Does HRM calorie count include BMR?

dengarrett
dengarrett Posts: 367
edited September 24 in Fitness and Exercise
When my FT7 tells me how many calories I have burned, does that include what my BMR calories would be during that time of day? If it does, then that sucks because some of the calories burned I have been entering into MFP have been double counted as both burned during exercise and as part of my BMR.

Then that leads me to wonder about other things that tell me calories burned - such as MFP itself which tells me calories burned for various activies.

Also - the following WII games:

WII Fit Plus
WII Active Sports
WII Active Sports 2
My Recumbent Bike

That last one is most interesting to me regarding this question because my bike has consistently shown a lower calorie burn count than all other sources. Makes me wonder if it excludes my BMR calories and the others include them.

Replies

  • rowennahathaway
    rowennahathaway Posts: 15
    I am curious to hear the answers to this question too. I also noticed that my recumbent bike always has much lower calorie counts than what gets input to MFP!
  • Kate_UK
    Kate_UK Posts: 1,299 Member
    I always deduct my BMR cals from my HRM total before entering it, I don't know if the FT7 does it automatically or not though.
  • JimHeid
    JimHeid Posts: 42 Member
    As a rule you need to subtract the calories that you would have burned anyway as a part of just living. When I do 30 mins of exercise i subtract 35 calories. My NordicTrack recumbent bike always showed many fewer calories than my TIMEX HRM. What matters is a consistent method of recording... I have adopted the HRM as my standard and am watching how weight, calories burned and exercise play out. Hope this helps.
  • EHuntRN
    EHuntRN Posts: 320 Member
    My HRM says it is for the excercise cals..so I'm assuming thatsb all its giving me my cals burned for..which it seems accurate for a 60 min zumba class Walmart calorie counter says 699 nd my HRM read 632...so I don't think BMR is included!!
  • rowennahathaway
    rowennahathaway Posts: 15
    As a rule you need to subtract the calories that you would have burned anyway as a part of just living. When I do 30 mins of exercise i subtract 35 calories. My NordicTrack recumbent bike always showed many fewer calories than my TIMEX HRM. What matters is a consistent method of recording... I have adopted the HRM as my standard and am watching how weight, calories burned and exercise play out. Hope this helps.

    But what about what MFP enters for you?? Does this go to just being consistent and always using their system to record my exercises?
  • dengarrett
    dengarrett Posts: 367
    Ok - other web sites are leading me to a lot of questions - as I get more fit, I am able to do the same exercises with a lower heart rate. Does that mean the calories burned is lower?
  • JimHeid
    JimHeid Posts: 42 Member
    I mostly don't use the MFP estimates now that I have the HRM.
  • EmilyJ1979
    EmilyJ1979 Posts: 144 Member
    Mine only starts tracking when my HR goes over 100.
  • hpsnickers1
    hpsnickers1 Posts: 2,783 Member
    Ok - other web sites are leading me to a lot of questions - as I get more fit, I am able to do the same exercises with a lower heart rate. Does that mean the calories burned is lower?

    I hate to say this but yes. I truly hate having to change my weight in my HRM. But it's a good thing that your heart is working more efficiently (just keep saying that over and over. :wink: )
  • JimHeid
    JimHeid Posts: 42 Member
    This guy seems to know about HRMs and related questions. Worth a read:
    www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
  • dengarrett
    dengarrett Posts: 367
    Ok - other web sites are leading me to a lot of questions - as I get more fit, I am able to do the same exercises with a lower heart rate. Does that mean the calories burned is lower?

    I hate to say this but yes. I truly hate having to change my weight in my HRM. But it's a good thing that your heart is working more efficiently (just keep saying that over and over. :wink: )

    Even at the same weight you can get more fit and do the same exercises at a lower heart rate. There is no way to tell any machine how efficient your oxygen transfer rate is becoming. It all just leads me to believe that heart rate alone cannot accurately determine my calories burned.

    This is a different question than my original post though. For that, I am going to start deducting my BMR from my exercise by doing the following:

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    Ok - other web sites are leading me to a lot of questions - as I get more fit, I am able to do the same exercises with a lower heart rate. Does that mean the calories burned is lower?

    I hate to say this but yes. I truly hate having to change my weight in my HRM. But it's a good thing that your heart is working more efficiently (just keep saying that over and over. :wink: )

    Even at the same weight you can get more fit and do the same exercises at a lower heart rate. There is no way to tell any machine how efficient your oxygen transfer rate is becoming. It all just leads me to believe that heart rate alone cannot accurately determine my calories burned.

    This is a different question than my original post though. For that, I am going to start deducting my BMR from my exercise by doing the following:

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)
    That is good but it shoul be:
    Calories = HR Calories - (maintenance / 1440 * exercise minutes), as if you didn't exersie you wouldn't be in coma (bmr cals) you would do something else (maintenance cals) this will add 0.1 to 0.75 cals/min above BMR and would be more accurate.
  • dengarrett
    dengarrett Posts: 367
    Ok - other web sites are leading me to a lot of questions - as I get more fit, I am able to do the same exercises with a lower heart rate. Does that mean the calories burned is lower?

    I hate to say this but yes. I truly hate having to change my weight in my HRM. But it's a good thing that your heart is working more efficiently (just keep saying that over and over. :wink: )

    Even at the same weight you can get more fit and do the same exercises at a lower heart rate. There is no way to tell any machine how efficient your oxygen transfer rate is becoming. It all just leads me to believe that heart rate alone cannot accurately determine my calories burned.

