Calorie burn disparity

[nekko_cat]

I recently bought a Polar FT7 heart rate monitor. I was rather suprised that my calorie burn from the monitor was much lower than what I got in Workout Manager.

For example, I did Supersets today. Workout manager said my calorie burn was 648. My monitor said 194. Pretty huge difference. I didn't lift quite as heavy as Cathe did, so I'm sure 648 is too high. But only 194?? So, do I just wait and see if I lose weight and how much it is to know which one is closer? Is the heart rate monitor as accurate in a weight lifting routine than a cardio one? I walked/jogged for 44 minutes at an average rate of 4.3 mph and got a burn of 202 calories on the monitor compared to 384 on workout manager at a rate of 4.0 mph. Not that close, but at least it was closer.

Has anyone else experienced this?

 

[CeciFifi]

Hi there,

I can't vouch for the workout manager but I also have a Polar HRM and your numbers sound fairly close to mine for weight training and cardio. I burn around 200 every half hour (give or take) with cardio and around 200+ for around 1 hour of weights training that doesn't promote too much of a cardio effect.

I am 5'5 and weight somewhere between 125 and 130 pounds - haven't been on a scale for a long time so not definite. I hope that helps a bit.....

s.

 

[112toGuru]

This online calculator can give you a general idea of calorie burn for different exercises:

Calorie Burn Calculator


I use a Garmin FR60 & before that a Mio wrist watch type, both were consistent with cardio calories burned, the Garmin (with chest strap) a little more accurate with weight lifting. I have noticed in the past that people with particular heart rate monitors get different kinds of readings (Timex & Polar) I find the online calculator link above to be consistent with what I get and from monitoring exercise 5-6 days per week for almost 2 years, a good guide. The other thing with the Garmin is that it graphs your heart rate the entire way through the workout so you can see exactly what's happening the whole way through. Big surprise to me when I did Lower Body Blast and the graph was nearly like Imax 2.

Average:
Running 10-12 calories per minute
Step Aerobics 7-9 calories per minute
total body weight lifting 4-6 calories per minute
leg weight lifting 7-9 calories per minute

 

[nekko_cat]

CeciFifi: It's interesting to see that you are getting results similar to what I got with the polar HRM. I've got a lot of weight to lose , so that's why I am more concerned with at least a semi-accurate calorie burn estimate. Since I weigh more, I should burn more. I need a daily caloric deficit, but I don't want it to get too excessive, especially if I'm hungry and want a snack. It would be good to know if I could have one without blowing my deficit.

112toGuru: Thanks for the link! I plugged in my numbers for Supersets and got a calorie burn of 310 for general weight lifting. That would seem to be closer to me than either 194 or 648. Plugging in my numbers for the walk, I got 386 (4.0 mph) which is in line with the Workout manager. I think that I'll be using the link for my estimated weight-lifting burn.

I guess that I shouldn't get too obsessed with the numbers. I do like the HRM for my walk/jog sessions. I've just started using Cardio Coach and the HRM does help me keep my HR in the appropriate zones. However, I'm beginning to think I may ditch it for weight-lifting for the time being. It seems that the polar HRM is a minimum burn estimation, at least for me. And I did enter my weight, so I would have thought it would be a little more accurate.

The Garmin HRM sounds really nice! Maybe there are some smart phone apps out there now that may be good, too...

 

[112toGuru]

: ...

I guess that I shouldn't get too obsessed with the numbers. I do like the HRM for my walk/jog sessions. I've just started using Cardio Coach and the HRM does help me keep my HR in the appropriate zones. However, I'm beginning to think I may ditch it for weight-lifting for the time being. It seems that the polar HRM is a minimum burn estimation, at least for me. And I did enter my weight, so I would have thought it would be a little more accurate.

The Garmin HRM sounds really nice! Maybe there are some smart phone apps out there now that may be good, too...

The HRM is good guide, I got one early on and found it pretty motivating, the numbers are just a guide too, it does put up the red flag when things really get out of line. If I had a smart phone I'd try that ithlete one...

ithlete app for iPhone - know your body » ithlete iphone app

it looks so cool. Best thing though is perceived exertion + temperature, especially now with the humidity, if you feel the heat, you probably are really hot.

