Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

 
Message Boards
FORUM:   Fitness and Exercise
TOPIC:  

HRM reading higher than machines?



Click here to read our frequently asked Fitness and Exercise questions.

 
  Reply Create A New Topic
Search the
Message Boards:
Search
  I Liked This Topic Subscribe to this Discussion Share
Add This to My SparkFavorites
Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

Author: Message: Sort First Post on Top


MOTIVATED@LAST
MOTIVATED@LAST's Photo Posts: 13,948
7/23/13 9:02 P

MOTIVATED@LAST's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Roxie,

Your HRM is deceiving you.

The true measure of calorie burn is how much oxygen you are consuming. Unfortunately, this is hard to measure outside of a lab. While heart rate normally increases in line with oxygen consumption (and HRM's use this assumption to estimate calories), there are factors that can cause this relationship to break down - high blood pressure and some medications are just of the more common causes.

The limiting factor of calorie burn is how fast your lungs can deliver oxygen to the muscles. Most people burn 350-600 calories per hour working out. Someone who is fit and working out vigorously can push this to 700-800. Figures above 800 should be regarded with a great deal of skepticism. As far over 1000 calories? Pah!!

Also, with an elliptical, it doesn't really matter what your heart rate is - it takes a fixed amount of work to overcome the resistance of the machine. Two people using the same settings on an elliptical will burn about the same number of calories, even if their HRM's produce different results.

M@L

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.


 current weight: 178.0 
 
220
203.5
187
170.5
154


SERGEANTMAJOR
SERGEANTMAJOR's Photo Posts: 6,398
7/23/13 6:27 P

SERGEANTMAJOR's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Heart rate monitors can only measure steady state work such as steady state running, cycling (mobile or fixed) or even jumping rope. Any variation in the speed at which you are doing an exercise will cause them to misread for example going from jumping jacks to squats or squat thrusts in a bodyweight workout. Since workouts such as Tae Bo, kickboxing or Zumbea are constantly changing tempo I doubt that any reading taken during that form of exercise would be anywhere close to accurate.


It is called WORK-ing out for a reason.

I said getting fit was simple, I did not say it was easy.

Cardio burns calories, strength work burns fat.

Eat well to lose weight, exercise to get fit

You can not build a six pack using twelve packs


Often when we seek a magic bullet for fitness we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

"I think calories are little germs in food that all moms are afraid of" Dennis the Menace



ROXIELU0422
ROXIELU0422's Photo Posts: 317
7/23/13 3:32 P

ROXIELU0422's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I would go with what your HRM says. The machines are NOT accurate at all. They don't know how high or low your heart rate it. Your HRM does. 500 sounds pretty reasonable for a 40 minute interval workout. Last night in Zumba i burned 1005 calories. SO yeah, it's possible.

It is what it is....


 current weight: 206.7 
 
223
217
211
205
199


-CORAL-
-CORAL-'s Photo SparkPoints: (35,901)
Fitness Minutes: (30,690)
Posts: 2,221
7/23/13 2:30 P

-CORAL-'s SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
500 is a very high estimate of calories burned. I would just log it in SP and take the calorie estimate SP gives you. It is unlikely you could have burned that much in 40 minutes, especially on an elliptical machine.

Oh and I will echo and reprint what M@L said because it is so true:
"As a reality check, most people burn between 6 and 10 calories per minute working out, which seems consistent with your elliptical. Figures of 12 calories per minute are possible, but it requires a fit person working pretty hard to sustain this rate. If you feel this applies to you, then you might go with the 500 figure, but otherwise I would recommend sticking with the more conservative estimate."

Edited by: -CORAL- at: 7/23/2013 (14:32)
Coral in Portland, OR


SERGEANTMAJOR
SERGEANTMAJOR's Photo Posts: 6,398
7/23/13 1:23 P

SERGEANTMAJOR's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
As Motivated said, the output from any heart rate monitor is basically a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) for the majority of any given population. It is easier and more accurate to monitor and track calories in than it is to trust to a device or table based on algorithms based on population estimates.


