Question re: Heart Rate and Calories

clariangel
clariangel Posts: 156 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi there everyone. I always prefer to walk for my cardio exercises. Before I would just go into MFP and say I did 45 or whatever minutes of walking at 3.5 MPH. (I have an app on my phone that tells me how fast I'm going so I know that speed is accurate.) Now, normally, MFP says I burn about 226 calories doing 45 minutes of walking at that speed. But today, I bought a heart rate monitor with a chest strap. I made sure I set up everything correctly, so i feel confident that the device is working properly. However, I am just stunned at how many calories it said I burned on my walk today. I walked outside, a little hot today in my area, for 45 minutes. My heart rate monitor said I burned 803 calories. Could that possibly be right when MFP says I would burn only 226 calories?

My current weight is 216, I'm 5'5" tall, and I'm 31 years old.

Thanks in advance for any responses! Happy Saturday everyone!!

Replies

  • shaycat
    shaycat Posts: 980
    Today my HRM said I only burned 275 calories doing an hour of Insanity. MFP said 470
    So to me your HRM seems kind of high, but I dont seem to burn many calories for some reason.
  • clariangel
    clariangel Posts: 156 Member
    well, according to my HRM, i did spend most of my walk in the "aerobic zone", 75% -85% of maximum heart rate. So based on that info, I guess i can see how I burned so many calories. but still, I was shocked. so I'm just curious if this seems right to everyone.

    I would trust your HRM over what MFP says simply because the HRM knows exactly what's going on with my heart. But still, 803 calories for walking seems high.
  • clariangel
    clariangel Posts: 156 Member
    Bump
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    My guess is that the HRM is wrong and is giving you a high calorie burn as an artifact of a high heartrate due to not being in good aerobic condition right now. Walking at that speed you are not burning much more than 100 calories per mile.

    It is a good workout though and your heartrate should come down over time.
  • MereBear1985
    MereBear1985 Posts: 36 Member
    I think the thing to remember is that depending on your weight, height etc. you are going to burn a different number of calories. If you are 200lb and do 30 min of running you will burn more calories than if you were 150lb and do 30 min of running at the same speed. As you lose weight you have to work harder because you and your heart are in better shape.

    So, I would trust the hrm, if your heart is pumping hard then you are burning. Hope this helps.
  • kschr201
    kschr201 Posts: 208 Member
    I think it has a lot to do with physical condition. remember everything MFP uses are averages. I'm in the same boat as you. My HRM always reads higher than MFP (but not usually by that much) while others are lower. Keep up the good work. And as was said over time your HR will come down.
  • JoolieW68
    JoolieW68 Posts: 1,879 Member
    It might (might) be a smidge high, but I think it's probably pretty close.

    I burn 130-140 calories per mile when I power walk at 4.5 mph on a slight incline on my treadmill vs 108 calories per mile running 6-6.5mph with no incline. I weigh 161.
  • Sarahmeridith
    Sarahmeridith Posts: 298 Member
    That seems pretty high to me, I am also 216lbs and burn only about 200 calories for 20mins of zumba and a lot less walking
  • freezerburn2012
    freezerburn2012 Posts: 273 Member
    My guess is that the HRM is wrong and is giving you a high calorie burn as an artifact of a high heartrate due to not being in good aerobic condition right now. Walking at that speed you are not burning much more than 100 calories per mile.

    It is a good workout though and your heartrate should come down over time.

    ^^This
  • SPNLuver83
    SPNLuver83 Posts: 2,050 Member
    I would trust the HRM, but if you are weary you could split the difference just in case.
  • TheFunBun
    TheFunBun Posts: 793 Member
    Did you wet the leads on the chest strap? I find if I don't wet my leads that my heartrate is read higher, and then my calorie burn is higher.

    Another note is that you're pretty short, so I bet you're taking a lot more strides than those of us with longer legs, so I bet you are working harder than the average. I'd believe it if you really are busting your behind at a high perceived intensity. :)
  • dianacannon89
    dianacannon89 Posts: 235 Member
    My guess is that the HRM is wrong and is giving you a high calorie burn as an artifact of a high heartrate due to not being in good aerobic condition right now. Walking at that speed you are not burning much more than 100 calories per mile.

