Heart rate monitors & calories burned

[vanman]

I have a question for the PH fitness/health experts regarding Heart rate monitors and calories burned.

Im currently using my fitness pal to lose weight and improve my fitness following diagnosis of a dilated cardiomyopathy ,all is going well so far in so much as i've lost 14lbs.
My query is with the amount of calories burned during exercise.

All I am currently doing is walking on a local forest and my fitness pal is saying i'll of burned 154 calories in a 35 minute walk at a pace of 4mph. Whilst browsing forums it seems these figures are considered inaccurate and that a heart rate monitor is required to calculate the coorect calories burned.

I have a Garmin heart rate monitor from when I used to cycle but never really used it. So I thought i'd use that to compare with my fitness pals figures.
I assumed that the figures from the hrm would be considerably lower,this however isnt the case. On the HRM i apparently burned 376 calories during the same 1.74 mile walk in 3 minutes,the route is quite hilly with very uneven terrain.

To add the confusion the Runkeeper app on my phone estimates 186 calories burned on the same walk...

So my question is which is most accurate? I find it very difficult to believe that I could of burned 376 calories during a 1.74 mile walk lasting just 35 minutes. I am not particularly fit and currently weigh 176 lbs and my resting heart rate is 72bpm.

My heart rate on the above walk averaged 124bpm with a peak of 157bpm.

Sorry for the long winded post but any help would be really appreciated

[Roger645]

I assume all the settings etc across the different things are the same? I use a Polar HRM for training and it does typically read higher than map my run or other apps that I have used. Your reading does sound high though. do you know anyone with a HRM you can test against yours?

[mcelliott]

Yes it can be very confusing. I would say that your Garmin device and Garmin devices in general wildly exaggerate the amount of calories burnt, but not all, which I will come to in a sec. First off I use a Garmin 705 for cycling. Now if I give you an example of a hilly ride that I normally do, it's roughly 60kms long and just over 1,000 metres of elevation, avg speed of 29/30kph. Running straight off my Garmin device, my typical calorie burn would be in excess of 2,300 cals. If I upload the same data to Strava, my calorie burn comes down to a far more believable 1,600 cals. However just to add to the confusion, in the winter I do a 10k run every Friday evening, with roughly 1,000ft of elevation. I use a Garmin Forerunner 405, and I can normally do the run in about 45 minutes - my Garmin device gives me a calorie burn of around 650 which is a lot more accurate than the device I use for cycling.

This post probably hasn't solved your problem but it does highlight the discrepencies in the various devices. Personally, the lower the calorie burn, the more accurate.

[vanman]

Thanks for the replies.
All my info is the same over the 3 devices,I'll just continue to use the lowest reading to calculate my calorie needs and i'll also try to borrow another HRM to compare to mine.

I assumed it would of been the Hrm that was the more accurate but this clearly isn't the case. Interesting about the Garmins being inconsistent between models too.

[Roger645]

vanman said:

Thanks for the replies.
All my info is the same over the 3 devices,I'll just continue to use the lowest reading to calculate my calorie needs and i'll also try to borrow another HRM to compare to mine.

I assumed it would of been the Hrm that was the more accurate but this clearly isn't the case. Interesting about the Garmins being inconsistent between models too.

Garmin have changed the way they calculate calorie burn, the new devices are meant to use a more accurate method. Mrs645 has a Garmin watch for running with a HRM strap and when we bought it the guy explained about the changes. She has compared it against her polar HRM and they are pretty similar in reading.

just to add another potential confusion I use a web app called walkit for working out routes etc that gives a calorie estimate as well! You could try that if you want to add yet another data source.

[goldblum]

A calculation of calories used based on an hr monitor will never be particularly accurate.

[Roger645]

I think you should continue to use it and use the calorie burn number as a guide, it's easy to get caught up in the maths rather than concentrating on your real goals of losing weight and getting fit. The HRM will allow you if you want to record your excersise sessions and see your fitness improve.

[vanman]

Roger645 said:

I think you should continue to use it and use the calorie burn number as a guide, it's easy to get caught up in the maths rather than concentrating on your real goals of losing weight and getting fit. The HRM will allow you if you want to record your excersise sessions and see your fitness improve.

Thanks. I will continue to use it to monitor how long it takes to recover to resting heart rate etc,as I believe this is a good way of monitoring improving fitness levels?
My main concern is regarding how many calories I need following the exercise on top of my daily calorie intake.

[fatpasty]

Sorry a little off topic ...

Looking at buying a HRM, can any one recommend a decent one?

Cheers

[JontyR]

fatpasty said:

Sorry a little off topic ...

Looking at buying a HRM, can any one recommend a decent one?

Cheers

Yes me too.

I was looking at the new Polar RCX5, is anyone using one of these? I want it for the triathlon I am training for in June, and they advertise it as one of the best watches for this very sport.

[Roger645]

A well regarded basic one is the Polar FT4, not sure for ones specific to e.g. Triathalon. Mrs 645 uses a Garmin 405 for outdoor runs and has the additional strap for HRM which seems to work ok.

[MacGee]

I have a spreadsheet of cals burnt for indoor rower. The heavier/faster you are then rate in creases per unit time. So for me doing about 1 hour at 2mins split pace will burn about 1000 cals. But you must deduct your normal basal rate which would use with just breathing..approx 100 cals per hour. So 1 hour rowing is 900 cals. All a bit vague but close enough for Joe Bloggs!