calories burned - HRM vs. Web sites??

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

According to various Web sites I've looked at, bicycling at about 14 mph burns somewhere like 400
calories per hour. I have a Polar A5 heart rate monitor, and according to it, I am burning a lot
more calories than that. For example, on my most recent bike ride, I averaged 13.2 mph over 2.75
hours. My average heart rate was 162. I am 50 yrs. old. According to the HRM, I burned 2329
calories. According to the charts, I should have only burned 1100 calories.

So my question is: which is more accurate? the HRM or the charts? I do

have

Quoted message said:

the HRM set up correctly with my current weight (140 lbs) and height

(5'8"😉

Quoted message said:

and age (50) in it. I guess I tend to believe the HRM more than the

charts,

Quoted message said:

but I'm confused nevertheless...

While neither may be THAT accurate, the HRM is likely more accurate. Those charts are always a guess
as to how many calories you burn because they generalizing about the pace you're riding, your
weight, fitness etc. I think the HRM is better at guesstimating because it knows your HR throughout
your entire workout. I have an A5 also and I think it's fairly accurate. I ride usually for about
1.5 hours at a fairly brisk pace (average HR about 155 and avg. speed about 32km/h) and it says I
burn about 1200 calories, which I think is about right.

Cheers,

Scott..

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

According to various Web sites I've looked at, bicycling at about 14 mph burns somewhere like 400
calories per hour. I have a Polar A5 heart rate monitor, and according to it, I am burning a lot
more calories than that. For example, on my most recent bike ride, I averaged 13.2 mph over 2.75
hours. My average heart rate was 162. I am 50 yrs. old. According to the HRM, I burned 2329
calories. According to the charts, I should have only burned 1100 calories.

So my question is: which is more accurate? the HRM or the charts? I do have the HRM set up
correctly with my current weight (140 lbs) and height (5'8"😉 and age (50) in it. I guess I tend to
believe the HRM more than the charts, but I'm confused nevertheless...

I think the HRM estimate is way too high. Even the lower estimate sounds a little high. If you go to
the base numbers, the actual wattage your body has to put to the pedals, factor that up by the
efficiency of the body, you get metabolic watts, which are directly convertible to calories/hr. I've
gone through all this. www.analyticcycling.com has a model which will give you the pedal wattage,
the metabolic wattage is about 4x that.

BTW, your heart rate sounds awfully high for a 13 mph ride.

I would imagine that putting on a heartrate monitor burns slightly more calories than visiting
a website.

Bill "always helpful" S.

In article <[email hidden]>,

S. Anderson said:

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

According to various Web sites I've looked at, bicycling at about 14 mph burns somewhere like
400 calories per hour. I have a Polar A5 heart rate monitor, and according to it, I am burning a
lot more calories than that. For example, on my most recent bike ride, I averaged 13.2 mph over
2.75 hours. My average heart rate was 162. I am 50 yrs. old. According to the HRM, I burned 2329
calories. According to the charts, I should have only burned 1100 calories.

So my question is: which is more accurate? the HRM or the charts? I do have the HRM set up
correctly with my current weight (140 lbs) and height (5'8"😉 and age (50) in it. I guess I tend
to believe the HRM more than the charts, but I'm confused nevertheless...

While neither may be THAT accurate, the HRM is likely more accurate. Those charts are always a
guess as to how many calories you burn because they generalizing about the pace you're riding,
your weight, fitness etc. I think the HRM is better at guesstimating because it knows your HR
throughout your entire workout.

Plus the fact that it's _your_ body riding on _your_ bike on the route that _you_ are taking. The
amount of effort pedaling a knobby mountain bike over dirt in a headwind will be very different from
a slick triathlon bike at the same speed on asphalt in a tailwind. Charts also won't account for
gradual slopes on putatively "flat" terrain that your body and HRM will certainly detect. That being
said, it's still possible to introduce systematic error if you've keyed in your weight info, etc.,
inaccurately.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com ...enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing /
Skydiving / Mountain Biking ...feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip" ...thinks - "An
Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

According to various Web sites I've looked at, bicycling at about 14 mph burns somewhere like 400
calories per hour. I have a Polar A5 heart rate monitor, and according to it, I am burning a lot
more calories than that. For example, on my most recent bike ride, I averaged 13.2 mph over 2.75
hours. My average heart rate was 162. I am 50 yrs. old. According to the HRM, I burned 2329
calories. According to the charts, I should have only burned 1100 calories.

