Resting heart rate of 44 and calorie burn

Hey Yall!
I've recently gotten my resting heart rate down to 44, does that mean it's going to be a lot harder for me to burn calories during my workouts? If so that really sucks, Im doing Insanity right now and training for my first half marathon in May. I really want to be 130lbs so I would have to lose 6 more pounds, but is that going to be possible now.
Thanks Jess

Replies

  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    When you've gotten in shape you just have to run faster to get the heart rate up to the same point it was before. But that is the point of getting into shape for a race.
  • jayessica
    jayessica Posts: 12 Member
    bump
  • katie133
    katie133 Posts: 210 Member
    yes as the above poster said, now you will have to work harder, or run faster to get your heart rate up to where it was before..
  • katie133
    katie133 Posts: 210 Member
    the more in shape i get, the lower and lower my calorie burns from doing the same work out, and the lower my heart rate gets.. i just have to push harder
  • tjsusong
    tjsusong Posts: 195 Member
    As you get stronger you'll have to work harder to elevate your heart rate. That's a really low resting heart rate, where are you when your just walking around the house doing mundane tasks?
  • jayessica
    jayessica Posts: 12 Member
    Thanks yall! tjsusong: just doing normal things during the day it probably goes to 60s-70s. I run and started doing Insanity before that I did Slim in 6 but i've always been an athlete and in shape until I had my daughters. I guess ill have to start pushing myself harder. I start at a gym next week, got a great deal of $6 a month at a brand new gym :) Maybe ill get with a personal trainer and see what I can do.
  • chevy88grl
    chevy88grl Posts: 3,937 Member
    the more in shape i get, the lower and lower my calorie burns from doing the same work out, and the lower my heart rate gets.. i just have to push harder

    This!

    The things that used to get my heart rate up? Well, they don't work anymore. I used to be able to get it up while walking at 3.5 and now? Well, it requires me to be lightly jogging at 4.2 to get it up. And my calorie burns are so much lower than they used to be. I wish I could be my size and burn 800 or more calories on the treadmill again.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Hey Yall!
    I've recently gotten my resting heart rate down to 44, does that mean it's going to be a lot harder for me to burn calories during my workouts? If so that really sucks, Im doing Insanity right now and training for my first half marathon in May. I really want to be 130lbs so I would have to lose 6 more pounds, but is that going to be possible now.
    Thanks Jess

    No--not unless you run slower.

    Your resting heart rate, per se, does not affect your calorie burn in any way.

    The amount of calories your burn during exercise is affected by the [absolute intensity of exercise] and [body weight]. So, if you are working at the same intensity (e.g. running 6 mph) and body weight is the same, your calorie burn at that workload will be roughly the same. Your heart rate may be lower at that absolute workload (6 mph) because of an increased fitness level and resulting lower resting heart rate, but your calorie burn will be the same.

    Heart rate is a "relative" indicator of intensity. By that I mean that heart rate reflects the "percentage of maximum" at which you are working. It doesn't tell you what workload that percentage represents. Maximum heart rate doesn't really change with exercise training. An exercise heart rate of 150 might represent 80% of one's maximum. After training, that 150 heart rate will still be roughly 80% of one's maximum. The difference is that, with training, one's maximum aerobic fitness level increases, so now one can work HARDER at an 80% maximum heart rate than before--e.g. now one might have to run at 6.5 mph to achieve an 80% heart rate effort, instead of 6.0 mph.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    the more in shape i get, the lower and lower my calorie burns from doing the same work out, and the lower my heart rate gets.. i just have to push harder

    If you are doing an unstructured workout, like a class or circuit training, it might be that, with an increased fitness level, you are not pushing yourself as hard in the movements. However, the lowered heart rate does not, by itself, mean you are burning fewer calories.

    In any case, pushing harder is usually a good thing.
  • aquasw16
    aquasw16 Posts: 342 Member
    Well I guess my first question is, How did you get your heart rate down to 44? What did it used to be?
  • katie133
    katie133 Posts: 210 Member
    the more in shape i get, the lower and lower my calorie burns from doing the same work out, and the lower my heart rate gets.. i just have to push harder

    If you are doing an unstructured workout, like a class or circuit training, it might be that, with an increased fitness level, you are not pushing yourself as hard in the movements. However, the lowered heart rate does not, by itself, mean you are burning fewer calories.

    In any case, pushing harder is usually a good thing.

    lol well according to my heart rate monitor it does, and i follow that

    also, i dont do fitness classes, i run, which is why i posted in this
  • LethaSue
    LethaSue Posts: 285 Member
    Well I thought it was bad to have a below normal heart rate. Mine showed 53 at the drs office once and I thought the nurse was going to stroke out over it being too low.
  • trac3
    trac3 Posts: 134 Member
    Hey Yall!
    I've recently gotten my resting heart rate down to 44, does that mean it's going to be a lot harder for me to burn calories during my workouts? If so that really sucks, Im doing Insanity right now and training for my first half marathon in May. I really want to be 130lbs so I would have to lose 6 more pounds, but is that going to be possible now.
    Thanks Jess

    No--not unless you run slower.

