calories burned - HRM vs. Web sites??

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...

"Bob" wrote in message
et...
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. 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" wrote in message
et...
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.

In article ,
"S. Anderson" wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
et...
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"

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

Bill "always helpful" S.

"Bob" wrote in message
et...
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...


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
http://www.CycliStats.com
Developers of CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

Bob wrote:
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" wrote in message
et...
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...

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" wrote in message
s.com...
"Bob" wrote in message
et...
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...

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.

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

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 http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/