Calories burned commuting

pastryboy

Picked up a lidl heart rate monitor the other day (has all the features of one costing five or six times as much + a 5 year warranty + easily replaceable batteries - top stuff although the alarm that goes off when I go over 100% 'max' heart rate is quite annoying).

Anyhoo I was curious as to how many calories I burn on the way to work- it took into account my age, height, weight and obviously heart rate so I think it's fairly accurate.

Result = just shy of 800.

So that's nearly 1600 a day.
For my height/weight age if I was sedentary I should be eating around 2200 per day.

So I need to eat 57% more food because of cycling to and from work - expensive.

Interesting, perhaps not but I'm really not convinced I actually eat this much yet I'm not dropping weight or suffering from a lack of energy.

essex-commuter

pastryboy wrote:

yet I'm not dropping weight

Too much Pastry...boy.

asprilla

I'd suggest that your HRM is over estimating.

My Garmin 405 over estimates my about 40%. No idea how my 310xt does, but apparently it is better.

Plumby Baby

Yeah, according to the Mapometer I'm burning 950 a day on my 24 mile round trip. Me personally i take more notice of my thirst and stomach than i do any computer. Eat when you're hungry and drink before you get thirsty. Can;t go go wrong then unless you have a Homer Simpson diet.

Doh!

PS - yeah damn expensive. But well worth it.

danowat

pastryboy wrote:

so I think it's fairly accurate.

Its not, they never are.

My Garmin reckons I burn 2400 cals a day commuting, which is impossible, because I'd be a bag of bones if it were true.

pastryboy

Asprilla wrote:

I'd suggest that your HRM is over estimating.

I thought that but then I checked my resting heart rate and it hovered around the low 50's which puts me 'athelete' category and suggests I'm super fit. If it was over-estimating then I may be in fact be some sort of superhuman. I shall call the wife and tell her how lucky she is.

This site suggests that cycling for 52 minutes at 14-16mph would burn 640 calories for my weight. As I was faster than that it would suggest the figure was about right though obviously it's all best guesses.

http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc

I was under the impression that HRM's were generally accurate as it's a relatively simply task that they perform.

pastryboy

Mind you

http://bjsportmed.com/content/21/1/29.abstract

The regularity of going over 100% of my max heart rate (every time I pushed hard) did make me think it was overestimating at times but even so it doesn't seem that far out overall.

danowat

You can't go over your MHR!!!!

Your MHR is just that, the maximum your heart can beat, I take it your MHR on your HRM is a theoretical one, which is WAY out for many, many people.

biondino

I reckon approx 30-40 calories per mile seems about right for a decent effort (but not max balls-out time trial) style commuting. So, about 6 miles per pint

Paulie W

I suspect like others that the calorie estimation is incorrect.

But even if you were sitting around doing nothing for that 100 minutes you would be burning calories so it is not a case of simply adding on those 1600 calories to the 2200 as you have.

That 2200 is a pretty arbitrary figure anyway and you might be in homeostasis at a much higher figure based on your weight, your basic metabolic rate, how active you are at in your job, at home.

It is also entirely possible that your activity level outside of the commute is less than it would be without the commute if that makes any sense. Sometimes after a hard ride home, I just crash on the sofa in front of the TV proud of my physical effort. Without the ride I might be more likely to mow the lawn, play with the kids, do the DIY, vacuum etc all of which would burn more calories than slouching on the couch.

bearfraser

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhhhh:- DONUTS :!: :!: :!:

pastryboy

danowat wrote:

You can't go over your MHR!!!!

Your MHR is just that, the maximum your heart can beat, I take it your MHR on your HRM is a theoretical one, which is WAY out for many, many people.

Yes, the HRM uses 220 - my age which is one of several methods of determining max rate. That's why I referred to it as 'max' as I know it's not actually my max hear rate.

Even 40 calories per mile as suggested above is still not that far off. 14x40 = 560

Pufftmw

Paulie W wrote:

Sometimes after a hard ride home, I just crash on the sofa in front of the TV proud of my physical effort. Without the ride I might be more likely to mow the lawn, play with the kids, do the DIY, vacuum etc all of which would burn more calories than slouching on the couch.

If you're doing that, shouldn't you be eating something? It's not you proud of the effort, its your body closing down through lack of sustainance...

danowat

pastryboy wrote:

Yes, the HRM uses 220 - my age which is one of several methods of determining max rate. That's why I referred to it as 'max' as I know it's not actually my max hear rate.

There is only really one true way of determining your MHR, and its not fun!

essex-commuter

danowat wrote:

There is only really one true way of determining your MHR, and its not fun!

Push until you cannot push anymore, and then push just a little bit more.

Paulie W

Pufftmw wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Sometimes after a hard ride home, I just crash on the sofa in front of the TV proud of my physical effort. Without the ride I might be more likely to mow the lawn, play with the kids, do the DIY, vacuum etc all of which would burn more calories than slouching on the couch.

If you're doing that, shouldn't you be eating something? It's not you proud of the effort, its your body closing down through lack of sustainance...

I'm not quite sure how you think you know this but anyway you're kind of missing the point of the post...

