calories burned - HRM vs. Web sites??
Bob
burns somewhere like 400 calories per hour. I have a Polar A5 heart rate
monitor, and according to it, I am burning a lot more calories than that.
For example, on my most recent bike ride, I averaged 13.2 mph over 2.75
hours. My average heart rate was 162. I am 50 yrs. old. According to the
HRM, I burned 2329 calories. According to the charts, I should have only
burned 1100 calories.
So my question is: which is more accurate? the HRM or the charts? I do have
the HRM set up correctly with my current weight (140 lbs) and height (5'8")
and age (50) in it. I guess I tend to believe the HRM more than the charts,
but I'm confused nevertheless...
S. Anderson
news:8Lgdb.26145$XF.23...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
While neither may be THAT accurate, the HRM is likely more accurate. Those
charts are always a guess as to how many calories you burn because they
generalizing about the pace you're riding, your weight, fitness etc. I
think the HRM is better at guesstimating because it knows your HR throughout
your entire workout. I have an A5 also and I think it's fairly accurate. I
ride usually for about 1.5 hours at a fairly brisk pace (average HR about
155 and avg. speed about 32km/h) and it says I burn about 1200 calories,
which I think is about right.
Cheers,
Scott..
Peter Cole
news:8Lgdb.26145$XF.23...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
I think the HRM estimate is way too high. Even the lower estimate sounds a
little high. If you go to the base numbers, the actual wattage your body has
to put to the pedals, factor that up by the efficiency of the body, you get
metabolic watts, which are directly convertible to calories/hr. I've gone
through all this. www.analyticcycling.com has a model which will give you the
pedal wattage, the metabolic wattage is about 4x that.
BTW, your heart rate sounds awfully high for a 13 mph ride.
Van Bagnol
"S. Anderson" <scott.a...@zsympaticoz.ca> wrote:
> "Bob" <ismk5...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:8Lgdb.26145$XF.23...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > According to various Web sites I've looked at, bicycling at about 14 mph
> > burns somewhere like 400 calories per hour. I have a Polar A5 heart rate
> > monitor, and according to it, I am burning a lot more calories than that.
> > For example, on my most recent bike ride, I averaged 13.2 mph over 2.75
> > hours. My average heart rate was 162. I am 50 yrs. old. According to the
> > HRM, I burned 2329 calories. According to the charts, I should have only
> > burned 1100 calories.
> >
> > So my question is: which is more accurate? the HRM or the charts? I
> > do have the HRM set up correctly with my current weight (140 lbs)
> > and height (5'8") and age (50) in it. I guess I tend to believe the
> > HRM more than the charts, but I'm confused nevertheless...
>
> While neither may be THAT accurate, the HRM is likely more accurate. Those
> charts are always a guess as to how many calories you burn because they
> generalizing about the pace you're riding, your weight, fitness etc. I
> think the HRM is better at guesstimating because it knows your HR throughout
> your entire workout.
Plus the fact that it's _your_ body riding on _your_ bike on the route
that _you_ are taking. The amount of effort pedaling a knobby mountain
bike over dirt in a headwind will be very different from a slick
triathlon bike at the same speed on asphalt in a tailwind. Charts also
won't account for gradual slopes on putatively "flat" terrain that your
body and HRM will certainly detect. That being said, it's still possible
to introduce systematic error if you've keyed in your weight info, etc.,
inaccurately.
Van
--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
...enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
...feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
...thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"
Sorni
calories than visiting a website.
Bill "always helpful" S.
GaryG
news:8Lgdb.26145$XF.23...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Those estimates sound too high to me. Most HRM's only look at exercise
duration and heart rate to calculate calories. But, those are only indirect
measurements of calories burned. If they don't take into account your speed
on the bike, and/or actual distance traveled, they won't be too accurate.
Depending on your weight, 30-45 calories per mile is usually in the
ballpark. Your Polar is saying that you're burning 64 calories per mile,
which is very unrealistic.
There are more complex formulas that take into account bike speed, body
position (which affects aerodynamic drag), tires, climbing, etc. I've
incorporated these factors into my CycliStats program. Plugging in your
numbers, and a couple of assumptions, here's what it shows:
Assuming you were on a standard road bike, on a "rolling" ride (i.e., not
flat, but not hilly), it estimates that you burned 1,185 calories on that
2.75 hour ride. This works out to 32.6 calories per mile.
If you did the same ride on a mountain bike, the estimate would be 1,599
calories (due to increased rolling resistance of the tires, and a more
upright body posture).
--
~_-*
...G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
Developers of CycliStats - Software for Cyclists
Per Elmsäter
Since your average HR is so high it makes me suspect you are a smoker, use
nicotine in some form or take some kind of medication. That would throw off
the calorie calculations I believe.
I'm 52 yrs old and quit using nicotine about six months ago. My average HR
dropped over 30 beats. Today I'll only average a HR above 150 in a hard race
that averages maybe 35 km/h ( app 20 mph). I used to however average a HR
above 160 on every clubride. Nowadays a clubride will be between 120-135
beats/min. My HRmax is 188.
--
Perre
You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.
Mike Kruger
news:8Lgdb.26145$XF.23...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
You are 50 years old, and you are maintaining a heart rate of 162 for almost
3 hours?
That's possible, but it seems unusual. I have the bottom of the line Polar
model, and it measures just fine with the wrist strap, but with the wireless
equipment on the Nordic trainer, it measures very oddly and very high. I
wonder if something like this is happening to you.
A little math: your maximum heart rate is VERY ROUGHLY 220-your age = 170.
If you are at 90% of your maximum, you would be at 153, and would be
at/beyond your anaerobic threshold.
I don't think you would be likely to be doing 3 hours at this heart rate,
and if you were I would think you would be so tired you wouldn't have enough
energy to post ;)
My advice: verify the heart rate monitor by actually counting your pulse on
your carotid artery or wrist.
Paulo
--
Paulo
"Mike Kruger" <MikeKr_D...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:02935819e0a258b2...@news.teranews.com...
Terry Morse
> HRM is a waste of money...just a toy...
I guess all those pro cyclists that wouldn't train without one are a
bunch of suckers.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/
Paulo
--
Paulo
"Terry Morse" <tmo...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:tmorse-BB4526....@news.covad.net...
Terry Morse
> "Terry Morse" wrote:
> >
> > I guess all those pro cyclists that wouldn't train without
> > [a HRM] are a bunch of suckers.
>
> Are we in a fitness NG or a Pro-atheltes NG?
>
Someone was kind enough to cross-post this thread to both cycling
and "fitness" newsgroups, which you could tell from reading the
headers instead of making a snide comment.
Maybe an HRM is a toy to some, but it's a valuable training tool to
anyone who is serious about improving aerobic performance. It's
pretty hard to do lactate threshold training when you don't know
your heart rate, for example.
Your one-liner seems to make a distinction between competitive
athletes and "fitness" athletes when it comes to using a HRM. Are
"fitness" people simply not serious enough about their training to
use a HRM? When the goal is increasing one's aerobic capacity, why
would a HRM be an essential training tool to one and "just a toy" to
the other? Or to put it another way, how serious must one be to get
value out of a HRM?
David Kerber
noe...@sorry.com says...
> Are we in a fitness NG or a Pro-atheltes NG?
>
Neither; it's a bicycling newsgroup.
--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
Pbwalther
>3 hours?
>That's possible, but it seems unusual.
>A little math: your maximum heart rate is VERY ROUGHLY 220-your age = 170.
>If you are at 90% of your maximum, you would be at 153, and would be
>at/beyond your anaerobic threshold.
You do put in the qualifier that the estimated maximum heart rate is 220-age
but you then seem to assume it is true.
The thing is that I have seen a number of people whose maximum heart rate
deviated from the 220-age by a pretty large margin. Shoot, I am his age and I
think I can run that heart rate for 3 hours.
Also the 220-age calculation apparantly was dreamed up and was not verified by
any kind of measurements.
Pbwalther
Well the one is an estimate of the calories burned per hour at a certain speed.
But that would only hold true for a very narrow range of conditions. A heavy
rider would burn more calories. Riding up even a modest grade would burn
considerably more calories. Headwinds would cause more calories burned and so
on.
So one would think that heart rate would be better? Well not really. The
heart rate is merely a signal indicating intensity of exercise. I would think
that if you were not very well trained, your heart rate under the same caloric
consumption would be much higher then if you were very fit.
Also, the calories burned would vary widely with the individual. I rather
doubt that I would be burning as many calories at the same heart rate as Lance
Armstrong (after weight was corrected for).
Also one's heart rate can vary with circumstances. If you beat yourself up,
the next day, your heart rate will be elevated at the same MPH.
The thing is for heard rate to be a valid measure of caloric consumption, one
would have to determine caloric consumption at various heart rates. That is
what is called a "standard curve". Shoot, any competent analytical lab runs a
couple of standard curves every time they use a machine - just in case.
Here you are trying to estimate caloric consumption with absolutely no
verification. No wonder things don't add up!
The estimates you gave are just estimates and as you may have figured out, they
are not exactly very accurate.