So my question is: which is more accurate? the HRM or the charts? I do

have

Quoted message said:

the HRM set up correctly with my current weight (140 lbs) and height

(5'8"😉

Quoted message said:

and age (50) in it. I guess I tend to believe the HRM more than the

charts,

Quoted message said:

but I'm confused nevertheless...

Those estimates sound too high to me. Most HRM's only look at exercise duration and heart rate to
calculate calories. But, those are only indirect measurements of calories burned. If they don't take
into account your speed on the bike, and/or actual distance traveled, they won't be too accurate.

Depending on your weight, 30-45 calories per mile is usually in the ballpark. Your Polar is saying
that you're burning 64 calories per mile, which is very unrealistic.

There are more complex formulas that take into account bike speed, body position (which affects
aerodynamic drag), tires, climbing, etc. I've incorporated these factors into my CycliStats program.
Plugging in your numbers, and a couple of assumptions, here's what it shows:

Assuming you were on a standard road bike, on a "rolling" ride (i.e., not flat, but not hilly), it
estimates that you burned 1,185 calories on that
2.75 hour ride. This works out to 32.6 calories per mile.

If you did the same ride on a mountain bike, the estimate would be 1,599 calories (due to increased
rolling resistance of the tires, and a more upright body posture).

--
~_-* ...G/ \G cyclistats.comcyclistats.comOpen ↗ Developers of CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

Bob said:

According to various Web sites I've looked at, bicycling at about 14 mph burns somewhere like 400
calories per hour. I have a Polar A5 heart rate monitor, and according to it, I am burning a lot
more calories than that. For example, on my most recent bike ride, I averaged 13.2 mph over 2.75
hours. My average heart rate was 162. I am 50 yrs. old. According to the HRM, I burned 2329
calories. According to the charts, I should have only burned 1100 calories.

So my question is: which is more accurate? the HRM or the charts? I do have the HRM set up
correctly with my current weight (140 lbs) and height (5'8"😉 and age (50) in it. I guess I tend to
believe the HRM more than the charts, but I'm confused nevertheless...

Since your average HR is so high it makes me suspect you are a smoker, use nicotine in some form or
take some kind of medication. That would throw off the calorie calculations I believe.

I'm 52 yrs old and quit using nicotine about six months ago. My average HR dropped over 30 beats.
Today I'll only average a HR above 150 in a hard race that averages maybe 35 km/h ( app 20 mph). I
used to however average a HR above 160 on every clubride. Nowadays a clubride will be between
120-135 beats/min. My HRmax is 188.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

According to various Web sites I've looked at, bicycling at about 14 mph burns somewhere like 400
calories per hour. I have a Polar A5 heart rate monitor, and according to it, I am burning a lot
more calories than that. For example, on my most recent bike ride, I averaged 13.2 mph over 2.75
hours. My average heart rate was 162. I am 50 yrs. old. According to the HRM, I burned 2329
calories. According to the charts, I should have only burned 1100 calories.

So my question is: which is more accurate? the HRM or the charts? I do

have

Quoted message said:

the HRM set up correctly with my current weight (140 lbs) and height

(5'8"😉

Quoted message said:

and age (50) in it. I guess I tend to believe the HRM more than the

charts,

Quoted message said:

but I'm confused nevertheless...

You are 50 years old, and you are maintaining a heart rate of 162 for almost 3 hours? That's
possible, but it seems unusual. I have the bottom of the line Polar model, and it measures just fine
with the wrist strap, but with the wireless equipment on the Nordic trainer, it measures very oddly
and very high. I wonder if something like this is happening to you.

A little math: your maximum heart rate is VERY ROUGHLY 220-your age = 170. If you are at 90% of your
maximum, you would be at 153, and would be at/beyond your anaerobic threshold. I don't think you
would be likely to be doing 3 hours at this heart rate, and if you were I would think you would be
so tired you wouldn't have enough energy to post 😉

My advice: verify the heart rate monitor by actually counting your pulse on your carotid
artery or wrist.

HRM is a waste of money...just a toy...

--
Paulo "Mike Kruger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

According to various Web sites I've looked at, bicycling at about 14 mph burns somewhere like
400 calories per hour. I have a Polar A5 heart rate monitor, and according to it, I am burning a
lot more calories than

that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For example, on my most recent bike ride, I averaged 13.2 mph over 2.75 hours. My average heart
rate was 162. I am 50 yrs. old. According to the HRM, I burned 2329 calories. According to the
charts, I should have only burned 1100 calories.

