Heart Monitor Calories versus WM calories?

[lightening16]

Hi Everyone

I have been wearing my heartrate monitor for my workouts lately to help me keep track of calories burned. I have found that I am always way higher than the amount given in the Workout manager. For instance today I did LIC with two risers for the cardio timesaver premix. The total workout time was 43 minutes and the heart rate monitor said that I burned 643 calories. The WM would have given me 283. Then I did plyo legs disc 2, just the plyo parts. So about 30 sec between each interval (fast forward time). That workout time was 30 minutes and it gave me 440 calories. According to the workout manager the plyo legs would be approx 330 for the whole thing, weights and all.

My weight is 162 (5'4) and my max heart rate from previous experimentation is 195. When I did STS disc 22 this morning (Chest Shoulders and Triceps) is was about right.

So what gives? Am I really burning that many calories. That was almost double what the WM suggested for Low Impact Circuit. Any thoughts?
Thanks
Heather

 

[Ffte]

The workout manager bases the calories on METS used for the workout. A while back SNM mentioned they were still tweaking the MET values for the various workouts. The actual amount METS you actually use (which equates to calories used based on your weight) will vary from person to person depending on your fitness level. SNM is using an average so while it may be close for many, it probably won't not be exact for anyone.

I find that my heart rate monitor is usually (but not always) higher on carido and lower on weight work (again not always). I'm going to guess that neither are 100% accurate but they should give you an idea.

The number is probably somewhere in the middle but more towards your heartrate monitor (at least for cardio).

 

[lightening16]

I guess I have never had anything to compare my heart rate monitor to, so I never questioned it's accuracy. Today I did IMAX2 and I was totally drenched in sweat and was already warmed up from a half hour run. BUT it says I burned 905 cal. I guess somethings are too good to be true.

Any ideas on how to make it more accurate?
Thanks
Heather

 

[Ffte]

I guess I have never had anything to compare my heart rate monitor to, so I never questioned it's accuracy. Today I did IMAX2 and I was totally drenched in sweat and was already warmed up from a half hour run. BUT it says I burned 905 cal. I guess somethings are too good to be true.

Any ideas on how to make it more accurate?
Thanks
Heather

Was the 905 calories for IMAX2 and your run or just from IMAX2?
Was your heart rate in your target zone during your run and IMAX2? (I'm sure it was higher during the intervals) Your target heart rate will depend on your age and a few other factors but will probably be between 150 and 170? There are many target heart rate calculators out there (your monitor may even have one), but sadly they don't all agree.

If your heart rate monitor has a resting heart rate setting you need to make sure that is accurate. Also you need to make sure if they are looking for true resting rate (after you just wake up), or just rest as in sitting down for a while, because those are typically two different values. If your Resting rate is not entered properly that would give you inaccurate results.

905 calories in an hour seems a bit high for your weight. 905 calories in an hour and and half doesn't. Again a lot of it depends on where you are training (zone wise). Are you aerobic or anarobic for most of the workout?

 

[kimmly]

hi everyone. this is my first experience in a forum. i hope im doing this right. i found cathe on fit tv a couple of months ago. her dvds are great. this is the way i like to work out. anyway, i have a wrist only monitor and i am actually getting a lower cal burn than the w/o mgr says but maybe thats because im not quite keeping up with cathe yet or the wrist only monitor isnt very accurate. im doing drill max tonight for the 2nd time. ill see how it goes.