Polar Heart Monitor high readings?

mp3ireland2

I recently bought a polar heart rate monitor.

The only inputs are
Date of birth: 31/10/84
Weight: 77kg
Height 176 cm
Resting Heart Rate 58bpm

I think the readings I’m getting for calories burned are artificially high.

For example (approx.):
40min spin class 550 kcal
40 min step class 600 kcal
60 min boot camp class 800kcal

9km run (guess at distance) with 4km cycle 1000kcal

My heart rate during the spin class was on average 88% of my max, I was under the impression that I shouldn’t be able to do this for 40mins as I’d be working in the anaerobic zone?

New to heart monitors so just wondering if people would agree that these readings seem too high? Could it be that I’m a bit fitter than somebody of my weight normally is? I’m a bit overweight and have a body fat % of 25.1%, or at least I did prior to my new fitness regime…..

Mellor

mp3ireland2 wrote: »

My heart rate during the spin class was on average 88% of my max, I was under the impression that I shouldn’t be able to do this for 40mins as I’d be working in the anaerobic zone?.

How are you calculating you max. 229-age us a very tough guess so not actually be 88%

For what it's worth. The calories burned look about right, that's assuming that your big-ish.

mp3ireland2

Mellor wrote: »

How are you calculating you max. 229-age us a very tough guess so not actually be 88%

For what it's worth. The calories burned look about right, that's assuming that your big-ish.

Yeah i've a decent size gut but not massive like, so maybe it is. Yeah calculating the max by 230-28(age). So I've possibly a higher max than the general appoximation possibly? I suppose I could do a max heart rate test which i've heard of, but you'd have to be supervised and I don't know how much difference it will make at the end of the day! No need to get too caught up in all the stats! More important to keep focused on excercise rather than stats!

Thanks for the info!

menoscemo

Mellor wrote: »

For what it's worth. The calories burned look about right, that's assuming that your big-ish.

I don't think a 77kg guy would burn 900Kcals on a 9k run. More like 500 I would guess.

I don't think holding 88%max HR for 40 minutes is unusual. It would still be mostly aerobic at that level. I am assuming the OP was working pretty hard, breathing heavily in which case it would be about right.

mp3ireland2

menoscemo wrote: »

I don't think a 77kg guy would burn 900Kcals on a 9k run. More like 500 I would guess.

I don't think holding 88%max HR for 40 minutes is unusual. It would still be mostly aerobic at that level. I am assuming the OP was working pretty hard, breathing heavily in which case it would be about right.

Yeah i was fairly pushing it to the limits in the spin class, didn't have anything left in me, max heart rate was 198 I just thought from what I heard that anything over 80 could only be sustained for 10-15 mins but that was obviously a generalisation.

Wondering why the calories are coming out so high? as the inputs above are all it's based on, and then my heart rate. Haven't fully researched how it calculates the calories burned but I can't think of anything that would give me a more accurate readding? If the heart rates are in the right ball park and I've verified my weight, height and age etc. I wonder what could be going wrong that would yield overly high calories burned!

Wonder if I should just add a correction factor of .66 or something to the figures i'm getting! Not that it really matters that much to me but it's just nice to know what I'm doing! Maybe somebody else will see this who is having a similar issue!

Mellor

menoscemo wrote: »

I don't think a 77kg guy would burn 900Kcals on a 9k run. More like 500 I would guess..

I actually missed that he was 77kg. When I said assuming he was big enough I was thinking 100kg. I've found weight x distance is a decent estimation for running calories. So that puts 9km at 690 or so.

traco

I've seen a few threads pop up here on these and remembered this one as its was most relevent. I have a polar FT7 and used it a few times in training sessions and it got me wondering as one hour session had me burn 749 cals which sounded great but seemed high.

So I put it on yesterday and wore it for 13.5 hours, didn't really do anything exercise wise just pottering around, dropping off and collecting and out to dinner etc. Avg HR 76, max 113.

In 13.5 hrs it registered 2,212 cals = 163 cals/hr or 3,900 in 24 hrs assumig all hours being equal and I don't think sleeping would have been much lower. Even if they were 100 cals per hour thats still just under 3,400.

Now I've been tracking my food and typically consume around 2,500 per day and do 3 heavy training sessions per week where I know I am working hard cos it feels like I'm gonna die in a of them.

So with no allowance made for the exercise cals and a deficit of around 900 cals per day as above I should be skin and bones - unfortunately that is not the case.

So it would seem to me that my one grossly exagerates the cals burned - has anyone else tried a similar test or noted similar, google throws up loads of threads questioning them. If people have similar experiences then it would be nice to hear.

Personally I'll stick to the monitor for heart rate only which is nice to know and tape measure, mirror and food diary to achieve body comp goals.

My settings for ref:
Polar FT7
Age 40
Weight 95kg - too low 100kgs now, but that would make cals burned higher
Height 193cm
Max Hr setting 181 - max ever seen in a HIIT interval

Arthurdaly

I'd take the readings for calories burned with a pinch of salt, there are alot of variables involved.

If you are working at 88% maxhr for 40 mins then you are a pretty decent level of fitness. Given it was spin class there were intervals involved where you pushed to 90-95% and other times where you were recovering so the average is not really indicitive of been aerobic or anerobic for any period of time.

I would view anything in excess of 90% maxhr as anearobic but that is me personally and that's the point where lactate builds for me and I need to slow down. There are huge fitness gains to be made training at just below lactate threshold, out of season you really dont want to be training at this intensity as you cannot maintain peak levels of fitness year in year out.

Very likely you were aerobic for about 70% of that workout.

Few points on HR.

How did you measure your max HR? Its difficult number to get, personally I achieved it a bike race where I was told I was pale and incoherent after the race.

Max HR will vary between sports, running will be different to cycling.

Lactate threshold training is a far better base to plan your training around.

Sports will vary but the principles remain the same, periodisation is hugely important to arrive at a certain point in the year at peak fitness. Build endurance and strength in the off season and work on the finer points like speed, power, muscular endurance, anearobic endurance closer to your peak.

If you are looking for literature, I'd recommend Joe Friel. He specializes in cycling/triathlon so mostly endurance sports.