[rocket]

need some help please.

recently bought a F6 polar heart rate monitor. After running i have checked the amount of calories burned but when i compare this to mapmyrun.com the reulsts are very different. For example a half hour run about 2 miles showed 400 calories burned on my HRM but acording to maymyrun.com it was 220 calories.

Can some one let me know why this is?

many thanks

 

[LazyJones]

Hi Rocket, the number of calories you burn running is dependent on your speed & your weight. The faster you are & the more you weigh, the more you burn. The 400 calorie reading sounds very high for 2 miles, the 220 is probably more likely. I would double-check your settings. Good luck with your training.

 

[Runningfox]

need some help please.I recently bought a F6 polar heart rate monitor. After running i have checked the amount of calories burned but when i compare this to mapmyrun.com the reulsts are very different. For example a half hour run about 2 miles showed 400 calories burned on my HRM but acording to maymyrun.com it was 220 calories. Can some one let me know why this is? Many thanks

Two reasons I can think of: One is I don't think Mapmyrun takes into consideration the amount of ascent and descent along a measured route. A five mile measured route from my home is flat, according to Mapmyrun, but in fact has over 600 ft of ascent that requires considerably more effort, will boost the heart rate and consume more calories. A HRM will register this increased effort and calculate calorie consumption accordingly.
Secondly, Mapmyrun only takes into consideration the age and height of a runner - which gives absolutely no indication of a runners fitness. A fit 74 year old, like me, can perhaps be considerably fitter than a 34 year old smoker. The latter's heart rate might go through the roof, even on a flat five miles, whilst the fitter runner's heart rate will be considerably lower and therefore consume less calories.
I think your new HRM will be considerably more accurate than Mapmyrun. But what does it matter? Unless you're a top class, highly tuned athlete your calorie consumption surely isn't all that important. In twenty years running and racing, I've never given it a thought!
Cheers!

 

[Steady Edwina]

Rocket - I think you need to double check your HR Max calcs. The F6 automatically defaults to the formula 220-age, which for many people isn't accurate.

Have you read John Palmers book Heart Rate Monitors for the Complete Idiot?

 

[flakey]

what you trying to say edwina?

 

[Steady Edwina]

John Parkers book is really good - I've bought it to help me navigate the intricacies of HRM training.

 

[Karen]

Mmmh - I'll attest to the fact that the 220-age (or 226-age for females) is really not an accurate formula for me. Now that I've started heart rate training, I'm averaging a heart rate of ahout 175 for an easy jog, and can easily go upto 183 for even a slight incline. Yet my max heart rate using the standard formula says 183. I still don't know what my real max is as I've never pushed it hard enough (I'm afraid of death!), but I'm estimating that it must be between 195 and 200. When I first saw that I was getting upto 183 without any real effort, I got a little frightened. But have since started reading another book on HRM training (and drat now I can't find it to tell you the author and title), and feel much more confident about the readings that I'm getting.

Also, my Garmin tells me that I do about 630-odd calories for a 45-minute run. That seems to be slightly higher than the rate at which I burn calories on a treadmill at my local gym.

Now where did I leave that book?

 

[Steady Edwina]

Don't worry Karen I felt pretty much the same when I started using mine - I'm going to hopefully do the max HR test over the weekend (involves running up and down a hill 5 times) and unless you have a heart condition you should be ok. I've found John Parkers formula to be slightly more accurate (205-half your age) and he also add a fugde factor of 5 for girlies so on that basis I'd estimate your HR max to be 188. Maximum HR is more of a genetic factor rather than an indication of fitness - whereas resting HR is a direct measure of fitness.

Have you measured your resting heart rate yet?

 

[Karen]

Hi SE,

My usual resting HR is about 60-62 when I wake up in the morning. I've also seen it down at 38 (middle of the night, lying absolutely still). For the moment I'm working with a max of 193 to work out my HR training zones.

The book I bought, published Oct 2006 (and I still haven't found it!) gets you to work out a lactic threshold HR rather than a max HR. That seemed to me a very sensible method, and the resulting zones (read from an Appendix table at the back of the book) seems to make a lot of sense for my particular level of fitness and the way my heart responds.

I think I may have left the book at a hotel I was staying at over New Year as I really can't find it anywhere. I bought it in the US a few weeks ago, and it's bothering me that I now can't find it as I was still only half-way through reading it.

 

[Steady Edwina]

Maybe it was handed in at the hotel - have you tried ringing them?.

I find HRM training fine on my own but when I'm running with others like on club nights I find it harder to run slow enough. I'm currently working on the assumption that my maximum HR is 192-195 but haven't had chance to do the maximum HR test yet.

I've only measured my resting heart rate once so far and it got down to about 64.

 

[rebel]

I've also read the 'Compleat Idiot's' book and am trying to stick to its principles. However I did a max test a few months ago which gave me a HR of 179. To stick to 70% or below of that is impossible for me and I found I was walking more than I was running. I'm still not convince that the figure really is my max and intend to do another one when I can get the bottle. On my LSR's I keep to below 152 bpm and find that very comfortable. However I do know that I burn more calories on a slow run than on a faster one.

 

[Steady Edwina]

I also did the max HR est as well and mine came out at 186 but I know its been higher than that on club runs so I think I wasn't really pushing myself hard enought. I'm sticking to John Parker's formula as I feel for mee it gives a good approximation.