    It is a good workout though and your heartrate should come down over time.

    ^^This

    Does this mean if the heart rate is high bc of being in bad shape that Im not buring the same amount of calories as I would if my heart rate was the same but if I was in good shape? Therefore making my readings wrong?

    I thought how fast your heart is pumping regardless of shape was how to determine how many calories you burned?
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    My guess is that the HRM is wrong and is giving you a high calorie burn as an artifact of a high heartrate due to not being in good aerobic condition right now. Walking at that speed you are not burning much more than 100 calories per mile.

    It is a good workout though and your heartrate should come down over time.

    ^^This

    Does this mean if the heart rate is high bc of being in bad shape that Im not buring the same amount of calories as I would if my heart rate was the same but if I was in good shape? Therefore making my readings wrong?

    I thought how fast your heart is pumping regardless of shape was how to determine how many calories you burned?
    My understanding is that calories are burned by the amount of work the muscles are doing. So, to take running as an example, the muscles doing the work are the legs and the work they do to move you at 8:00 min/mi is about the same whether you are in shape or not. Since the work is about the same the calorie burn is about the same also. The difference would be that if you were out of shape this workload would be painful and you couldn't keep doing it for very long while if you were in shape this workload would be much easier and you could continue for a long time.
  • dianacannon89
    dianacannon89 Posts: 235 Member
    My guess is that the HRM is wrong and is giving you a high calorie burn as an artifact of a high heartrate due to not being in good aerobic condition right now. Walking at that speed you are not burning much more than 100 calories per mile.

    It is a good workout though and your heartrate should come down over time.

    ^^This

    Does this mean if the heart rate is high bc of being in bad shape that Im not buring the same amount of calories as I would if my heart rate was the same but if I was in good shape? Therefore making my readings wrong?

    I thought how fast your heart is pumping regardless of shape was how to determine how many calories you burned?
    My understanding is that calories are burned by the amount of work the muscles are doing. So, to take running as an example, the muscles doing the work are the legs and the work they do to move you at 8:00 min/mi is about the same whether you are in shape or not. Since the work is about the same the calorie burn is about the same also. The difference would be that if you were out of shape this workload would be painful and you couldn't keep doing it for very long while if you were in shape this workload would be much easier and you could continue for a long time.

    I see so I should get my healthy BMI friends to wear my band and see what they burn at my pace and that way I will know better where to start guessing as far as my calories burned are?
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    My guess is that the HRM is wrong and is giving you a high calorie burn as an artifact of a high heartrate due to not being in good aerobic condition right now. Walking at that speed you are not burning much more than 100 calories per mile.

    It is a good workout though and your heartrate should come down over time.

    ^^This

    Does this mean if the heart rate is high bc of being in bad shape that Im not buring the same amount of calories as I would if my heart rate was the same but if I was in good shape? Therefore making my readings wrong?

    I thought how fast your heart is pumping regardless of shape was how to determine how many calories you burned?
    My understanding is that calories are burned by the amount of work the muscles are doing. So, to take running as an example, the muscles doing the work are the legs and the work they do to move you at 8:00 min/mi is about the same whether you are in shape or not. Since the work is about the same the calorie burn is about the same also. The difference would be that if you were out of shape this workload would be painful and you couldn't keep doing it for very long while if you were in shape this workload would be much easier and you could continue for a long time.

