My Dad got me a Polar RS100 for xmas and I just started putting it to use yesterday and today. Must say it's pretty neat. I slacked on the riding a bit last year and switched over to running as the days got shorter up here in the NW. After the holiday I'm sitting at 6'4" 207, wanting to get down to 190 in the next 4 months (have plenty of fluff to lose, not muscle). Anyway, I've read plenty about how to do that in posts below...

BUT, how accurate are the heart rate monitors on judging calories burned? I rode the trainer for 30 mins last night and burned 455 calories (got bored and didn't want to overdo the first night back on). Ran for 30 min's tonight, mostly flat terrain, around 9 min miles, burned 680 cals. Does this sound about right? I know there are many variables, but wondering if that sounds like a good ballpark and if I can rely on the monitor for gauging calorie expenditure for setting my intake...

I set it up for my height, weight, age, but haven't gone through the zone programming yet, so it's still beeping annoyingly when I'm over 165 bpm.

Thoughts, experiences?

My Dad got me a Polar RS100 for xmas and I just started putting it to use yesterday and today. Must say it's pretty neat. I slacked on the riding a bit last year and switched over to running as the days got shorter up here in the NW. After the holiday I'm sitting at 6'4" 207, wanting to get down to 190 in the next 4 months (have plenty of fluff to lose, not muscle). Anyway, I've read plenty about how to do that in posts below...

BUT, how accurate are the heart rate monitors on judging calories burned? I rode the trainer for 30 mins last night and burned 455 calories (got bored and didn't want to overdo the first night back on). Ran for 30 min's tonight, mostly flat terrain, around 9 min miles, burned 680 cals. Does this sound about right? I know there are many variables, but wondering if that sounds like a good ballpark and if I can rely on the monitor for gauging calorie expenditure for setting my intake...

I set it up for my height, weight, age, but haven't gone through the zone programming yet, so it's still beeping annoyingly when I'm over 165 bpm.

Thoughts, experiences?
A heart rate monitor doesn't have a clue on calories. I would say plus/minus 50%. - TF

A heart rate monitor doesn't have a clue on calories. I would say plus/minus 50%. - TF

Depending on how you want to do the math, this could be considered generous :) This guy's HRM estimated roughly double his likely calorie burn. That's +100% (but minus 50% if you start from the reading he got and go down to the real number). Running burns roughly 100 calories per mile.

Depending on how you want to do the math, this could be considered generous :) This guy's HRM estimated roughly double his likely calorie burn. That's +100% (but minus 50% if you start from the reading he got and go down to the real number). Running burns roughly 100 calories per mile.

Interesting. I've read approximates for running calories burned, but always thought I'd be above being much bigger than average at 6'4" 205. I can't imagine a 5'5", 130 lb person expends the same energy to run a mile as I do. But maybe I am thinking about it wrong.

Anyway, last night I did 45 min's on the trainer pushing fairly hard and got a reading around 750 cal.

Tonight I ran for 51 mins with some slight hills, probably around 5 miles or so and the monitor said 1034 cals. My average heart rate was 175. Time under 165, 9 mins.

Anyway, if the monitor is not at all accurate, what do you guys use to determine your calories burned?

I don't worry about calories burned. It's a pretty meaningless number. If you have a power measuring device, then you could compute watt-hours and have an idea of your energy use.

If you are running at a HR of 175 BPM you aren't doing in the way of fat burning. Yes, you are still burning calories but you aren't teaching your body to effectively tap in to your fat reserves as a fuel source. I've found great results in dropping unwanted pounds simply by doing strong aerobic based workouts where my HR doesn't get over 155 BPM. My Max is right around 195 on the bike and slightly lower on runs. That is roughly 70-75% of my max.