So my question is: which is more accurate? the HRM or the charts? I do

have

Quoted message said:

the HRM set up correctly with my current weight (140 lbs) and height

(5'8"😉

Quoted message said:

and age (50) in it. I guess I tend to believe the HRM more than the

charts,

Quoted message said:

but I'm confused nevertheless...

You are 50 years old, and you are maintaining a heart rate of 162 for

almost

Quoted message said:

3 hours? That's possible, but it seems unusual. I have the bottom of the line Polar model, and it
measures just fine with the wrist strap, but with the

wireless

Quoted message said:

equipment on the Nordic trainer, it measures very oddly and very high. I wonder if something like
this is happening to you.

A little math: your maximum heart rate is VERY ROUGHLY 220-your age = 170. If you are at 90% of
your maximum, you would be at 153, and would be at/beyond your anaerobic threshold. I don't think
you would be likely to be doing 3 hours at this heart rate, and if you were I would think you
would be so tired you wouldn't have

enough

Quoted message said:

energy to post 😉

My advice: verify the heart rate monitor by actually counting your pulse

on

Quoted message said:

your carotid artery or wrist.

"Paulo" quoted an entire article, then top-posted one line:

Quoted message said:

HRM is a waste of money...just a toy...

I guess all those pro cyclists that wouldn't train without one are a bunch of suckers.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA terrymorse.combikeOpen ↗

Are we in a fitness NG or a Pro-atheltes NG?

--
Paulo "Terry Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Paulo" quoted an entire article, then top-posted one line:

Quoted message said:

HRM is a waste of money...just a toy...

I guess all those pro cyclists that wouldn't train without one are a bunch of suckers.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA terrymorse.combikeOpen ↗

Paulo said:

Terry Morse said:

I guess all those pro cyclists that wouldn't train without [a HRM] are a bunch of suckers.

Are we in a fitness NG or a Pro-atheltes NG?

Someone was kind enough to cross-post this thread to both cycling and "fitness" newsgroups, which
you could tell from reading the headers instead of making a snide comment.

Maybe an HRM is a toy to some, but it's a valuable training tool to anyone who is serious about
improving aerobic performance. It's pretty hard to do lactate threshold training when you don't know
your heart rate, for example.

Your one-liner seems to make a distinction between competitive athletes and "fitness" athletes when
it comes to using a HRM. Are "fitness" people simply not serious enough about their training to use
a HRM? When the goal is increasing one's aerobic capacity, why would a HRM be an essential training
tool to one and "just a toy" to the other? Or to put it another way, how serious must one be to get
value out of a HRM?
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA terrymorse.combikeOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Are we in a fitness NG or a Pro-atheltes NG?

Neither; it's a bicycling newsgroup.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Quoted message said:

You are 50 years old, and you are maintaining a heart rate of 162 for almost 3 hours? That's
possible, but it seems unusual.

snip

Quoted message said:

A little math: your maximum heart rate is VERY ROUGHLY 220-your age = 170. If you are at 90% of
your maximum, you would be at 153, and would be at/beyond your anaerobic threshold.

You do put in the qualifier that the estimated maximum heart rate is 220-age but you then seem to
assume it is true.

The thing is that I have seen a number of people whose maximum heart rate deviated from the 220-age
by a pretty large margin. Shoot, I am his age and I think I can run that heart rate for 3 hours.

Also the 220-age calculation apparantly was dreamed up and was not verified by any kind of
measurements.

OK so why are you calorie calculations so far off?

Well the one is an estimate of the calories burned per hour at a certain speed. But that would only
hold true for a very narrow range of conditions. A heavy rider would burn more calories. Riding up
even a modest grade would burn considerably more calories. Headwinds would cause more calories
burned and so on.

So one would think that heart rate would be better? Well not really. The heart rate is merely a
signal indicating intensity of exercise. I would think that if you were not very well trained, your
heart rate under the same caloric consumption would be much higher then if you were very fit.

Also, the calories burned would vary widely with the individual. I rather doubt that I would be
burning as many calories at the same heart rate as Lance Armstrong (after weight was corrected for).

Also one's heart rate can vary with circumstances. If you beat yourself up, the next day, your heart
rate will be elevated at the same MPH.

