How Accurate Are Those Monitors, Anyway?

02-01-2007, 07:52 AM

"Prisoner at War" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in
news:1170349029.605054.235430@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com:

>
> For immediate release from Ye Olde Rambling Question Dep't.:
>
> I'm on some elliptical at the gym, have been doing it 40 minutes three
> times a week, each session the machine read-out claims I've lost
> ~850-900 calories (range due to variable intensity)...how accurate is
> that? I find it hard that with 40 minutes of sweat I've burned that
> many calories. It doesn't feel too hard, relatively speaking (though
> I do Level 15 out of 20 available, with 20 as the hardest).
>
> There's also the heart rate monitor that has me at the upper celing of
> my target heart range (which is supposed to be ~142-157 for a 35 y.o.)
> for almost all 40 minutes, which I find incredible, too...I definitely
> look like I'm fit -- Greco-Roman statue and all -- but it all feels
> much easier than I'd expected (though there is surely a psychological
> component involved, and I've learned fairly well to tune out
> unpleasantries like fatigue, etc.), so I'm wondering whether such
> devices are trustworthy...how are such numbers calculated, anyway? On
> this elliptical, the target heart rate seems to come from sensors in
> the handles....

Don't rely on what your heart rate is supposed to be w/ regard to your
age. Just because you are 35 doesn't mean your maximum heart rate is the
same as the typical 35 y.o. I'm 40 and have at least a 205 bpm HR max.
(as indicated in the final sprint of a 10K race in Nov.) which is 20 bpm
higher than what I'm "supposed" to have. Find a means of testing your HR
max. so that you can determine the appropriate target ranges for you.

mike

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

02-01-2007, 07:57 AM

For immediate release from Ye Olde Rambling Question Dep't.:

I'm on some elliptical at the gym, have been doing it 40 minutes three
times a week, each session the machine read-out claims I've lost
~850-900 calories (range due to variable intensity)...how accurate is
that? I find it hard that with 40 minutes of sweat I've burned that
many calories. It doesn't feel too hard, relatively speaking (though
I do Level 15 out of 20 available, with 20 as the hardest).

There's also the heart rate monitor that has me at the upper celing of
my target heart range (which is supposed to be ~142-157 for a 35 y.o.)
for almost all 40 minutes, which I find incredible, too...I definitely
look like I'm fit -- Greco-Roman statue and all -- but it all feels
much easier than I'd expected (though there is surely a psychological
component involved, and I've learned fairly well to tune out
unpleasantries like fatigue, etc.), so I'm wondering whether such
devices are trustworthy...how are such numbers calculated, anyway? On
this elliptical, the target heart rate seems to come from sensors in
the handles....

02-01-2007, 08:58 AM

"Prisoner at War" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1170349029.605054.235430@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
>
> For immediate release from Ye Olde Rambling Question Dep't.:
>
> I'm on some elliptical at the gym, have been doing it 40 minutes three
> times a week, each session the machine read-out claims I've lost
> ~850-900 calories (range due to variable intensity)...how accurate is
> that? I find it hard that with 40 minutes of sweat I've burned that
> many calories. It doesn't feel too hard, relatively speaking (though
> I do Level 15 out of 20 available, with 20 as the hardest).
>
> There's also the heart rate monitor that has me at the upper celing of
> my target heart range (which is supposed to be ~142-157 for a 35 y.o.)
> for almost all 40 minutes, which I find incredible, too...I definitely
> look like I'm fit -- Greco-Roman statue and all -- but it all feels
> much easier than I'd expected (though there is surely a psychological
> component involved, and I've learned fairly well to tune out
> unpleasantries like fatigue, etc.), so I'm wondering whether such
> devices are trustworthy...how are such numbers calculated, anyway? On
> this elliptical, the target heart rate seems to come from sensors in
> the handles....
>

The heart rate is likely to be ECG based, and thus quite accurate.

The calorie counter is guessing based on anything you tell the machine when
you get on (age, weight etc).

Skippy
E&OE

02-01-2007, 08:59 AM

"Prisoner at War" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1170349029.605054.235430@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com...
>
> For immediate release from Ye Olde Rambling Question Dep't.:
>
> I'm on some elliptical at the gym, have been doing it 40 minutes three
> times a week, each session the machine read-out claims I've lost
> ~850-900 calories (range due to variable intensity)...how accurate is
> that? I find it hard that with 40 minutes of sweat I've burned that
> many calories. It doesn't feel too hard, relatively speaking (though
> I do Level 15 out of 20 available, with 20 as the hardest).
>
> There's also the heart rate monitor that has me at the upper celing of
> my target heart range (which is supposed to be ~142-157 for a 35 y.o.)
> for almost all 40 minutes, which I find incredible, too...I definitely
> look like I'm fit -- Greco-Roman statue and all -- but it all feels
> much easier than I'd expected (though there is surely a psychological
> component involved, and I've learned fairly well to tune out
> unpleasantries like fatigue, etc.), so I'm wondering whether such
> devices are trustworthy...how are such numbers calculated, anyway? On
> this elliptical, the target heart rate seems to come from sensors in
> the handles....

For the average population probably and there in lies the rub.
I suspect you are way above average. Do it for yourself not for a machine.
Feel good and you will look good.
You asked the wrong question here cause everybody stepped in it couple
months ago with a calorie to heartrate question and the answer is NO.