If you are running at a HR of 175 BPM you aren't doing in the way of fat burning. Yes, you are still burning calories but you aren't teaching your body to effectively tap in to your fat reserves as a fuel source. I've found great results in dropping unwanted pounds simply by doing strong aerobic based workouts where my HR doesn't get over 155 BPM. My Max is right around 195 on the bike and slightly lower on runs. That is roughly 70-75% of my max.
Some wrong information is at least implied here. See:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=47922

TF

I don't worry about calories burned. It's a pretty meaningless number. If you have a power measuring device, then you could compute watt-hours and have an idea of your energy use.

I agree, the term Calories is slightly meaningless. However, Calories burned in relation to Caloric Intake is a ratio I'm interested in as I'm trying to tone up for the season.

I imagine the best thing to do is still keep track of what the monitor says as far as Calories burned and use it in a relational sense to gauge effort between workouts rather than in an absolute sense of calories burned.

RE: Heart Rate. I'd love it if I could run 5 miles and stay in my "zone". Unfortunately I'm not in good enough condition to do so. Either way, I figure if I'm excercising its all going in the good column and maybe once I reach a baseline of fitness I can start worrying about what Zone I'm in.

My goal is to overtrain for the next month to lose the weight, then scale back for 2-3 months going into my first race/hard rides of the season.

Okay, didn't mean to imply anything misleading. Obviously if you burn more calories than you take in you will lose weight. I'm not a nutritionist so I won't get into any of the ratios. All I was saying is that at a workout where your average HR is 175 BPM is pushing into most individuals anaerobic zone where the body uses up stored glycogen and slows down its conversion of fat stores as an energy source. Why not exercise in a way to help train your body to be as effecient as it can?

You say you can't stay in the proper HR zone, when it's really about pacing and learning how to stay at the effort you're trying to do.

And your idea of 'overtraining' for the next month is a bad one. You're greatly increasing your chance of injury and you're missing out on the opportunity to develop your aerobic base.

When you do longish (1.5 hours or more) workouts at 65-75% of max you can actually train your body to tap into your fat reserves. And once your body has 'learned' this, you will actually be getting a higher percentage of energy from fat (vs. glycogen) all the time, even when you're just sitting at your computer.

If you need to lose a bit of weight, diet is the most efficient way. It takes five minutes to eat 500 calories, but a lot longer to work it off.

BTW--I have a Polar HRM as well, and your calorie counts do sound a bit high. The general rule is 1 mile of running burns about 100 calories for a 150# person. A 100# person may only burn 75 Cals/mile, while someone larger will burn more. Have you properly entered your weight, age, height, etc. into the HRM? I'd double check that.



I agree, the term Calories is slightly meaningless. However, Calories burned in relation to Caloric Intake is a ratio I'm interested in as I'm trying to tone up for the season.

I imagine the best thing to do is still keep track of what the monitor says as far as Calories burned and use it in a relational sense to gauge effort between workouts rather than in an absolute sense of calories burned.

RE: Heart Rate. I'd love it if I could run 5 miles and stay in my "zone". Unfortunately I'm not in good enough condition to do so. Either way, I figure if I'm excercising its all going in the good column and maybe once I reach a baseline of fitness I can start worrying about what Zone I'm in.

My goal is to overtrain for the next month to lose the weight, then scale back for 2-3 months going into my first race/hard rides of the season.

There's enough information out there to really make your head swim. I've checked out a few fairly detailed "calories burned" calculators and for my height/weight/pace/distance, the running one seems fairly close as does the cycling.

Anyway, what I'm gathering from the posts and doing more reading, is that I should focus on my diet (which I am) and shoot for longer, but less intense activity.

For what I can do, I think that will mean 3-4 trainer sessions a week for 30 min's to an hour mostly in my 'zone' and 2 runs a week to maintain that ability/fitness...I imagine with time and weight loss my heartrate for a given distance/pace will decrease.

I appreciate the comments, if nothing else its spurred further reading on the subject!

Beyond everything else, it feels great to be back off the sofa and training again after the holidays...