    This is a different question than my original post though. For that, I am going to start deducting my BMR from my exercise by doing the following:

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)
    That is good but it shoul be:
    Calories = HR Calories - (maintenance / 1440 * exercise minutes), as if you didn't exersie you wouldn't be in coma (bmr cals) you would do something else (maintenance cals) this will add 0.1 to 0.75 cals/min above BMR and would be more accurate.

    So most conservative we could get with a HRM should be

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR * .75 / 1440 * exercise minutes)

    I'm still reading about HRM in general - the blog referenced by JimHeid is good.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    Ok - other web sites are leading me to a lot of questions - as I get more fit, I am able to do the same exercises with a lower heart rate. Does that mean the calories burned is lower?

    I hate to say this but yes. I truly hate having to change my weight in my HRM. But it's a good thing that your heart is working more efficiently (just keep saying that over and over. :wink: )

    Even at the same weight you can get more fit and do the same exercises at a lower heart rate. There is no way to tell any machine how efficient your oxygen transfer rate is becoming. It all just leads me to believe that heart rate alone cannot accurately determine my calories burned.

    This is a different question than my original post though. For that, I am going to start deducting my BMR from my exercise by doing the following:

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)
    That is good but it shoul be:
    Calories = HR Calories - (maintenance / 1440 * exercise minutes), as if you didn't exersie you wouldn't be in coma (bmr cals) you would do something else (maintenance cals) this will add 0.1 to 0.75 cals/min above BMR and would be more accurate.

    So most conservative we could get with a HRM should be

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR * .75 / 1440 * exercise minutes)

    I'm still reading about HRM in general - the blog referenced by JimHeid is good.

    Actually the most conservative, and correct way, is to take away maintenance cals, this will give you the least amount of calories burned through exercise. As taking 75% of BMR away is much smaller than maintenance hence it is less conservative.
  • dengarrett
    dengarrett Posts: 367
    Ok - other web sites are leading me to a lot of questions - as I get more fit, I am able to do the same exercises with a lower heart rate. Does that mean the calories burned is lower?

    I hate to say this but yes. I truly hate having to change my weight in my HRM. But it's a good thing that your heart is working more efficiently (just keep saying that over and over. :wink: )

    Even at the same weight you can get more fit and do the same exercises at a lower heart rate. There is no way to tell any machine how efficient your oxygen transfer rate is becoming. It all just leads me to believe that heart rate alone cannot accurately determine my calories burned.

    This is a different question than my original post though. For that, I am going to start deducting my BMR from my exercise by doing the following:

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)
    That is good but it shoul be:
    Calories = HR Calories - (maintenance / 1440 * exercise minutes), as if you didn't exersie you wouldn't be in coma (bmr cals) you would do something else (maintenance cals) this will add 0.1 to 0.75 cals/min above BMR and would be more accurate.

    So most conservative we could get with a HRM should be

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR * .75 / 1440 * exercise minutes)

    I'm still reading about HRM in general - the blog referenced by JimHeid is good.

    Actually the most conservative, and correct way, is to take away maintenance cals, this will give you the least amount of calories burned through exercise. As taking 75% of BMR away is much smaller than maintenance hence it is less conservative.

    Yeah I really don't know what I was thinking about 75%. The formula I am using now is below - does this make sense to you?

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)
  • Marmalina
    Marmalina Posts: 35
    where is the 1440 coming from?
  • Marmalina
    Marmalina Posts: 35
    OOOHH minutes in a day! yes yesss. i like this equation:)
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    Ok - other web sites are leading me to a lot of questions - as I get more fit, I am able to do the same exercises with a lower heart rate. Does that mean the calories burned is lower?

    I hate to say this but yes. I truly hate having to change my weight in my HRM. But it's a good thing that your heart is working more efficiently (just keep saying that over and over. :wink: )

    Even at the same weight you can get more fit and do the same exercises at a lower heart rate. There is no way to tell any machine how efficient your oxygen transfer rate is becoming. It all just leads me to believe that heart rate alone cannot accurately determine my calories burned.

    This is a different question than my original post though. For that, I am going to start deducting my BMR from my exercise by doing the following:

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)
    That is good but it shoul be:
    Calories = HR Calories - (maintenance / 1440 * exercise minutes), as if you didn't exersie you wouldn't be in coma (bmr cals) you would do something else (maintenance cals) this will add 0.1 to 0.75 cals/min above BMR and would be more accurate.

    So most conservative we could get with a HRM should be

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR * .75 / 1440 * exercise minutes)

    I'm still reading about HRM in general - the blog referenced by JimHeid is good.

    Actually the most conservative, and correct way, is to take away maintenance cals, this will give you the least amount of calories burned through exercise. As taking 75% of BMR away is much smaller than maintenance hence it is less conservative.

    Yeah I really don't know what I was thinking about 75%. The formula I am using now is below - does this make sense to you?

    Calories = HR Calories - (BMR / 1440 * exercise minutes)

    Still no, should be Calories = HR cals - (maintenance/1440*exercise minutes)

    Again, if you did not exercise you would be doing something, walking sitting, etc. which burns more than BMR and is already account for in your MFP calorie allowance. Maintenance not BMR should be backed out, this would also make your calories burned the smallest as maintenance is > BMR so you would be backing out a larger #.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories