calories burned

jimbo32123

hey guys just a quick question..

im 115kg and have a heart rate monitor and the we watch tells me i burned 2350cals in 1hr 50mins with an average heart rate of 140.. that was doing a curcuit class and a spin class in the local gym..

wat should i be aiming at or does this sound to be fairly near to reflective or high or low??

cc87

sounds way too high i think
did you have to input details like youe age, weight and height in to the watch?

mrpink6789

if you are wearing a heart strap with this it should be fairly accurate. if it's just one where you enter in your details and it "guesses" how much you burned I wouldnt trust it fully.

2350 is a lot though!

seamus

I asked the same question when I got my first HRM and the general consensus is that the calorie counters on HRMs are practically useless because they can't take account of things like actual effort.

Crude online calculators will be closer, or if there's a calorie counter on the machine you're using that too will be closer because it can measure actual effort.

mrpink6789

seamus wrote: »

Crude online calculators will be closer, or if there's a calorie counter on the machine you're using that too will be closer because it can measure actual effort.

I would have said the machines were not accurate as they are predicting how many calories you are burning based on your weight and reps/distance covered no? The cross trainer always adds on about 100 calories burned compared to my HRM.

Surely basing it on your own stats and what your heart rate is at any given point is more accurate?

**Timbuk2**

That sounds way too high - WAY too high :P

I once did a spin class and burned just under 700 calories... but that was 1 hour 10 minutes with an average Heart Rate of 168! (I'm 18, and was working extremely hard ).

But again - I usually don't pay much heed to the calorie output. If you set your weight at about 10-15kg lower than it is, it might be closer to the actual calories expended... but this is just a crude estimate.

Cookie_Monster

seamus wrote: »

I asked the same question when I got my first HRM and the general consensus is that the calorie counters on HRMs are practically useless because they can't take account of things like actual effort.

Crude online calculators will be closer, or if there's a calorie counter on the machine you're using that too will be closer because it can measure actual effort.

The one on my Garmin seems reasonable while out on the bike, you'll burn more going uphill as it records the altitude and less on the way down. So there is still at least some rudimentary workings involved in it.

That said I still don't really pay attention to it cos not too accurate, I've burned over 41,000 cals date according to it since the start of the year So phycologically at least it makes me feel better

**Timbuk2**

It's probably easy enough to get an accurate reading on the bike.

If the Garmin, as Cookie Monster says, takes into account HR as well as terrain, and speed (does the Garmin take into account power, or have some way of measuring cadence) - in which case the figure is probably very close to the real amount.

41,000 calories :eek: Wow, it seems so weird seeing it all lumped together like that :P

seamus

mrpink6789 wrote: »

I would have said the machines were not accurate as they are predicting how many calories you are burning based on your weight and reps/distance covered no? The cross trainer always adds on about 100 calories burned compared to my HRM.

Well they're definitely not accurate, but it may also depend on what kind of exercise you're doing. If you're running, for example, then you can be reasonably sure that the effort you're putting in is more-or-less constant so the HRM will be more accurate. But for something like spinning and cycling you may get your HR up quite high but then ease back on the effort and your HR will take some time to catch up. For example, you put in a 10-second burst of power which ups your HR to 170 and it stays there for 20 seconds. The HRM will then overcalculate your calories burned for those additional ten seconds.

AntiVirus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I've burned over 41,000 cals date according to it since the start of the year So phycologically at least it makes me feel better

Endomondo tells me I've burned 11975 calories from running and then it says that equals 22 Burgers burned.

xgtdec

If it makes any comparison i use map my ride app for my cycling and it tells me i burn just over 2000 calories for 120Km cycle over 4 hours...not sure if its on the money or not....i just use it for distance!

Cookie_Monster

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

If the Garmin, as Cookie Monster says, takes into account HR as well as terrain, and speed (does the Garmin take into account power, or have some way of measuring cadence) - in which case the figure is probably very close to the real amount.

you can get HR and cadence sensor with it, which would no doubt improve accuracy. There is also a "fitness level" setting it has which I presume would make some allowance of fat/muscle out of the weight you've put in and general fitness level. I don't have a HR or Cadence and haven't looked too closely at exactly how the fitness level works.

xgtdec wrote: »

If it makes any comparison i use map my ride app for my cycling and it tells me i burn just over 2000 calories for 120Km cycle over 4 hours...not sure if its on the money or not....i just use it for distance!

I got 4930 for 118km in 5h 23m over both Wicklow Gaps, still seemed far too high. your figure looks more realistic.

xgtdec

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I got 4930 for 118km in 5h 23m over both Wicklow Gaps, still seemed far too high. your figure looks more realistic.

MapMyRide has no input for what i ate in the 4 hours;)....i like cola bottles halfway through......bitter taste and suger rush......eh better make that 1500 calories

Mellor

OP, that seams way too high. There must be somethign wrong with the setting.

Burning 1000 cals in a hour is pretty is huge, most people aren't able to keep this level of intensity up for an hour. you figures are nearly 1300/hr

seamus wrote: »

For example, you put in a 10-second burst of power which ups your HR to 170 and it stays there for 20 seconds. The HRM will then overcalculate your calories burned for those additional ten seconds.

Overcalculate?
Do you not consider that while your heart is elevated like that, you body is burn more cals just to keep it pumping. your heart is responsible for a huge amount of cals burnt.


Don't read too much into it. Just compare it to next week.
Eg.
Two people, same age and height could have very different max heart rates.
The off the shelf HRM doesn't know this. so when one is at a moderate pace at 160 bpm, the other could be all out. The HRM says cals are the same i imagine, yet they aren't in reality