Shoot, I have a cereal box which lists the caloric consumptions per hour of
various popular activities. Cycling falls below golf on this scheme! Shoot
and I did not even know that golf was an activity. Of course, the people who
dreamed up that one, must have had in mind a person riding their bike around
the neighborhood at maybe 5 mph. Then maybe cycling burns fewer calories then
golf. But even then it would be hard to believe.
David Kerber
pbwa...@aol.com says...
My understanding is that there was a study which found that this was a
reasonable estimate, but it was based on people who were sedentary,
not ones who exercised regularly. As such it's not a bad starting
point for people who haven't been exercising, but once you get into
any kind of decent shape, you are better off using an estimate based
on a study of fit people. They usually give higher estimates of max
HR.
Of course, the best way is to measure your max HR and work from that.
Rick Onanian
<MikeKr_D...@aol.com> wrote:
>That's possible, but it seems unusual. I have the bottom of the line Polar
>model, and it measures just fine with the wrist strap, but with the wireless
Wrist strap? I've considered getting a HRM in the past, but have
found the chest-strap idea a bit off-putting, even though I have
not heard from anybody who finds it uncomfortable; yes, I know
that I am therefore unreasonable.
Exactly which model "measures just fine with the wrist strap"?
I'd buy that!
--
Rick "unreasonable" Onanian
Michael Fuhr
> In article <20030929092230...@mb-m13.aol.com>,
> pbwa...@aol.com says...
> >
> > Also the 220-age calculation apparantly was dreamed up and was not verified by
> > any kind of measurements.
>
> My understanding is that there was a study which found that this was a
> reasonable estimate, but it was based on people who were sedentary,
> not ones who exercised regularly. As such it's not a bad starting
> point for people who haven't been exercising, but once you get into
> any kind of decent shape, you are better off using an estimate based
> on a study of fit people. They usually give higher estimates of max
> HR.
You might be referring to the article "The Surprising History of
the 'HRmax=220-age' Equation" by Robert A. Robergs and Roberto
Landwehr:
http://www.css.edu/users/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
Mike Kruger
news:mrcgnv01ebjdrjjqd...@4ax.com...
I'll clarify. But you won't like it ;)
The basic polar comes with a chest strap and a wristwatch-type readout you
strap on your wrist. That's what I was referring to. The Nordic machine I
have contains a readout device that can be used with the same chest strap,
but which is unreliable (and I've had 2 of them replaced; they have all read
poorly).
Alexander Gilchrist
>almost 3 hours?
>That's possible, but it seems unusual.
snip
>A little math: your maximum heart rate is VERY ROUGHLY 220-your age =
>170.
>If you are at 90% of your maximum, you would be at 153, and would be
>at/beyond your anaerobic threshold.
Nonsense. I'm 72, my max HR is at least 178 (I've measured it at that
with a monitor) and probably somewhat higher, and I can ride with it in
the low 160's for at least 2 hours (which I have done) and probably more
without undue stress. On a stress test treadmill they always get tired
of waiting and cut me off.
The charts are very rough guesses based on nothing much that I can
discover other than each other.
Alexander Gilchrist
Duffy Pratt
the average height of people? The (220 - Age) formula is at best an
average. I'm 44 which makes my predicted max heart rate 176. The highest I
have recorded with my HRM is 195. In a 3 mile time trial test, I average
about 181 BPM for the course.
Duffy
"Alexander Gilchrist" <sa...@gwm.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:3F796E8F...@gwm.sc.edu...
Mike Kruger
unusual".
Your post is proof that it's possible ... but statistically it's unusual.
I stand by my earlier posting.
If the original poster has a HRM that does mechanical averages, there is a
good possibility that the device is not averaging correctly.
I can wear the polar strap, and read the correct heartrate off the
"wristwatch" monitor while the Polar pickup on the exercise machine shows a
much higher number, often in the 200's. I think there's a chance that the
original poster is getting some sort of device error like this.
Remember, this average of 162 is produced while averaging about 13 miles per
hour.
mush97
"Bob" <ismk5...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:8Lgdb.26145$XF.23...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
Del Cecchi
"mush97" <mus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0PednS5QeY3...@giganews.com...
Utter Balderdash I say.
>
>
BobT
"Del Cecchi" <delcecchi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44frgsF...@individual.net...
> How would the Heart Rate Monitor have any idea what work you were doing?
> Utter Balderdash I say.
assuming one has average heart rate response to exercise, efficiency, diet,
etc. Only a metablic study (measurement of inhaled and exhaled gases) could
measure actual calorie consumption.
BobT
Del Cecchi
burning those calories. not. And taking a beta blocker messes it up
the other way.
--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”