    I see so I should get my healthy BMI friends to wear my band and see what they burn at my pace and that way I will know better where to start guessing as far as my calories burned are?
    Only if they weigh the same as you do now. The work done is depenent on the body weight. How hard that work feels is dependent on your fitness. A very fit person can do a lot of work and burn a lot of calories at a relatively low perceived effort. That's one reason that very fit runners can remain at a low bodyfat level and eat a tremendous amount of food.
  • twilighttabby
    twilighttabby Posts: 50 Member
    That does seem very high to me. I have a polar F4 with a chest strip and I am 5'7" at 246lbs. When I power walk about 3.5mph I burn around 300 to 400 calories. And that is with my HR being in the burning zone for 55 mins of that hour.What kind of HRM do you have?Oh and I am 31 too..
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Hi there everyone. I always prefer to walk for my cardio exercises. Before I would just go into MFP and say I did 45 or whatever minutes of walking at 3.5 MPH. (I have an app on my phone that tells me how fast I'm going so I know that speed is accurate.) Now, normally, MFP says I burn about 226 calories doing 45 minutes of walking at that speed. But today, I bought a heart rate monitor with a chest strap. I made sure I set up everything correctly, so i feel confident that the device is working properly. However, I am just stunned at how many calories it said I burned on my walk today. I walked outside, a little hot today in my area, for 45 minutes. My heart rate monitor said I burned 803 calories. Could that possibly be right when MFP says I would burn only 226 calories?

    My current weight is 216, I'm 5'5" tall, and I'm 31 years old.

    Thanks in advance for any responses! Happy Saturday everyone!!

    I don't exactly the reason, but I can tell you that the 803 number is at least 300% too high. At your weight and speed, your 45 min calorie burn is about 275.

    HRMs are not magic objects. They don't measure anything except heart rate. Any other number (e.g. calories) is an estimate based on a number of factors, including the setup. If any of those is off, it affects the accuracy of the estimate--in your case by a huge amount.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    well, according to my HRM, i did spend most of my walk in the "aerobic zone", 75% -85% of maximum heart rate. So based on that info, I guess i can see how I burned so many calories. but still, I was shocked. so I'm just curious if this seems right to everyone.

    I would trust your HRM over what MFP says simply because the HRM knows exactly what's going on with my heart. But still, 803 calories for walking seems high.

    The HRM can count beats, but other than that, it doesn't "know" anything. You could strap it to a fence post, figure out a way to transmit a signal and it would say the fence post was burning 1000 calories and hour.
  • ahubbard134
    ahubbard134 Posts: 61 Member
    My understanding is that calories are burned by the amount of work the muscles are doing.

    heart = muscle

    so no, it doesn't make sense that you would burn the same amount of calories as another person of equal weight going the same speed with a lower heart rate. Of course you will burn more than them.

    If I were you, I would trust the HRM, but not eat all the calories back for a few weeks to gauge results
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    During exercise the calories burned by the heart and lungs are trivial compared to the calories burned by the contractions of skeletal muscle, (the legs).

    Ref: http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/caloricexp.html
  • meshashesha2012
    meshashesha2012 Posts: 8,329 Member
    you might also want to do the fitness test if your HRM has that option, that will also affect the number of calories it says you're burning since your resting heart rate will also be a factor in determining your ranges.

    i'd also think the HRM was giving you a higher calorie burn than true
  • greenskpr
    greenskpr Posts: 11 Member
    Kudos for using a hrm. MFP numbers can be squirrely sometimes. I double check food and exercise numbers.
    Try your own calculations as to what your sustained bpm is burning.
    BPM to calorie burn calculator here:

    http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Most important question, what kind of HRM is it? If its a Timex, then disregard it and return it asap.. cause that type of burn sounds really over inflated.

    Personally I would use MFP for now until you get the HRM sorted out.
  • kcoftx
    kcoftx Posts: 765 Member
    Have you looked at your maximum heart rate? Mine is higher than what is programmed. I had to find figure that out first and change it. That changed my calculations.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    My understanding is that calories are burned by the amount of work the muscles are doing.

    heart = muscle

    so no, it doesn't make sense that you would burn the same amount of calories as another person of equal weight going the same speed with a lower heart rate. Of course you will burn more than them.

    If I were you, I would trust the HRM, but not eat all the calories back for a few weeks to gauge results

    The heart is not a "muscle" in the traditional sense. Cardiac muscle is unique in that it has characteristics of both smooth muscle and striated muscle.

    Furthermore, the actual amount of cardiac muscle is so small, the actual work performed by the heart itself has no effect on overall calorie expenditure.

    When it comes to calories burned, heart rate by itself means nothing. Two people of the same weight running 6.0 mph will burn essentially the same number of calories, regardless of heart rate.

Categories