 

[nekko_cat]

Hey, that does look cool!

Looks like the app is only for iPhone...I have an android phone. I gave it a quick view, though, and wonder if you take your HR as soon as you get up if you can get the same info? The video seemed to hint at that, but as a disadvantage. I have never heard of that, so I may have to research it.

 

[DirtDiva]

I have a Polar RS400 and I thought my calorie burn was lower then expected too. It was almost depressing, especially when lifting weights. I called up Polar customer service and had a good conversation about this. Polar products work off their own *secret* formula based on gender, age, weight, heart rate and also you can set your activity/fitness level on some models. He told me the more fit you become, the less calories you will burn, all in conjunction with a lower heart rate. I think this is the driving base behind the numbers, what your heart rate is doing. But...if you lift weights you will continue to burn after lifting and maybe that's part of Cathe's formula, don't know... I have also noticed that if I am working out in hot weather, I burn more. If its cold in the basement and I barely break a sweat lifting, my numbers are lower.

The good thing for me though is Polar is fairly accurate when it comes to losing weight. If I set a goal of 500 calories burned daily, I did lose roughly a pound in a week depending on my eating. So I trust it now.

 

[112toGuru]

Hey, that does look cool!

Looks like the app is only for iPhone...I have an android phone. I gave it a quick view, though, and wonder if you take your HR as soon as you get up if you can get the same info? The video seemed to hint at that, but as a disadvantage. I have never heard of that, so I may have to research it.

I did log that, morning HR & evening HR for almost all of 2010, just started checking again and will track this again. An increase in heart rate can spell over training & that can happen in as little as 2-3 weeks, found out in my October Kickfest rotation last year, or at least I seemed to have all the classic symptoms of over training, (not an expert) so I backed it off and barely finished that one. The now infamous "One Potato - two Potato Rotation" it really kicked my butt. Although now it's not looking that intimidating, I should do it again, just to see.

* I'll have to look up the formula for that, it uses morning & evening HR.

 

[nekko_cat]

I have a Polar RS400 and I thought my calorie burn was lower then expected too. It was almost depressing, especially when lifting weights. I called up Polar customer service and had a good conversation about this. Polar products work off their own *secret* formula based on gender, age, weight, heart rate and also you can set your activity/fitness level on some models. He told me the more fit you become, the less calories you will burn, all in conjunction with a lower heart rate. I think this is the driving base behind the numbers, what your heart rate is doing. But...if you lift weights you will continue to burn after lifting and maybe that's part of Cathe's formula, don't know... I have also noticed that if I am working out in hot weather, I burn more. If its cold in the basement and I barely break a sweat lifting, my numbers are lower.

The good thing for me though is Polar is fairly accurate when it comes to losing weight. If I set a goal of 500 calories burned daily, I did lose roughly a pound in a week depending on my eating. So I trust it now.

That is interesting that they have their own proprietary formula for calorie calculations. My model doesn't let you set an activity level, but I did input age and weight. Both are higher than I would like . I'm not in very good shape yet, so a lower heart rate shouldn't be a factor. However, it is encouraging to see that is accurate enough for you to keep a calorie deficit and lose weight.

Maybe Workout Manager does take "afterburn" into account. Perhaps my burn is less because I use lighter weights than Cathe on many exercises, but I do try to work to failure or as close as I can get to it without injuring myself.

 

[nekko_cat]

I did log that, morning HR & evening HR for almost all of 2010, just started checking again and will track this again. An increase in heart rate can spell over training & that can happen in as little as 2-3 weeks, found out in my October Kickfest rotation last year, or at least I seemed to have all the classic symptoms of over training, (not an expert) so I backed it off and barely finished that one. The now infamous "One Potato - two Potato Rotation" it really kicked my butt. Although now it's not looking that intimidating, I should do it again, just to see.

* I'll have to look up the formula for that, it uses morning & evening HR.

