Is it me, or my HRM, or only me pretending?

Options
24

Replies

  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,616 Member
    Options
    Well make sure it's set up correctly with your age and weight.

    Weight training doesn't burn that much calories during training. For me resistance is about 125 calories for 20-30mins and I am big and lift heavy.

    There is also no point in doing workouts that long.You're just eating away at your muscles, if you don't consume enough calories, and I doubt you do a workout like this infrequently. You probably do it often.

    I currently weigh about 297, if I do low intensity cardio, i burn about 500 calories in a hour... You probably weigh less than half of what I do. So your calorie burn for low intensity cardio might be around 200-250 calories.

    This is about 250 + 250 = 500 calories. As I said i doubt you lift as heavy as i do, so it would be less than what i burn.

    Well, firstly, she didn't really ask how long her workouts should be, so that falls into the 'unsolicited advice' category.

    Secondly, while we're impressed by how much you lift, how is that and a comment about low intensity cardio relevant to a query that includes a really low average burn for *running*? Running is rarely 'low intensity', in my experience. Sure, your logic might hold for the gym activity, but it doesn't make sense of the running data.


    And It's the running burn that has me puzzled. I have very light, fit friends, who on average burn at least 600 cals an hour for running. That burn simply doesn't look right. OP - what sort of speed are you running? My average heart rate has been consistently in the upper 140s right the way through my running experience, and most of my female friends seem to average similar or higher. 120 is more like what I'd expect from a moderate walk, or a light cycle.
  • babareeba
    babareeba Posts: 74 Member
    Options


    And It's the running burn that has me puzzled. I have very light, fit friends, who on average burn at least 600 cals an hour for running. That burn simply doesn't look right. OP - what sort of speed are you running? My average heart rate has been consistently in the upper 140s right the way through my running experience, and most of my female friends seem to average similar or higher. 120 is more like what I'd expect from a moderate walk, or a light cycle.

    meerkat, I have two-three running routines:

    long run: once a week I run longer (8-10 km = 5-6 miles) and it takes me around one hour, so I run slow. during that training I have a max pulse of 140 (it is pretty consistent from the begging to the end) and with warming up and cooling down it gave me 120 average.

    short interval runs: 500 m of fast running + 2 min of fast walking for cooling down, gives me 150 the highest and again around 120 average.

    at the end of the day, it is around 300 cals per hour in both cases.
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    Options
    Do you have a natural abnormally low heart rate?

    No. I am at the risk group for hight blood pressure (145/90) Not taking for it any medications yet. But do taking medications for high cholesterol. Maybe that?

    What are you taking for your cholesterol? Are you taking any other medications besides your cholesterol medication? Depending on what you are taking, there can be a heart rate effect, especially if your doctor was trying a combination therapy to lower your high resting heart rate at the same time.
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    Options
    Also, you can't use a heart rate monitor to estimate calorie burns from resistance or interval training. They are only designed for steady state cardio. We were taught to use a METs compendium for that and for anyone on medications to estimate calorie burns. And for your running, I would use the ACSM running formula to get an estimate to verify the HRM numbers. If you have an estimate of miles per hour and the % grade of your running surface, I'll be glad to do the math for you.
  • theNurseNancy
    theNurseNancy Posts: 149
    Options
    Anyone consider that she just has a genetically lower max heart rate? If you're huffing around 160 and slow down to rest, then yes, your HR will lower itself and cause a lower average HR. For the HRs you listed during your run, it sounds like a pretty accurate caloric burn.
  • theNurseNancy
    theNurseNancy Posts: 149
    Options
    Also, you can't use a heart rate monitor to estimate calorie burns from resistance or interval training. They are only designed for steady state cardio. We were taught to use a METs compendium for that and for anyone on medications to estimate calorie burns. And for your running, I would use the ACSM running formula to get an estimate to verify the HRM numbers. If you have an estimate of miles per hour and the % grade of your running surface, I'll be glad to do the math for you.

    I dont have a problem with it while interval training. Most HRMs calculate calories burned cumulatively, so it shouldn't be an issue.
  • babareeba
    babareeba Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    Do you have a natural abnormally low heart rate?

    No. I am at the risk group for hight blood pressure (145/90) Not taking for it any medications yet. But do taking medications for high cholesterol. Maybe that?

    What are you taking for your cholesterol? Are you taking any other medications besides your cholesterol medication? Depending on what you are taking, there can be a heart rate effect, especially if your doctor was trying a combination therapy to lower your high resting heart rate at the same time.

    I'm taking Crestor 5 mg every evening, and two soft gel capsules of fish oil (Omega defend). That's all.
  • Lolli1986
    Lolli1986 Posts: 500 Member
    Options
    i have a different brand entirely, but i had to go into settings to change my resting heart rate, my height, weight, etc.

    maybe double check that.

    an average of 130 for an 8-10km run either means you are reaaaally fit (an MFPal ran 20miles on an average HR of 133), or something is going wrong.

    i had a (student) personal trainer for a while and she said to slow down when my heart rate hit 180. when it starts going above 180 i start feeling sick.
  • babareeba
    babareeba Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    And for your running, I would use the ACSM running formula to get an estimate to verify the HRM numbers. If you have an estimate of miles per hour and the % grade of your running surface, I'll be glad to do the math for you.

