My HRM just shat on all my calorie burning dreams...

Options
2»

Replies

  • thepetiterunner
    thepetiterunner Posts: 1,238 Member
    Options
    I actually never really used my Garmin for calorie counting during my outdoor runs - I just went to runnersworld.com and used their calculator. I thought it'd be similar, since doing inclines is harder than running flat.

    Do you know if this is accurate at all for other activities besides running (i.e. weight lifting or other cardio exercises)? Or maybe I should just invest in a Polar model.

    Does the runner's world site know how hard an effort was for you? Or just your pace and weight? Does it know gender and age even? Probably should have used HRM for comparison for a while.

    You should be able to import your data and see what it has been for many past workouts to compare.

    The HRM is more accurate than avg tables. Because someone exactly your size, age, but out of shape could have had a AHR of 180 trying to keep your pace (if they could really), and rightfully so, would have showed more calories burned.

    Yep, in shape now. Sounds about right.

    Bummer being efficient, huh.

    Totally logical. And yes, it is a bummer!

    Well, on the bright side, now that I'm out of my ignorant cloud, I can really start tracking calories accurately. At least there's a silver lining to all of this.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    For everyone speaking about inaccurate HRM's and your workouts, you really got share what your avg HR was on the effort you are believing was incorrect.
    Petiterunn shared her value during that workout so some ability for others to compare.
  • yeabby
    yeabby Posts: 643 Member
    Options
    That's about the difference I've always seen between the machine and my HRMs (I have both Garmin 405 and Polar F7).
  • brookepenni
    brookepenni Posts: 787 Member
    Options
    For everyone speaking about inaccurate HRM's and your workouts, you really got share what your avg HR was on the effort you are believing was incorrect.
    Petiterunn shared her value during that workout so some ability for others to compare.

    OK - my bike ride (RPM Class) still sticks in my mind as it was just yesterday.

    Resting heart rate is 59, my average was 152 and my max was 168 - 50mins. Im 30 years old, weigh 68.3kgs (150.3lbs) and Im 5 foot 2 I think (156cms).... Surely I burnt more than 170 measly calories!

    Makes sense though if the older Garmin's dont track calories burnt. I'd believe this more than I am just superfit and extremely efficient.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Resting heart rate is 59, my average was 152 and my max was 168 - 50mins. Im 30 years old, weigh 68.3kgs (150.3lbs) and Im 5 foot 2 I think (156cms).... Surely I burnt more than 170 measly calories!

    Makes sense though if the older Garmin's dont track calories burnt. I'd believe this more than I am just superfit and extremely efficient.

    The Garmin's that don't use HR would not have shown ANY calories burned unless you used a footpod to give it a sense of distance. Unless you kept running out to your car for something while it was on for a workout, and got a fix, and did that distance.

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

    This is not likely Garmin's formula, I'm sure they paid for a proprietary one (maybe no), but this has a good study behind it and good accuracy that matches what Polar ends up getting in studies.

    So I showed 492. Given that I don't know your VO2max value, which increases the accuracy if known. Should be about 23% accuracy.
    So possibly 392 to 605.

    BTW, I love the Garmin 305 for most things I do, and I just take the AHR to this site for better calorie estimate.
    I'm frightened by the cost of a Polar that could actually match all the things the Garmin can do that I love.

    So that workout data seems to be very off. I'd confirm it did not lose any of your stats, and shows that whole time.
  • april522
    april522 Posts: 388 Member
    Options
    I used to use a cheap HRM from Wal-Mart the first year and a half of going to the gym. It was the type that didn't even let you enter your gender or weight (just height). During 1 hour of aerobics, it would say I burned anywhere from 900 - 1100 calories, and the # it gave for 30 minutes of strength training was rather high as well.

    I finally got a Polar FT4, and it was depressing to see how much lower the numbers were. During aerobics now, I only burn 500-600 calories, so I'm thinking that's why I was so slow to loose weight beforehand. I wasn't burning as many calories as I thought I was, and I was eating most of those calories back.
  • whoosh1
    whoosh1 Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    For running, a good rule of thumb is 100 calories burned per mile.

    This is a good article about calories burned while running/walking: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
  • thepetiterunner
    thepetiterunner Posts: 1,238 Member
    Options
    For running, a good rule of thumb is 100 calories burned per mile.

    This is a good article about calories burned while running/walking: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

    I usually rely on Runner's World for my outdoor runs, but I know 100 cal/mile doesn't really apply to me because I'm so small and my level of fitness is pretty high at the moment. I wonder how it correlates to hills and treadmill versus being outside.
    BTW, I love the Garmin 305 for most things I do, and I just take the AHR to this site for better calorie estimate.
    I'm frightened by the cost of a Polar that could actually match all the things the Garmin can do that I love.