The thing is for heard rate to be a valid measure of caloric consumption, one would have to
determine caloric consumption at various heart rates. That is what is called a "standard curve".
Shoot, any competent analytical lab runs a couple of standard curves every time they use a machine -
just in case.

Here you are trying to estimate caloric consumption with absolutely no verification. No wonder
things don't add up!

The estimates you gave are just estimates and as you may have figured out, they are not exactly
very accurate.

Shoot, I have a cereal box which lists the caloric consumptions per hour of various popular
activities. Cycling falls below golf on this scheme! Shoot and I did not even know that golf was an
activity. Of course, the people who dreamed up that one, must have had in mind a person riding their
bike around the neighborhood at maybe 5 mph. Then maybe cycling burns fewer calories then golf. But
even then it would be hard to believe.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are 50 years old, and you are maintaining a heart rate of 162 for almost 3 hours? That's
possible, but it seems unusual.

snip

Quoted message said:

A little math: your maximum heart rate is VERY ROUGHLY 220-your age = 170. If you are at 90% of
your maximum, you would be at 153, and would be at/beyond your anaerobic threshold.

You do put in the qualifier that the estimated maximum heart rate is 220-age but you then seem to
assume it is true.

The thing is that I have seen a number of people whose maximum heart rate deviated from the
220-age by a pretty large margin. Shoot, I am his age and I think I can run that heart rate for
3 hours.

Also the 220-age calculation apparantly was dreamed up and was not verified by any kind of
measurements.

My understanding is that there was a study which found that this was a reasonable estimate, but it
was based on people who were sedentary, not ones who exercised regularly. As such it's not a bad
starting point for people who haven't been exercising, but once you get into any kind of decent
shape, you are better off using an estimate based on a study of fit people. They usually give higher
estimates of max HR.

Of course, the best way is to measure your max HR and work from that.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Mike Kruger said:

That's possible, but it seems unusual. I have the bottom of the line Polar model, and it measures
just fine with the wrist strap, but with the wireless

Wrist strap? I've considered getting a HRM in the past, but have found the chest-strap idea a bit
off-putting, even though I have not heard from anybody who finds it uncomfortable; yes, I know that
I am therefore unreasonable.

Exactly which model "measures just fine with the wrist strap"? I'd buy that!

--
Rick "unreasonable" Onanian

David Kerber ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Also the 220-age calculation apparantly was dreamed up and was not verified by any kind of
measurements.

My understanding is that there was a study which found that this was a reasonable estimate, but it
was based on people who were sedentary, not ones who exercised regularly. As such it's not a bad
starting point for people who haven't been exercising, but once you get into any kind of decent
shape, you are better off using an estimate based on a study of fit people. They usually give
higher estimates of max HR.

You might be referring to the article "The Surprising History of the 'HRmax=220-age' Equation" by
Robert A. Robergs and Roberto Landwehr:

css.eduRobergs2.pdfOpen ↗

--
Michael Fuhr fuhr.org~mfuhrOpen ↗

"Rick Onanian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Kruger said:

That's possible, but it seems unusual. I have the bottom of the line

Polar

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

model, and it measures just fine with the wrist strap, but with the

wireless

Quoted message said:

Wrist strap? I've considered getting a HRM in the past, but have found the chest-strap idea a bit
off-putting, even though I have not heard from anybody who finds it uncomfortable; yes, I know
that I am therefore unreasonable.

Exactly which model "measures just fine with the wrist strap"? I'd buy that!

I'll clarify. But you won't like it 😉 The basic polar comes with a chest strap and a
wristwatch-type readout you strap on your wrist. That's what I was referring to. The Nordic machine
I have contains a readout device that can be used with the same chest strap, but which is unreliable
(and I've had 2 of them replaced; they have all read poorly).

Quoted message said:

You are 50 years old, and you are maintaining a heart rate of 162 for almost 3 hours? That's
possible, but it seems unusual.

snip

Quoted message said:

A little math: your maximum heart rate is VERY ROUGHLY 220-your age =
170.If you are at 90% of your maximum, you would be at 153, and would be at/beyond your anaerobic
threshold.

Nonsense. I'm 72, my max HR is at least 178 (I've measured it at that with a monitor) and probably
somewhat higher, and I can ride with it in the low 160's for at least 2 hours (which I have done)
and probably more without undue stress. On a stress test treadmill they always get tired of waiting
and cut me off.

The charts are very rough guesses based on nothing much that I can discover other than each other.

Alexander Gilchrist