Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
TOTALREDO2013 Posts: 5,257
1/17/12 11:24 P

Not sure the heart rate monitor brand you have. Makes a big difference and the types of statistics it measures. It also matters if you are using only one that takes pulse from wrist or includes a chest strap.

Chest strap models tend to give better results and readings. You also want one that takes into account your age, gender, height, weight at the minimum. Mine asks for more, but not necessary.

Heavier people do burn way more per hour, especially if not super fit. So depending on how vigorous the dancing was, it is possible. I am pretty fit and can burn around 11-12 calories per minute for an entire hour. I have successfully lost tons of pounds using my HRM and it works.

Look to see if it's possible to get a better well known HRM if you can. If not, trust it and use it versus SP tracker...that is even more generic because it is not measuring your actual pulse/ HR. So the HRMmis always better than any geenric tracker online.

If you lose weight using this HRM, then it works fine. The key is to use the calories burned from it to plug into SparkPeople to get the amount of calories you should be eating. If you do this for a few weeks and lose 1-2lbs a week or more ( heavier people can lose more at first per week) then it is working for you.

There is no 100% precise measurement of calories burned that is affordable, so HRM's are the beat indicators if you are trying to be meticulous with calorie tracking, like I am.

Just go with it and see what results you get for a few weeks. If your weight doesn't move at all and you are eating right and burning "700" calories an hour a day for at least 5-6 days a week...then you need to change brands of HRM, chest strap model, etc.

I can see the dancing burning that much. I do Zumba and Hip Hop DVD's and they have my HR up in the 180's all the time.

Edited by: TOTALREDO2013 at: 1/17/2012 (23:25)
MOTIVATED@LAST Posts: 15,456
1/17/12 6:46 P

Those sorts of numbers are feasible (especially for someone heavier), but they are on the higher end and you would need to be pretty fit to sustain that level of activity for an hour. (Being fit and fat are not necessarily mutually exclusive).

However, HRM's are sometimes subject to inaccuracy. Because they use statistical averages to come up with a calorie calculation, they are a good guide for about 1/3 of the population, a reasonable guide for another 1/3, and less useful for the remaining third. For example, increased blood pressure and some medications can lead to a higher heart rate (and higher reported calories burned) than a particular exercise would normally merit.


LIVEINASHOE SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (1,953)
Posts: 32
1/17/12 5:58 P

Thanks MPLANE!

MPLANE37 SparkPoints: (79,204)
Fitness Minutes: (79,213)
Posts: 2,170
1/17/12 4:21 P

It depends on your weight. For me, an hour of intense workout on the elliptical (at an average of 150bpm heart rate) burns about 1000 kCals. At your current weight, it is normal that you burn so much even when you don't workout so intensely.

Edited by: MPLANE37 at: 1/17/2012 (16:23)
LIVEINASHOE SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (1,953)
Posts: 32
1/17/12 4:18 P

Thanks for your reply also! I'm thinking it's not too far off, honestly. I really am working hard and I do have quite a bit of weight to lose... :)

1/17/12 4:13 P

I do an intense workout on my elliptical and burn - according to the machine- about 550-575 per half hour at level 3- so it may be possible or like you said, off by a little bit

LIVEINASHOE SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (1,953)
Posts: 32
1/17/12 3:58 P

Thanks for your reply! I went and checked w/ the SP fitness tracker and it comes up with 675. So, it's not off by a whole lot... especially when I only "tracked" 700 instead of 778 like the hrm said. I don't know.... emoticon

1/17/12 3:50 P

FWIW, my unprofessional opinion is that, no, that sounds completely implausible comparing with the calories per hour estimates for the highest impact, high-intensity numbers estimated here on SP and elsewhere on the web. Wouldn't that be awesome if it were true, though?

Sounds like you should keep track of your HRM tells you you're burning vs. what SP tells you you're burning so you can see your relative calorie deficit. Then you can use that deficit to calculate how much weight you should be losing if your HRM is correct and compare it to what you're actually losing. If you're not losing as much as the HRM makes it seem like you should be, it might be wrong.

(Did I mention I'm not a pro?)

LIVEINASHOE SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (1,953)
Posts: 32
1/17/12 2:20 P

Okay, so I went out and bought a HRM I wear on my wrist and I check/update it every other minute or so to be as accurate as possible. I input my age and gender, but it doesn't track weight I guess. So, I just did a full hour of cardio dancing w/ the Wii and worked my behind off!! The HRM says I burned 778 calories. Is that even possible?

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Exercising In High Humidity 9/12/2016 7:37:14 PM
Waist trimmers? 11/4/2016 6:56:56 PM
no loss around hips? 10/8/2016 6:53:50 PM
Anyone else out there doing Metobolic Aftershock? 1/22/2017 7:03:04 PM
Congestive Heart Failure 1/24/2017 6:49:55 AM