02-01-2007, 09:04 AM

"Prisoner at War" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

> I'm on some elliptical at the gym, have been doing it 40 minutes three
> times a week, each session the machine read-out claims I've lost
> ~850-900 calories (range due to variable intensity)...how accurate is
> that?

Probably not very. 850 calories is what a 155# guy would burn running 8
miles or so. Can you run 8 miles in 40 minutes (5:00/mile pace)? Do you
run at all? That would be national class talent. That's the kind of output
you're talking here...

The heart rate is probably more accurate than the calorie count. If the
heartrate backs off when you slow down, and increases gradually throughout
the session as you get fatigued, and keep pushing, that's a sign that both
your heart and the monitor are working properly.

> There's also the heart rate monitor that has me at the upper celing of
> my target heart range (which is supposed to be ~142-157 for a 35 y.o.)
> for almost all 40 minutes, which I find incredible, too...

Go out and see how far you can run in 40 minutes. Multiply each mile by the
calories per mile given by the following calculator and see what you get.

Here's a calorie calculator for running:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

02-01-2007, 10:24 AM

In article <1170349029.605054.235430@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups .com>,
Prisoner at War <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>For immediate release from Ye Olde Rambling Question Dep't.:
>
>I'm on some elliptical at the gym, have been doing it 40 minutes three
>times a week, each session the machine read-out claims I've lost
>~850-900 calories (range due to variable intensity)...how accurate is
>that? I find it hard that with 40 minutes of sweat I've burned that
>many calories. It doesn't feel too hard, relatively speaking (though
>I do Level 15 out of 20 available, with 20 as the hardest).

Not very accurate there. But not to worry. It'll be accurate in a
relative sense. If you go and do what it says was 1500 calories, you
probably burned off twice as many as if it said 750. How many that
was ... don't really know.

>There's also the heart rate monitor that has me at the upper celing of
>my target heart range (which is supposed to be ~142-157 for a 35 y.o.)
>for almost all 40 minutes, which I find incredible, too...I definitely
>look like I'm fit -- Greco-Roman statue and all -- but it all feels
>much easier than I'd expected (though there is surely a psychological
>component involved, and I've learned fairly well to tune out
>unpleasantries like fatigue, etc.), so I'm wondering whether such
>devices are trustworthy...how are such numbers calculated, anyway? On
>this elliptical, the target heart rate seems to come from sensors in
>the handles....

See my page on heart rate training (though oriented to runners, the
effort levels carry across aerobic activities fairly well)
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

The target range was computed based on your age, and some assumptions
of where you want to be exercising. But all estimators have a 10+ beat
per minute standard error. Consequently, my observed maximum heart rate
is a good 15 beats per minute higher than the 220-age estimator would
suggest.

Further, if the targeting from the machine didn't ask about your resting
heart rate, you can, again, be comfortable far above the level a simpler
estimate would say. Again, see my page for a little calculator and
verbal descriptions of effort levels. Heart rate reserve seems to work
much better for people.

(No, no advertising or the like. Just that I wrote a fair amount into
the page, and don't want to retype it all.)

--
Robert Grumbine [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

02-01-2007, 11:07 AM

Mike R. wrote:
> "Prisoner at War" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in
> news:1170349029.605054.235430@m58g2000cwm.googlegr oups.com:
>
>> For immediate release from Ye Olde Rambling Question Dep't.:
>>
>> I'm on some elliptical at the gym, have been doing it 40 minutes three
>> times a week, each session the machine read-out claims I've lost
>> ~850-900 calories (range due to variable intensity)...how accurate is
>> that? I find it hard that with 40 minutes of sweat I've burned that
>> many calories. It doesn't feel too hard, relatively speaking (though
>> I do Level 15 out of 20 available, with 20 as the hardest).
>>
>> There's also the heart rate monitor that has me at the upper celing of
>> my target heart range (which is supposed to be ~142-157 for a 35 y.o.)
>> for almost all 40 minutes, which I find incredible, too...I definitely
>> look like I'm fit -- Greco-Roman statue and all -- but it all feels
>> much easier than I'd expected (though there is surely a psychological
>> component involved, and I've learned fairly well to tune out
>> unpleasantries like fatigue, etc.), so I'm wondering whether such
>> devices are trustworthy...how are such numbers calculated, anyway? On
>> this elliptical, the target heart rate seems to come from sensors in
>> the handles....
>
> Don't rely on what your heart rate is supposed to be w/ regard to your
> age. Just because you are 35 doesn't mean your maximum heart rate is the
> same as the typical 35 y.o. I'm 40 and have at least a 205 bpm HR max.
> (as indicated in the final sprint of a 10K race in Nov.) which is 20 bpm
> higher than what I'm "supposed" to have. Find a means of testing your HR
> max. so that you can determine the appropriate target ranges for you.
>
> mike
>
>
Mike pretty well has the answer. If you are 35 and only working out to
the extent of 142-157 then you AREN'T trying hard enough. 165 is my
average rate sustained for about an hour at a time, and geesh, I know
people get tired of me saying it, but I'm 58 and 165 feels good. Sweaty
but good as in feeling alive. Don't believe what a generic machine says
or even the 225 minus age, or whatever you go by. Those are just
generalizations and probably the middle 50% of the bell curve. Mike is
40 and has a max of 205, me, 58 and about 185, both outside what the
books tell you.
Greco-Roman statue huh?
Snicker.
What's your middle name?
Narcissus?
Bill Baka