitive and slow feels....wrong....somehow - and that I've been underestimating up until now.

In the meantime, I don't want to overestimate caloric burn because I don't want to eat back too many calories. On the flip side, I also don't want to push into starvation mode by underestimating. I'm thinking about averaging the two numbers and using that. Thoughts?

Kathy

For an established, simpler activity such as running, speed is all you need to estimate work intensity and speed and weight are all you need to estimate calories. Gender, age, and heart rate are irrelevant--those factors are needed for HRM algorithms because HRMs cannot measure oxygen uptake nor can they measure calories.

Running is a basic aerobic activity that has been well-researched and the equations to estimate oxygen uptake (and thus, calories) are well-established. Research I have seen suggest that these equations will start to overestimate calories as speeds start to go above 6 mph. And, they do not take terrain (hills) and wind into account (not that wind makes a huge difference). So calculations such as Nike+ are probably going to overestimate running calories by about 10%-15%. HRMs are no more accurate and usually a little less accurate (for running).

Again, unless you know your actual maximum heart rate, you cannot say that a workout is "too intense". A balanced cardio program should include endurance workouts, medium tempo workouts, and high-intensity interval workouts. But you need to compare your HR numbers with your breathing. If you can speak in full sentences without a little effort but not a struggle, then you are working at a low to moderate pace, regardless of the heart rate.