Fitness Minutes: (32,367)
367 7/23/13 10:40 P
I ran 9.3 miles with my HRM on today (averaged 140 bmp) at 9:00 min/mile, and my HRM said I only burned 340 calories.
Could the HRM be defective? Did I seriously only burn 340 calories in 80 minutes of continuous running?
Thanks so much for your advice!
Fitness Minutes: (27,229)
340 3/11/13 7:41 P
Here's a great sparkpeople article about increasing calorie burn during exercise. There's a mention in there about increasing intensity -- already mentioned here.
I like the intervals. It will increase your calorie burn -- which will burn more fat in the long run -- and increase your fitness. Increasing your fitness helps you increase your intensity more in future workouts. Warning, I would only do hard interval training like once a week.
I bought one yesterday. A Sportline Duo 2010. I'm still trying to figure out the extra features. But for today I'm able to put my finger on the sensor and it will show me the rate. A fun toy to help me set goals :)
Fitness Minutes: (13,288)
113 3/10/13 7:34 P
Polar HRM but I'm having trouble with it picking up my heart rate recently.
Fitness Minutes: (0)
85 3/10/13 5:50 P
Thank You Dragonchilde-your advice is always helpful!
Fitness Minutes: (14,921)
9,705 3/9/13 10:13 A
KIMBERLY19732: Whether or not it's a good purchase is really up to you, but I will say this:
I have never heard anyone say "Man, I really wish I hadn't bought that heart rate monitor. I hate knowing how hard I'm working and how many calories I'm burning." ;)
I think it's a great addition, and I have always found it very motivating. I love gadgets, and having a heart rate monitor helps me to be more accurate in my training and general exercise. I didn't get one with my most recent Garmin Forerunner purchase, thinking my old one would work with it... it didn't, and I've missed it terribly!
I'm considering buying a hrm, in addition to my fitbit one. I thought it would help me get the most out of my workouts. I was inactive until mid January and do quiet a bit more these days. I have 60 pounds more to lose. Do you think it would be a good purchase for me?
Fitness Minutes: (39,250)
1,670 3/8/13 9:08 P
I bought an arm watch that gives the hheart rate, pedometer, speed of walking, and time too. I like it for $25.
3/8/13 6:20 P
I trust my heart rate monitor over fitbit for reasons others have outlined below- i have the little fitbit and it doesn't have as much info as my HRM. It also doesn't take into account difficulty/heart rate/etc so as far as I know it's just basing it on how fast I move in a given time span. I do enter a weight 10 lb lower than my current weight on my HRM to account for any overestimates and tend to round down about 50 cals just to be safe :)
Fitness Minutes: (14,921)
9,705 3/8/13 12:26 P
If you don't mind doing the math, the average would probably be more statistically accurate.
Realistically, though, all of these are simply not big enough differences to not be simply margin of error calculations. You're talking about a less than 50 cal difference in most places. :) You'll make that up in afterburn if it's undertracked.
Any suggestions which is the most accurate. I could add them all together, and then divide by 4 to get a averaging readout..
Edited by: __AMY__ at: 3/8/2013 (11:59)
Fitness Minutes: (14,921)
9,705 3/7/13 4:42 P
Don't worry about heart rate "zones" - they don't matter. What matters is the amount of time you spend and the effort you put in. Spending 30 minutes in the "fat burning zone" will burn less calories (and consequently less fat overall) than spending 30 minutes pushing your heart rate and doing intervals. :)
TREADIN4BSP - if I read your question right are you asking "In order to loose weight should you be closer to your 65% rather than your 85%?" And spend more time "hovering" around that 65%. I had heard that too. Unfortunately, I don't know - HELP! Does anyone have an answer for this?
I have a Polar HR Monitor (a 70 I think) and I know when I look at my HR it will tell me when I am in my "fat burning" range and when I'm in my "fitness" range. I've also noticed that at diffrent times my RHR is different - for example if I haven't gotten enough sleep or am not feeling well it will be different than if I'm well rested. When I put my HR monitor on I turn it on and then wait for it to say "reading okay" before I start exercising. I read that it takes time for it to get a true reading of your HR - this I believe because I can turn it on and my RHR might say 125 and then when I look at it again it might be down to 110 and that is where it will stay for the workout.
3/7/13 1:57 P
Target heart rate is an average calculation that doesn't work well for everyone. My guess is that your max heart rate is actually higher than what the HRM thinks it is- otherwise you wouldn't be able to work at that level for very long. I'd stay at a level that's challenging for you, because that's how you burn the most calories.
3/7/13 1:56 P
Are you walking or running those 4 miles? What is your current weight?
I have a heart rate monitor question as well.... I am using a great monitor and have been working slightly above 85%. My goal is, of course, weight loss. Should I be working less hard? I fluctuate during most of my workout (around 45-50 minutes between 84 and 86%). I have read that at some point, the body becomes less efficient and therefore the calories burned would be less. But, I find the higher my heart-rate...the more calories the monitor says I have burned. Really want to be in the most beneficial zone, but am not completely sure what that is...
Fitness Minutes: (0)
1 3/6/13 6:30 A
I find this question of calories burned very interesting. Sometimes I bike 170 miles in two days, with the HRM showing about 5500 calories a day burned. Where do they come from? I don't eat more or take weight off. magic or what?
Fitness Minutes: (6,271)
3/6/13 2:54 A
I use a forerunner 310xt with HRM, nike+ app with foot sensor on my ipod, and track it here on SP. They are all relatively close to the same calorie estimate every time.
Fitness Minutes: (1,751)
3/5/13 9:22 P
Sine the heart rate monitor has more information about me than fitbit does (namely, heart rate) and isn't prone to missing some movements and/or intensity of the movements like FitBit is (though Fitbit is way better at counting movement than other pedometers Ive had), I tend to trust the heart rate monitor.
3/5/13 7:07 P
I'd give it a little more time to compare the readings, and also compare that to what our fitness tracker says. Hopefully they are all in the ballpark most of the time, so you can be confident you're using a good estimate.
Today was my first day. I used the start and sop on the fitbit .
The HRM is a Polar F4
3/5/13 6:55 P
The formulas a heart rate monitor uses to calculate calories burned are pretty complicated. The companies don't really reveal that information, but it's based on heart rate, age, weight and probably a few other factors.
How long have you been comparing the two readouts? Are they ever close, or is one usually higher than the other?
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this website can be used without the permission of SparkPeople or its authorized affiliates.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.