| Author | Post |
|---|
runtwoday
New Member
| Joined: | 27 March 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
|
Posted: 28 March 2006 05:00 pm |
|
I know my height, weight, gender, exercise, duration of exercise, and heart rate during exercise. If heart rate is a measure of effort, i.e. the harder I exercise the higher my heart rate, and the harder I exercise the more calories I burn, then I should be able to calculate calories burned no matter the exercise by using my heart rate. Am I thinking correctly?
Does anyone know a formula that given the above I can use to calculate calories burned?
Thanks.
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 October 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 28 March 2006 08:09 pm |
|
Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.
The fitter you become, the lower your heart rate will be for a given effort. There's no sensible correlation that you could use.
However, there are many rough guides as to how to calculate this. And there are exercise/calories burned calculators on this very website...
Go on, give them a go and make Peter (the moderator) a happy man!
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4179 |
|
Posted: 29 March 2006 09:59 am |
|
I've never looked into this myself -- though I've been asked about it many times -- simply because I figure that if there were a reliable formula based on heart rate then it would follow that they wouldn't have performed so many studies on calories burned by different activities.
I would guess that it might be more appropriate to have a formula for a single activity, say running. But it would have to take into account your resting heart rate for sure.
Then again, I know my heart really races when I'm frightened or nervous. Woudn't that be an easy way -- if unpleasant -- to burn calories!
Peter
P.S.
Click on the Weight Loss Products link, below, then amazon.com, then search for:
heart rate monitor calories burned
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 October 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 29 March 2006 11:43 am |
|
All the monitors That I've seen that purport to calculate your 'burned calories' require you to enter your weight.
That makes sense. Calories are burned by the body in order to perform work. The heavier you are, the more work you must do to complete a given exercise in a set time.
I doubt that those monitors are any more accurate than the activity calculators on this site, though.
And what works best is having a sensible plan and sticking to it often enough to make a difference. The rest is just gizmos.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 29 March 2006 05:18 pm |
|
Indeed, most heart rate monitors (including my first one from a couple of months ago but alas not the one I'm currently using) will add up your calories burnt, therefore for any given time-slice they must be using the heart rate during that slice (together with the inputted Age and Weight - but without asking for height/gender/type-of-exercise) to estimate calories burnt.
I am also curious as to the formula being used within such a heart rate monitor - I don't have the time to research this right now, but I'd really love to know too!
NevD, the fitter you become, the harder you have to work to get to a particular effort level (say 80% target heart rate using the Kravonen formula). So perhaps it would still be valid to have a formula which estimates your calories-burnt when working out at a given % rate? (and perhaps also taking weight into account)
Peter, I do take on board your point about other non-exercise factors that could be setting your heart racing and how they might make such calculations invalid in certain emotional circumstances.
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 October 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 29 March 2006 06:12 pm |
|
Hi Nir -
Can't see how that could work:
Provided the bodyweight involved was the same for both these scenarios, where does that leave the calories burned calculator? In the second scenario, I've done 1.8 times the work for less perceived effort…
Or am I missing something much subtler in your post? (Wouldn't be the first time!)
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 29 March 2006 11:17 pm |
|
I used to easily reach my 65% target. Now I'm fitter and my rest heart rate is lower, and my 65% number is lower too - yet I need have to work "harder" to reach it so I guess I must be expending more calories even though it is 'easy' to do. So I think I concede my idea doesn't work! oops
|
Current time is 06:23 pm | |
|
