Forums >Health and Nutrition>Calorie Count

1

Calorie Count (Read 819 times)

Elly.


    posted: 2/11/2009 at 3:10 PM
    I use a Polar heart rate monitor for all workouts. Why does the RunningAhead data show waaaaay more calories used than my heart rate monitor? Which is the more correct?

    http://www.ellyfosterphotography.com/

    L_Master


      posted: 2/11/2009 at 3:28 PM
      Not sure why because I have no idea how the HRM measures calories burned, only obvious thing would be if you have an incorrect weight in one of the fields. I think the accepted standard for running is about 100-140 cal/mile depending on weight and around 115-120 for your "standard" 150 pound person. Obviously this will vary person to person.

      They say golf is like life, but don't believe them. Golf is more complicated than that. "If I am still standing at the end of the race, hit me with a Board and knock me down, because that means I didn't run hard enough" If a lot of people gripped a knife and fork the way they do a golf club, they'd starve to death. "Don't fear moving slowly forward...fear standing still."

      Trent


      Good Bad & The Monkey

        posted: 2/11/2009 at 3:28 PM
        There is no way to know the answer without getting physiologic testing done. They are both guesses based on existing formulae. That said, I would expect the HRM to be less accurate. But there is no way to know for sure. That all said, this should be good enough: When running, you burn 80 calories per mile if you weigh 100 lbs 120 calories per mile if you weigh 150 lbs 160 calories per mile if you weigh 200 lbs ...independent of pace, road grade, ambient temperature. All estimates are +/- ~15%. Or more.
        Elly.


          posted: 2/11/2009 at 3:58 PM
          Shocked Oh my, that is good news. The heart rate monitor checks gender, age, height and weight. Generally speaking, the harder I run, the more calories I seem to burn. Then, Trent, since you have a read on this, how about cycling? My average speed is about 15 mph, but that depends on how hard the wind is blowing. When the wind is gusting to 30 mph, it's an effort to move forward!

          http://www.ellyfosterphotography.com/

          Trent


          Good Bad & The Monkey

            posted: 2/11/2009 at 5:02 PM
            I believe that biking burns about 1/3 the amount that running does, per mile. BTW, Elly, I believe I know ye Wink
            cgerber


              posted: 2/11/2009 at 5:52 PM
              modified: 2/11/2009 at 5:52 PM
              Based on about 10 years of counting calories and using a Polar HRM... it's pretty darn close to accurate for me. If you were to track everything you eat and your weight daily and compare the trends with how many calories your HRM says you're burning, you should get an idea of whether or not it's accurate. I gave up the calorie counting thing about a year ago, so I don't know if my new Polar is the same. Your mileage may vary. - Chris
              Trent


              Good Bad & The Monkey

                posted: 2/11/2009 at 5:57 PM
                Quote from cgerber on 2/11/2009 at 5:52 PM:
                it's pretty darn close to accurate for me
                As compared with what gold standard? Wink
                RunningBEHIND


                  posted: 2/11/2009 at 6:33 PM
                  He does all of his running in a metabolic chamber.
                  For message board success, follow these three easy steps in the correct order: 1) Read, 2) Comprehend, 3) Post.
                  Elly.


                    posted: 2/11/2009 at 8:33 PM
                    Trent, I believe I know you, too. 1/3 amount sounds right. Still makes out to be pretty good. Cross training is a way of life for me. Count those calories.......

                    http://www.ellyfosterphotography.com/

                    cgerber


                      posted: 2/11/2009 at 8:58 PM
                      Quote from Trent on 2/11/2009 at 5:57 PM:
                      As compared with what gold standard? Wink
                      Counting calories in vs reported calorie burn per week and weight loss per week, taken over a 10 year period. I used to be pretty anal about my record keeping. To a fault. Now I just eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. ...and don't worry about it.
                      Trent


                      Good Bad & The Monkey

                        posted: 2/11/2009 at 9:34 PM
                        Spectacular!
                        cgerber


                          posted: 2/11/2009 at 10:03 PM
                          Quote from Trent on 2/11/2009 at 9:34 PM:
                          Spectacular!
                          Yeah. So much easier and much more effective in regards to both health and weight loss. Cool
                          xor


                            posted: 2/11/2009 at 10:20 PM
                            Get a room.

                             


                            Forums >Health and Nutrition>Calorie Count

                            © 2024 RunningAHEAD, LLC. All rights reserved.
                            Terms of Service|Privacy|Feedback|Help