Pufftmw

I get the point but there is a danger after taking strenuous exercise that if you don't refill your body with food, it will decide to tell you its had enough & will shut down a bit. Its that really sleepy, lethargic feeling you get.

http://ask.metafilter.com/146557/Why-do ... orking-out

That sort of thing ^^

Orleandrew

If the HRM says you're regularly going over max HR, then it obviously thinks you're working harder than you actually are, and the calories estimate is obviously going to be higher than it should.

Paulie W

Pufftmw wrote:

I get the point but there is a danger after taking strenuous exercise that if you don't refill your body with food, it will decide to tell you its had enough & will shut down a bit. Its that really sleepy, lethargic feeling you get.

http://ask.metafilter.com/146557/Why-do ... orking-out

That sort of thing ^^

I agree but I was really talking about the psychology of exercise - my retirement to the couch is a little bit about being tired but a lot about feeling smug at having done a couple of hours exercise.

MonkeyMonster

Orleandrew wrote:

If the HRM says you're regularly going over max HR, then it obviously thinks you're working harder than you actually are, and the calories estimate is obviously going to be higher than it should.

Being the dunce that I am and its late in the day - if your max is 220 and you're going over this. My memory is going eh... thats not safe. I thought it was never a good idea to keep let alone get your heart rate over 200 - regardless of how fit you are, you just start damaging things...

danowat

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Orleandrew wrote:

If the HRM says you're regularly going over max HR, then it obviously thinks you're working harder than you actually are, and the calories estimate is obviously going to be higher than it should.

Being the dunce that I am and its late in the day - if your max is 220 and you're going over this. My memory is going eh... thats not safe. I thought it was never a good idea to keep let alone get your heart rate over 200 - regardless of how fit you are, you just start damaging things...

His (calculated) max is likely to be 220 - age, even so, there is nothing "dangerous" about going over a certain HR, especially if someone just has a naturally high MHR

What "things" do you think that get damaged?, running your heart at a high HR is more likely to end with your muscles filling with lactic acid and not being able to continue long before your heart packs up.

rjsterry

This is why you have to stew hearts - they do a lot of work, so are pretty tough.

MonkeyMonster

danowat wrote:

What "things" do you think that get damaged?, running your heart at a high HR is more likely to end with your muscles filling with lactic acid and not being able to continue long before your heart packs up.

Well, all your heart muscle tissue for one thing. Then all the vessels all the bloods going through. Maintaining a very high HR is afai can remember (after discussions with various docs and friend surgeons) akin to having high blood pressure. It increases wear and tear at a faster rate.

sebastiandangerfield

There are hundreds of ways to calculate MaxHR. The main one people tend to use is 220-age but this is hugely inaccurate. Others are;

HRmax = 206.3 − (0.711 × age)

HRmax = 217 − (0.85 × age)

HRmax = 208 − (0.7 × age)

there are another twenty or so that I know if but all are debated as being vague at best. The problem for us as healthy folk is that it's more inaccurate for fitter people. The least objectionable one I know of is;

HRmax = 205.8 − (0.685 × age)

But this is still not great. See it as similar to body mass index; a good indication but there are always exceptions and these are more frequent with fitter people.

Back to the OP, Most heart rate moniters are very accurate at measuring heart rate as this is quite simple for devices to pick up. They struggle with converting this date into calories used. Not because the sums are hard but because Polor have the patent for the most accurate algorithms for the calculation. As a result, all other monitors (Garmin especially) are less accurate as they must use other calculations for the calories.

ETA, as previously said, there's only one way to work out HRmax and it aint fun!

danowat

MonkeyMonster wrote:

danowat wrote:

What "things" do you think that get damaged?, running your heart at a high HR is more likely to end with your muscles filling with lactic acid and not being able to continue long before your heart packs up.

Well, all your heart muscle tissue for one thing. Then all the vessels all the bloods going through. Maintaining a very high HR is afai can remember (after discussions with various docs and friend surgeons) akin to having high blood pressure. It increases wear and tear at a faster rate.

The key here is "maintaining", you just go out and try to maintain a very high HR........

craker

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Well, all your heart muscle tissue for one thing. Then all the vessels all the bloods going through. Maintaining a very high HR is afai can remember (after discussions with various docs and friend surgeons) akin to having high blood pressure. It increases wear and tear at a faster rate.

Is anyone able to cite evidence that pushing your heart is bad for it? I've read that it isn't if you're healthy, but I can't remember where (HRM instructions?).

The question is more pertinent for high calibre endurance athletes who must be close to
v02 max alot of the time, and sprinters who are as close to max hr as they can get. No one's suggesting that this is bad for them?

For us common or garden commuter types it's just scaremongering as far as I can tell. Get your heart going, it's proven to increase your life expectancy. But I can't even find the article from BBC that discussed this last week... :roll:

pastryboy

I'm not convinced I was at max heart rate - I think the HRM whilst generally accurate may have got a bit carried away when I upped the effort. The first time I used it I'd just got out on the road and was preparing for a burst of effort and it started beeping like mad showing 195. I was considering changing my date of birth on it to make it think I'm 1.

I don't think being at your max for a few seconds can be that bad for you - someone like Mark Cavendish must be there or thereabouts.

jonny_trousers

Max heart rate and burning too many calories indeed! Thread for containing most utter nonsense of the year award? Look no further.

Eat well, ride hard, job done!