    This is how I feel! I really like my Garmin Forerunner for all my outdoor runs, but I'm worried buying a Polar won't be much of a difference. That said, I'd really like to have a way to accurately assess my cario workouts - not just runs, but also weight lifting, my Pilates class, any other classes I take, etc.
  • kdiamond
    kdiamond Posts: 3,329 Member
    Options
    Try interval training...here is an example of what I would do.

    2 min walk 4.0
    1 min jog 6.5
    30 seconds sprint 7.8 (or whatever sprint rate you would be at - I judge it by a 8 or 9 out of 10 on the scale of how hard it is)
    repeat until you get to 30 minutes

    You will burn a LOT more calories than just straight jogging.

    Edited to say: I am small like you (110 here) and it takes more of an "umph" to get your body burning more calories). It is definitely harder for smaller girls to burn a lot. We just don't have a lot to use!
  • jeffazi
    jeffazi Posts: 198
    Options
    I've always been told (by trainers and the others that run the gym that I belong to) that the calorie burning numbers on treadmills and elliptical machines are too high. I always cut that number back by 30% to 40%. I remember the first time I used an ellipitcal and did a 30 minute workout it said I had burned 400+ calories. I knew that couldn't be right. I see people on here all the time reporting astoundingly high calorie burning numbers on these machines and I'm very skeptical.

    My 2 cents. YMMV
  • laurajplus4
    laurajplus4 Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    This is all really great info!

    What about manually taking your pulse during/after a workout, then using a site that calculates calories burned? I started doing that after reading how inaccurate both the machines and mfp are at calories burned estimation, and found the actual number from manually checking to be quite close to the machines.

    I'm planning on getting an HRM, hopefully a polar, but for now manually calculating calorie burn seems to be working.... Unless people believe it to be just as inaccurate as the machines ;)

    For example: I am 5'7", weigh 153, and get an avg hr of 154, with a max between 168-170. According to this site, http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx I burn 302 calories doing 30 minutes on the treadmill. My treadmill says 300, and mfp says 335.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    This is all really great info!

    What about manually taking your pulse during/after a workout, then using a site that calculates calories burned? I started doing that after reading how inaccurate both the machines and mfp are at calories burned estimation, and found the actual number from manually checking to be quite close to the machines.

    I'm planning on getting an HRM, hopefully a polar, but for now manually calculating calorie burn seems to be working.... Unless people believe it to be just as inaccurate as the machines ;)

    For example: I am 5'7", weigh 153, and get an avg hr of 154, with a max between 168-170. According to this site, http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx I burn 302 calories doing 30 minutes on the treadmill. My treadmill says 300, and mfp says 335.

    If you are doing steady state cardio, just keeping the heart humming at a higher level, yes that can be decently accurate.

    And that site you reference is the same study formula from my site. I just don't like they prevent any results if you are not between certain values the study said must be taken into account. But I know my tested VO2max, but even though I enter it, they still go by age.

    And I also for about 30 min am pretty close match between HRM, treadmill, MFP, and that calculator.

    So good length of time. Shoot, if your treadmill has the HRM handles on them, spot checking from time to time can be good enough too.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Options
    Considering your weight, I'd definitely go with the HRM. 545 cals in 55 minutes at your weight is really high.
  • Crawflowr
    Crawflowr Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    I have the opposite problem (if it is a problem), My HRM always tells me I'm using a lot more calories than the treadmill (even though the treadmill is also hooked up to my polar HRM). In fact as a test I have kept my HRM running this afternoon after my exercise session. In the last hour and a half, sitting at my desk (only getting up once to walk 20 yards for a glass of water) I have used 472 calories (with my heart rate averaging 108 and peaking at 138). This is equivalent to using 320 calories an hour doing absolutely nothing which means I should be using around 7000 calories a day. How on earth did I ever get fat? I'm currently netting 1200 and to be honest my portion sizes don't feel that far adrift from what i used to eat when I was gaining weight.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I have the opposite problem (if it is a problem), My HRM always tells me I'm using a lot more calories than the treadmill (even though the treadmill is also hooked up to my polar HRM). In fact as a test I have kept my HRM running this afternoon after my exercise session. In the last hour and a half, sitting at my desk (only getting up once to walk 20 yards for a glass of water) I have used 472 calories (with my heart rate averaging 108 and peaking at 138). This is equivalent to using 320 calories an hour doing absolutely nothing which means I should be using around 7000 calories a day. How on earth did I ever get fat? I'm currently netting 1200 and to be honest my portion sizes don't feel that far adrift from what i used to eat when I was gaining weight.

    HRM's are known to not be accurate for anything outside the zone of 90-150 bpm. The calculations fall apart.

    So any would show that.

    The treadmill is NOT hooked up to your HRM, it is displaying the value received. Not used in any calculations.

    Not a problem your values would be different, even higher.

Categories