    Your resting heart rate, per se, does not affect your calorie burn in any way.

    The amount of calories your burn during exercise is affected by the [absolute intensity of exercise] and [body weight]. So, if you are working at the same intensity (e.g. running 6 mph) and body weight is the same, your calorie burn at that workload will be roughly the same. Your heart rate may be lower at that absolute workload (6 mph) because of an increased fitness level and resulting lower resting heart rate, but your calorie burn will be the same.

    Heart rate is a "relative" indicator of intensity. By that I mean that heart rate reflects the "percentage of maximum" at which you are working. It doesn't tell you what workload that percentage represents. Maximum heart rate doesn't really change with exercise training. An exercise heart rate of 150 might represent 80% of one's maximum. After training, that 150 heart rate will still be roughly 80% of one's maximum. The difference is that, with training, one's maximum aerobic fitness level increases, so now one can work HARDER at an 80% maximum heart rate than before--e.g. now one might have to run at 6.5 mph to achieve an 80% heart rate effort, instead of 6.0 mph.


    ^^^^^^^This!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


    This biggest difference (I've found) in improving my fitness is my heart rate recovery time between intervals or post exercise.
  • jayessica
    jayessica Posts: 12 Member
    When I started running over a year ago it was 80s and since then I definitely run more weekly and I exercise daily (Insanity, Slim in 6, weight training), I was very surprised when I took it in the morning and it was that low. But that just shows that Im doing something right because the fitter you get the lower its supposed to go :) And I definitely feel fitter.
  • aquasw16
    aquasw16 Posts: 342 Member
    Ok. As long as it is not that low from taking a medication. It is ok to be that low if it is because you are FIT. But if you are on any medication that regulates blood pressure/heart rate I would advise your doctor. Some people say that having a lower heart rate makes it a bit more challenging to burn calories....But just stay active as you are and you will be fine!
  • jayessica
    jayessica Posts: 12 Member
    aquasw16: No im not on any medication, just fit I guess :) After I do my run today I'll be able to gage if my calories burned is the same, hopefully it will be but I will push harder if I have to . I guess sometimes we have to get out of our comfort zones to see the changes :)
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Well I thought it was bad to have a below normal heart rate. Mine showed 53 at the drs office once and I thought the nurse was going to stroke out over it being too low.

    A lot of medical people don't have much experience with athletically-conditioned people who still look like average folks. And they often don't know any more exercise physiology than a "lay" person. So, the nurse's reaction doesn't surprise me.
  • kthotwater
    kthotwater Posts: 1 Member
    I have a HR of 44 as well. I have worn a HR monitor off and on for years and it does matter b/c you do burn less calories when your heart is in better shape. Try changing up your routine. Instead of just running straight for an hour, do some interval workouts in between. You'll just get in more and more shape ;) Just be glad your scale hasn't gone up!!
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I have a HR of 44 as well. I have worn a HR monitor off and on for years and it does matter b/c you do burn less calories when your heart is in better shape. Try changing up your routine. Instead of just running straight for an hour, do some interval workouts in between. You'll just get in more and more shape ;) Just be glad your scale hasn't gone up!!

    No you don't--the HRM calorie display is lower because the settings are out of date and the HRM does not know your fitness level has increased. If you are working at the same workload and weight has not changed, you are still burning essentially the same number of calories.
  • momofJandA
    momofJandA Posts: 1,035 Member
    Well I thought it was bad to have a below normal heart rate. Mine showed 53 at the drs office once and I thought the nurse was going to stroke out over it being too low.

    I love when the person taking my heart rate says "You must be a runner" (which I am)!!!!! My resting HR is around 45
  • 44 Beats per minute is astonishing!
  • TBH I don't understand how HR really works in the sense of burning calories. I don't get how someone who has a higher heart rate due to genetics or medication or something automatically burns more calories or someone who has a lower HR burns less. But caffeine is a stimulant and that will automatically raise your HR. My medication raises my HR so my HRM automatically displays higher calories burns when I run on day I take my medication, I've always wondered why I burn more calories on days my HR is higher at rest, even tho I'm doing the same level of cardio as the days I don't take it. I feel like HR can kind of be subjective as far as calorie burns. But again I have no medical knowledge. I guess you could try drinking a coffee before your work out, it should raise your HR at bit and I guess in theory that means you'll burn more calories?
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    A higher HR =/= higher calorie burn. HRM's use an assumption that you are working at X% of capacity based on where your HR is relative to max HR. But, it is just an estimate, the real determinant of caloric burn is oxygen uptake durning exercise, which most HRM's just give a generic estimate, but the more fit you are the more oxygen you can take in with a lower HR, so that is an issue with HRM's that don't allow you to input your "real" V02Max.