It is called WORK-ing out for a reason.

I said getting fit was simple, I did not say it was easy.

Cardio burns calories, strength work burns fat.

Eat well to lose weight, exercise to get fit

You can not build a six pack using twelve packs


Often when we seek a magic bullet for fitness we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

"I think calories are little germs in food that all moms are afraid of" Dennis the Menace



SIMONEKP
SIMONEKP's Photo Posts: 2,460
7/23/13 1:11 P

SIMONEKP's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Unless you have a medical condition or take medication/supplements that raises your heart rate- I would use the HRM figures. The machine is calibrated to the average size/weight man. If you use a machine that can take height/weight inputs, those machine estimate would be closer to your HRM.

Simone

"Patience and perseverance have a magical effect before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish." - John Quincy Adams

No matter how slow you go, you're still lapping everyone on the couch!
Source: unknown



 current weight: 210.0 
 
295
252.5
210
167.5
125


MOTIVATED@LAST
MOTIVATED@LAST's Photo Posts: 13,948
7/23/13 10:07 A

MOTIVATED@LAST's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
HRM estimates are based on broad population averages, and like most statistics, they are a good predictor for about 1/3 of the population, somewhat useful for another 1/3, and a less useful predictor for the remaining 1/3. High blood pressure and some medications can lead to a faster heart rate (and thus a higher calorie estimate) than the exercise actually warrants.

As a reality check, most people burn between 6 and 10 calories per minute working out, which seems consistent with your elliptical. Figures of 12 calories per minute are possible, but it requires a fit person working pretty hard to sustain this rate. If you feel this applies to you, then you might go with the 500 figure, but otherwise I would recommend sticking with the more conservative estimate.

M@L

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.


 current weight: 178.0 
 
220
203.5
187
170.5
154


AMANDANCES
AMANDANCES's Photo Posts: 1,975
7/23/13 10:01 A

AMANDANCES's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
HRMs can only really be accurate on the estimated calorie count when you're exercising in the "target heart range." If you were substantially under or over that (it's easy to go over with intervals) you may get an inaccurate result.

I would repeat the experiment, paying close attention to your actual heart rate itself, if your HRM doesn't give you a chart. It could be that your HRM was reading heart rate "spikes" that didn't really occur. That sometimes happens when the band slips, or if it doesn't get a good reading from the band. I've seen my heart rate jump up to 200 when the band doesn't fit properly (and I KNOW I'm not working THAT hard! lol) Watch your watch, and if you see crazy numbers you know there's a problem.

On the other hand, I've had near 500-calorie workouts when running intervals, so it could be that you worked harder than you thought. ;) 40 minutes is a long time, and if your intervals were really intense, you could have burned that number honestly.

On our way to Mordor.

Blogging our walking fitness journey here:
thereandbackagainforfitness.blogspot.com/


 Pounds lost: 3.8 
 
0
4.75
9.5
14.25
19


PIPPISMILES
Posts: 98
7/23/13 9:25 A

PIPPISMILES's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I did intervals on the elliptical for 40 minutes yesterday. The machine said I burned around 360 calories, while my HRM said I burned 500! I know that the machines are usually wrong, but I wasn't expecting my HRM to be that much higher! I should definitely trust my HRM, right? (It has my weight, sex, and all that stuff in there and the machine didn't)



 current weight: 169.0 
 
169
161.75
154.5
147.25
140


 
Page: 1 of (1)  
Search  

I Liked This Topic Subscribe to this Discussion Share
Add This to My SparkFavorites
Report Innappropriate Post


Thread URL: http://www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/messageboard.asp?imboard=6&imparent=31566897

Review our Community Guidelines



 
Diet Resources: supreme 90 day workout | supreme 90 day review | supreme 90 day system