I'd love it if you would post the formula when you find it. I've found in the past that I get all excited about exercising, then push past my abilities and either get hurt or burned out and stop exercising again. I've done that waaay to many times in the past and do not want to do it again. BTW, I would find the October Kickfest intimidating!

 

[112toGuru]

Did not find the formula but did remember that the formula was for proper intensity of the workout, that used morning & evening HR, the over training part was a chart and/or article that indicated sharp decrease then followed by increase of morning HR was a sign of over training, as well as elevated HR during workouts, there were some other factors as well, fatigue, etc. It's probably buried somewhere? All I remember is I got to the same place in High Step Challenge twice, got to the hover squat, went down, and couldn't get back up...how embarrassing ... it sounds funny now.

I did use the formula for quite a while checking intensities (workload), to see if I was working hard enough, but not too hard. Let you know if I come up with it.

 

[LastTango]

I have a Polar FT60. I find that I always burn more on cardio than the WM, and less on weights. I think the numbers in the WM cannot fit every single person or situation; each person's fitness level and capabilities are just too different. The one think I like on my Polar is that it has My OWN ZONE, which is like a little warm up you can do before you get started, where the HRM has you do a series of different thing (Walk, Jog, Run, etc) to get a gauge on how your body if functioning that day. It varies from day to day. It probably isn't the most accurate or scientific method out there, but at least it does give me a guide to go by.

 

[nekko_cat]

Good point, LastTango!

I think that I just have to take several factors and tools into consideration and hopefully will come up with a relatively accurate burn. Unfortunately, my HRM does not come with a my OWN ZONE. Sounds like a good feature and would make the monitor more accurate.

112toGuru: Thanks for looking around. Maybe I'll try to do some searches for it. Funny, I did take my resting HR this morning and it was considerably lower than it usually is. I was all happy and thought it was a good thing. Now I'm wondering if it is! Getting stuck in a hover squat sounds extremely painful. Sounds like something that would happen to me.

 

[112toGuru]

The thing about using a HRM is to watch what happens over time, so the measurements need to be taken every day. That is what is going to tell you if there is a shift in your fitness and if there is a significant change. Your numbers will change day to day, and depending on the activity. You have to know I was working rotations, designed for my level of fitness for 12 months prior to that, so the change was very apparent.

As far as the hover squats go it was pure muscle fatigue, like "hitting the wall" not painful, I just didn't have anything left.

 

[jonahnah]

I find many of the calorie burn estimates on the workout manager are way, way higher than what I show on my GoWearFit. In general, I think there is a tendency among fitness dvds to inflate workout calorie burn for the average person. I've never come close to 1000 calories per hour than some claim! Heck, I rarely hit 600 per hour and when I do, I am completely soaked. I look like I went swimming in my clothes--that's how wet I am from perspiration. I cannot imagine getting that level of sweatiness from Supersets. I think your reading was more accurate.


Joan

 

[nekko_cat]

I've been on vacation for the last several days, so I'm sorry that this response is a little late.

112toGuru: I think that part of my problem is that I have trouble doing things like HR checks consistently. I think that I should make that attempt. Now, I'm depending on my body to tell me when I have to take a break. It works OK most of the time...

Jonahnah: Yeah, I'm beginning to think that the HR monitor is more accurate. Would love to see those astronomical burns, but for most of us, it's probably not realistic. I tend to get tied up too much in the numbers sometimes. It's about the doing, and exerting as much effort as you can at the time. You cannot do much more...so the numbers don't matter quite as much. It's my diet that is probably more of the problem most of the time.

 

[112toGuru]

I've been on vacation for the last several days, so I'm sorry that this response is a little late.

112toGuru: I think that part of my problem is that I have trouble doing things like HR checks consistently. I think that I should make that attempt. Now, I'm depending on my body to tell me when I have to take a break. It works OK most of the time...

Starting another thread, I got unusual readings in calorie counts this week, everything else is pretty much the same, but now I'm getting some very low counts, going to start another thread about it, maybe someone will chime in about it.