- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:44 am to DosManos
quote:
But is it safe to assume that the monitor is either over-estimating or under-estimating calories based only on heart rate?
Most calorie counters overestimate but there is no way to know unless you are comparing it to a lab test directly measuring output. Heart rate is also highly dependent on environmental conditions (temp, humidity, etc), which can throw calorie counters way off either high or low.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:44 am to Homey the Clown
quote:
Is that complwtely false?
yes
there is absolutely NO WAY HR alone can tell you anything about calories burned.
there are about a billion variables here.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:46 am to CAD703X
Where can I get a power meter? And wouldn't you say that calorie counts would be more accurate with a HRM than just an assumption given your height, weight, sex, and age?
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:51 am to Homey the Clown
quote:
And wouldn't you say that calorie counts would be more accurate with a HRM than just an assumption given your height, weight, sex, and age?
not really. Perceived exertion is actually just as reliable if not more so than simply HR alone.
Borg Scale of Perceived Exertion
Don't get me wrong, a HR is better than nothing but after a few months of running or whatever, you will know your body better than worrying about what your HR numbers are.
eta power meters are most commonly associated with cyclists since its very easy to install something to gauge your level of effort.
for runners, there's not really anything equivalent unless you're doing a full VO2 test and lactate threshold test.
This post was edited on 3/26/15 at 9:54 am
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:55 am to CAD703X
With this system (height, weight, age, and sex plugged into the watch, and heart rate monitor synced to the watch) its more than just heart rate taken into account.
I'm really fishing for someone to just tell me im burning all these calories so i can feel better about myself
I'm really fishing for someone to just tell me im burning all these calories so i can feel better about myself
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:57 am to Homey the Clown
quote:
fishing for someone to just tell me im burning all these calories so i can feel better about myself
sorry.
i can tell you those numbers are WAY inflated so you should not start grabbing a couple extra slices of pizza because it says you've burned 1500 calories in an hour.
everyone's metabolism is different so age, weight, etc. don't really provide much more precise data.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:58 am to Homey the Clown
quote:
Where can I get a power meter? And wouldn't you say that calorie counts would be more accurate with a HRM than just an assumption given your height, weight, sex, and age?
For running, there are no good options currently. It's a guessing game.
A running power meter is currently being developed, which will be badass if it actually works.
LINK
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:02 am to usc6158
quote:
Heart rate is also highly dependent on environmental conditions (temp, humidity, etc), which can throw calorie counters way off either high or low.
shite! So you telling me I'm not burning 800 calories an hour doing hot yoga?
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:03 am to DosManos
quote:
shite! So you telling me I'm not burning 800 calories an hour doing hot yoga?
no no, you are!
go grab yourself a XL cheese-stuffed crust pizza as a reward!
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:09 am to DosManos
quote:
hot yoga
This made me
Well for now, i guess i will stick to the average between the HRM with height and weight plugged in, and the estimate from my fitness pal. It may not be perfect, but perhaps its a safe guesstimation.
This post was edited on 3/26/15 at 10:13 am
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:14 am to CAD703X
quote:
no no, you are!
go grab yourself a XL cheese-stuffed crust pizza as a reward!
Ok good.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:27 am to Homey the Clown
quote:
It may not be perfect, but perhaps its a safe guesstimation.
the problem here is getting too caught up in HR and calorie-burned numbers and getting a false sense of what is accurate.
i'm telling you Borg's PE scale is far better at gauging your effort. If you only exercise occasionally then the HR monitor is fine. However if you are serious and get into a daily routine you'll discover your own 'max effort' fairly quickly and how you feel is a better indicator of fitness than simply a HR monitor.
like the other guy said, a PM can help you learn the absolute best you can do (at a given point in time) and then after a few months of regular exercise, that best will typically go up dramatically.
a HR is slow to catch up when you sprint for instance and likewise stays high after you're already cooling down.
you always want to push your max and your HR will change dramatically as you start to get into better shape so you could be subconsciously sabotaging your fitness by relying too heavily on that.
ok CAD;DR a HR is fine, just don't get overly caught up in the numbers it throws out..particularly calories burned.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:29 am to Homey the Clown
You are WAY overthinking things. Just get your diet in check first. This is way more important than anything and don't worry so much about how many calories you are burning.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:36 am to mouton
quote:
Just get your diet in check first.
I'm trying, but, as I'm sure everyone knows, thats by far the toughest part of getting fit. I usually eat pretty healthy, but theres those one or two days a week that i give in to temptation, and eat like an idiot.
I know im reading to much into all this, but i do that with everything when it comes to fitness, and numbers.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:40 am to CAD703X
quote:
yes
there is absolutely NO WAY HR alone can tell you anything about calories burned.
there are about a billion variables here.
one of which is the application the OP plugs his HRM data into.
on a ride i did a few weeks ago, strava said i'd burned 4000 calories and garmin connect said i'd burned 950. same height, weight, max HR data in both applications but that's a WIDE range.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 11:01 am to Homey the Clown
quote:
I usually eat pretty healthy
Get myfitnesspal and track your calories. Eating "pretty healthy" isn't going to cut it.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 11:04 am to LSU85750
Exactly my point
Posted on 3/26/15 at 11:11 am to theunknownknight
quote:
subtle brag
Doubt it. That pace is certaily nothing to brag about.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 11:21 am to mouton
I do get on my fitness pal, and im under my recomended calories five out of seven days a week. Only thing that really gets me is the beer on the weekends. I stick to chicken breast, lean beef, veggies, occasional fruit. No snacks, or junk food.
Also, no, 11 minute mile is absolutely nothing to brag about. But im not competing for a race either. In about a month, ill be back to my 5 mile at 9:30 per mile runs, which is perfectly fine to me. Im not an OT runner who rips out 10ks at 5min mile average five days a week, so forgive me.
Also, no, 11 minute mile is absolutely nothing to brag about. But im not competing for a race either. In about a month, ill be back to my 5 mile at 9:30 per mile runs, which is perfectly fine to me. Im not an OT runner who rips out 10ks at 5min mile average five days a week, so forgive me.
This post was edited on 3/26/15 at 11:21 am
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News