    Last time I ran 5.6 miles per hour and the running surface was totally flat +/- 1 m. does' it help to calculate? i ran 60 min total, 5.7 miles.
  • babareeba
    babareeba Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    i have a different brand entirely, but i had to go into settings to change my resting heart rate, my height, weight, etc.

    Lolli, this post and kind answers made me to double check my profile setup. I did it everything right except my "activity class" => these are described here (garmin uses that technology): http://www.firstbeat.fi/userData/firstbeat/download/white_paper_training_effect.pdf (take a look at the page 2)

    So, I was wrong choosing activity level 6, and now changed it for level 8 (should be 7.5, but I can put only full numbers during setup) and will see if anything changes.

    an average of 130 for an 8-10km run either means you are reaaaally fit (an MFPal ran 20miles on an average HR of 133), or something is going wrong.

    well, i'm not that fit, but last time the average was 134.

    i'm planning to do my weekly long and slow run now, so will see if anything is different with the new activity level.

    BTW, I am more worried if the HR is accurate than how much I burn. Nevertheless I wish to burn more so I could eat more :-)
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    Options
    Do you have a natural abnormally low heart rate?

    No. I am at the risk group for hight blood pressure (145/90) Not taking for it any medications yet. But do taking medications for high cholesterol. Maybe that?

    What are you taking for your cholesterol? Are you taking any other medications besides your cholesterol medication? Depending on what you are taking, there can be a heart rate effect, especially if your doctor was trying a combination therapy to lower your high resting heart rate at the same time.

    I'm taking Crestor 5 mg every evening, and two soft gel capsules of fish oil (Omega defend). That's all.

    Okay, just double checked and Crestor isn't one of the antilipidemic agents that can effect heart rate.
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    Options
    Also, you can't use a heart rate monitor to estimate calorie burns from resistance or interval training. They are only designed for steady state cardio. We were taught to use a METs compendium for that and for anyone on medications to estimate calorie burns. And for your running, I would use the ACSM running formula to get an estimate to verify the HRM numbers. If you have an estimate of miles per hour and the % grade of your running surface, I'll be glad to do the math for you.

    I dont have a problem with it while interval training. Most HRMs calculate calories burned cumulatively, so it shouldn't be an issue.

    Yes, you will get a reading, but it won't be accurate. It will give you an estimate based on an average heart rate and not based on time at each level. Laboratory testing has proven that interval training actually increases the oxygen consumption of the exercise (and therefore the Calorie expenditure) to a greater level then the average heart rate estimates. It's actually almost as much as if the higher heart rate is maintained throughout the workout. This is why HIIT training is so effective because it burns more calories then HRMs are estimating because of the body having to catch up with exercise oxygen needs after the fact. Same with weight training. The difference is with weight training that people get caught up in figuring the Calorie expenditure of the exercise based on the physics of moving the resistance and forget that there is also the metabolic cost of increased EPOC (Excess Postexercise Oxygen Consumption). It's actually the oxygen usage that is most closely linked to Calorie burns and not HR, so estimating with HR when there is a higher EPOC is completely inaccurate.
  • babareeba
    babareeba Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    if it helps you to help me :flowerforyou: , (I hope photos will show up correctly):

    1. this one bellow is from my interval running training few days ago (40 min, av. HR 120, max HR 157, 236 cals total) => I ran 500 m fast + 2 min rest


    hr-running-int.png





    2. here is my HR from yesterday (2 hours, av. HR 100, max 143, 422 cals total) => first hour is weight lift, second is cardio.

    hr-2hours.png
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    Options
    And for your running, I would use the ACSM running formula to get an estimate to verify the HRM numbers. If you have an estimate of miles per hour and the % grade of your running surface, I'll be glad to do the math for you.

    Last time I ran 5.6 miles per hour and the running surface was totally flat +/- 1 m. does' it help to calculate? i ran 60 min total, 5.7 miles.

    Okay, here's the math.

    VO2 (ml/kg/min) = (0.2)(5.6)(26.8) + (0.9)(5.6)(26.8)(0) + 3.5
    = 30.016 + 0 + 3.5
    = 33.516 ml/kg/min

    METs = 33.516 / 3.5 = 9.576 METs

    kg = 130 / 2.2046 = 58.96761317 kg

    kcal/min = 0.0174 x 9.576 x 58.96761317 = 9.881792615 kcal/min

    kcal/hour = 9.881792615 x 60 = 592.9075569 Calories burned from this run.

    Now, I may be biased because I'm an ACSM Certified Clinical Exercise Specialist, but I trust the American College of Sports Medicine estimations over a heart rate monitor. So, based on this, I'd return your HRM because it isn't accurate for your runs.
  • babareeba
    babareeba Posts: 74 Member
    Options

    kcal/hour = 9.881792615 x 60 = 592.9075569 Calories burned from this run.