    The real caloric burn is based on amount of work performed (duration, weighed, speed, distance, etc) HR is just used as an estimate and in most cases if pretty accurate, but the more fit you are the more likely it will be to under estimate your burn, but for unfit it may be more likely to over estimate your burn.
  • willtrainforchocolate
    willtrainforchocolate Posts: 38 Member
    Mine is naturally 40bpm and always has been. I have a heart murmur too. My cal burns can be really low. It doesn't matter as I benefit in loads of other ways as well.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    It's not your actual heart rate that determines your calorie burn...your heart rate is used in the equation to estimate your level of exertion and capacity of VO2 max during an aerobic activity. Also, the more fit you are, the less reliable a HRM is in RE to your estimated calorie burn because you've improved your VO2 max and most HRM's assume the average Joe/Jane.
  • harlanJEN
    harlanJEN Posts: 1,089 Member
    My resting heart-rate is also low - on average - 48. I'm 49 years old so I'm totally HAPPY with my fitness level.

    In regard to your concern about "burning less calories", let me offer this:

    Shift your focus, your thought pattern about this. Your goal for workouts should be about fitness and what it does for your body relative to body composition vs. how many calories it burns. Fitness and body composition is TOTALLY where it's at. If we workout with the goal of "burning cals" - what is our true goal? Workout to eat more? Workout to lose WEIGHT? Losing weight in and of itself is often meaningless, especially when we are already fairly lean and we are aiming to get sleeker. Losing WEIGHT doesn't necessarily get us SLEEKER. Changing our body composition is what will get us to SLEEK.

    If you are in the homestretch and seeking to lose 6 pounds, then I challenge you to take a look at your goals and shift your focus away from losing weight to changing your body composition. Losing fat, gaining/developing lean body mass (muscle). You may even "gain" weight on the scale, but will be SMALLER and sleeker.

    I'm in the homestretch with a final "10 pounds" to lose. However, that goal isn't the true goal. My true goal is to lose additional body fat and to be smaller / SLEEKER. That may or may not extrapolate to 10 pounds of scale loss.

    I'm eating slightly below my TDEE of 2200 and am training with focused intensity - strength training. and YES, my cardio fitness is almost entirely due to strength training. I do very little "formal" cardio. My strength training is cardio in nature. I lift heavy and I frequently lift circuit style. My other primary exercise is walking and increasing my overall NEAT.

    Good luck ! and CONGRATS on that resting heart rate : )

    Jen
  • jaygreen55
    jaygreen55 Posts: 315 Member
    Most people don't relize that there's not a direct association between heart rate and calorie burn. HRMs measure your heart rate but the calorie number is just an estimate based on formulas. As you get fitter your heart gets stronger and delivers more blood volume with every beat so even though your heart rate is lower you are still burning the same amount of calories.

    If you get one of the higher end polar HRM (FT 40,60 or 80) there is a fitness test and a way to enter your VO2 max. I have 2 and one gives me a fitness level of 47 and tells me I burn 750 calories per hour at 80 percent of my heart rate. The other gives me a fitness level of 51 and tells me I burn 850 calories per hour at the same level of effort (I have worn them both simultaneously several times ) I don't kno which monitor is right but the higher number seems unrealistic to me
  • zlauerMom
    zlauerMom Posts: 183 Member
    When I was training for a marathon I used my Garmin HR monitor with GPS. When I started out my resting HR was about 68 bpm. If I did a run around a nearby pond I burned about 580 calories. As I got further along in my training my resting HR was about 48 bpm. If I did a run around a that same pond I burned about 580 calories. What changed was the second time I might have completed the run faster than the first. So I burned more calories over time. But calorie burn for the same distance, nothing changed.

    Your heart is more efficient at getting blood where it needs to be. Your body is still doing roughly the same amount of work.
  • pjgreen0830
    pjgreen0830 Posts: 302 Member
    Well I thought it was bad to have a below normal heart rate. Mine showed 53 at the drs office once and I thought the nurse was going to stroke out over it being too low.

    A lot of medical people don't have much experience with athletically-conditioned people who still look like average folks. And they often don't know any more exercise physiology than a "lay" person. So, the nurse's reaction doesn't surprise me.
    I had a resting rate of 51 while at the cardiologist office. I am 55, weighing 229 at the time a couple of weeks ago. Both the nurse and the doctor thought there was something wrong with me. How funny, today it was running at 46 while they were working on me and I've only lost 2 pounds. I do believe rate has more to do with how fit your heart is than weight.