    Now, I may be biased because I'm an ACSM Certified Clinical Exercise Specialist, but I trust the American College of Sports Medicine estimations over a heart rate monitor. So, based on this, I'd return your HRM because it isn't accurate for your runs.

    thank you for this!

    since you're an expert, i will appreciate if you spare few more moments and take a look at the graphs I posted above I got from my device, to see what is going on according to this.

    you really helped me.
  • froeschli
    froeschli Posts: 1,292 Member
    Options
    Wow, your HR is really low! Mine's at 80-100 just getting dressed to go for a run... Resting (in the morning, before I get up) it's 50bpm, any time later it's 80-95. Running I average 150-160 at around 8km/h.

    If I understand correctly, you just got this HRM? Have you double checked its measurements by counting or using another means to measure your HR? Maybe exchange it and see if it is a defective unit?
  • jenj1313
    jenj1313 Posts: 898 Member
    Options
    I've got the same issue and also use a Garmin Forerunner. But I had the same issue when I used a Polar too. I always assumed it's because I'm not that heavy to begin with. Sometimes, I still wonder if the calorie readings are low, but I figure that's better than having readings that are too high.
  • jreed1920
    jreed1920 Posts: 123
    Options
    I have two things to say to the OP.

    One: some people that are burning mega calories are extremely overweight and therefore it burns at a much higher rate. Some people log that they burn 800+ calories doing Zumba. According BOTH my Fitbit and my HRM, I only burn around 325. But I only weigh 135.5

    Two: Most people are full of *kitten* when they say they burned these incredible numbers and are only fooling themselves. They overestimate or rely upon the treadmill only to tell them what they've burned, which is notoriously WRONG.

    Thank you! This is exactly what I have been thinking. I see people posting 800-100 calories for like cooking dinner or something and then I go and work my *kitten* off doing cardio and srtength training for the same amount of time and get like 375 calories. My Fitbit and HRM are pretty close in their calculations so I go with what the fitbit gives me 99% of the time.
  • TrainingWithTonya
    TrainingWithTonya Posts: 1,741 Member
    Options
    if it helps you to help me :flowerforyou: , (I hope photos will show up correctly):

    1. this one bellow is from my interval running training few days ago (40 min, av. HR 120, max HR 157, 236 cals total) => I ran 500 m fast + 2 min rest


    hr-running-int.png





    2. here is my HR from yesterday (2 hours, av. HR 100, max 143, 422 cals total) => first hour is weight lift, second is cardio.

    hr-2hours.png

    Okay, looking at the first graph, this looks like a standard HR response to interval training, with the exception of the drop at the 8:20 mark. I'm guessing here, but it looks to me like there was some interference in the monitor reading your heart rate at that point. If it is having trouble reading a heart rate at one point, then the other data become questionable. If we were to superimpose an oxygen consumption graph over the top of it, the oxygen consumption would be more stable and have fewer hills and valleys because it is interval training. A HRM is really inaccurate for Calorie estimation of interval training because of that.

    Looking at graph 2, you can clearly see the delineation between the weight training and cardio, although you can also see some places where it clearly drops out and isn't accurately reading the heart rate, most notably at about 5 minutes, 1 hour 30 minutes, and 1 hour 56 minutes. The sharp saw tooth pattern is typical of the weight training where heart rate goes up and down with each set. The oxygen consumption graph overlaid on this part of the graph would demonstrate working above your VO2 max and creating a very high oxygen deficit that is made up for after the exercise is completed. The latter part of the graph demonstrates that you were either doing another interval type cardio workout or the HRM was dropping out and not reading your heart rate about half the time. Either way, it makes it impossible to get an accurate Calorie expenditure estimate.

    Personally, instead of using this HRM, I'd use the METs compendium and estimate the Calories based on the activity and duration. You can find the compendium we used in my classes at: http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf

    To estimate Calories, you multiply your weight in kilograms by 0.0175 and the MET level to get Calories per minute. Then multiply by the number of minutes to get the Calories for your workout.

    So, as a guide, saying you were weight training for 60 minutes and it was standard weights not heavy enough to be considered body building, then I would use the MET level for weight lifting, light or moderate effort, which is 3 METs. Followed by 60 minutes of interval training, which is on the compendium as circuit training and 8 METs.

    Weight Training:
    kcal/min = 0.0175 x 3 x 58.96761317 = 3.095799692 kcal/min

    kcal/hour = 3.095799692 x 60 = 185.7479815 kcal

    Interval Training:
    kcal/min = 0.0175 x 8 x 58.96761317 = 8.255465844 kcal/min

    kcal/hour = 8.255465844 x 60 = 495.3279507 kcal

    185.7479815 + 495.3279507 = 681.0759322 Calories burned for the whole workout.
  • Pickedlast4gym
    Pickedlast4gym Posts: 41
    Options
    Is there a way you can also set your WEIGHT on the Garmin......I bet that is what it is......I weigh about 155.... I burn about 500 - 600 calories per hour when I am in the red zone, really sweating my butt off. Also, a trick. I set my weight LOWER on my heart rate monitor, so I see a smaller number on my watch. I have found that the MFP calorie counter is spot on accurate with my HRM!!!!!

Categories