Does anyone understand how calculate calories burned based on heart rate WITHOUT calculations that are already made up?

I just want to know the mathematical equation! I don't want an easy fix calculator on some website to estimate the calories that *I* burn as an individual. Does anyone know?

By this I mean activity-wise. Thank you!

To find out your personal calorie expendure, you'd have to get your RMR professionally tested. They hook you up to a mask and get your calorie burn based on your breathing rate. It's worth the money.

I always wanted to ask this question. I was looking for like an equation that I could pulg in numbers like hr and whatever.

It would be nice if manufacturers of Heart Rate Monitors would reveal the formulas they use to determine calorie expenditure but none of them do.  But there are some websites like this one that allow you to plug in your numbers and they will give you an calorie burn estimate.  How accurate any of these estimates are is anyone's guess.

Edit:  Even though the Op ddin't want a website, I though someone else might be interested.

The calculation is on the web page you posted:

Using VO2max:

Men: C/min = (-59.3954 + (-36.3781 + 0.271 x age + 0.394 x weight + 0.404 x VO2max + 0.634 x HR))/4.184
Women: C/min = (-59.3954 + (0.274 x age + 0.103 x weight + 0.380 x VO2max + 0.450 x HR)) / 4.184

Without VO2max:

Men: C/min = (-55.0969 + 0.6309 x HR + 0.1988 x weight + 0.2017 x age) / 4.184
Women: C/min = (-20.4022 + 0.4472 x HR - 0.1263 x weight + 0.074 x age) / 4.184

where weight is in kilograms and C stands for Kcals.

Given the above, I'd prefer to use the calculator!

While the calculator is cool and all... having the formula makes it easy to setup up a simple spreadsheet for calculating everything.   I can see where this whole thread could be going.

Oh.

Original Post by terra0514:

The calculation is on the web page you posted:

Using VO2max:

Women: C/min = (-59.3954 + (0.274 x age + 0.103 x weight + 0.380 x VO2max + 0.450 x HR)) / 4.184


where weight is in kilograms and C stands for Kcals.

Given the above, I'd prefer to use the calculator!

 OK, Using my personal info:

age: 27, weight: 76.2 kg, VO2 max = 44.3, HR = 140 (for example)

(-59.3954 + (0.274 x 27 + 0.103 x 76.2 + 0.380 x 44.3 + 0.450 x 140)) / 4.184

= (-59.3954 + (7.398 + 7.8486 + 16.834 + 63)) / 4.184

= (-59.3954 + (95.0806)) / 4.184

= 8.53

8.53 what?

C/min = Calories Per Minute.

C/min = (-59.3954 + (0.274 x age + 0.103 x weight + 0.380 x VO2max + 0.450 x HR)) / 4.184

Oops! I knew I missed something!

Being on beta blockers I have a problem with most of the standard calorie burn tables and HRM's that calculate calories burned. I used the braydenwm equations w/o VO2max (Men: C/min = (-55.0969 + 0.6309 x HR + 0.1988 x weight + 0.2017 x age) / 4.184) to prove to myself that my Polar F4 couldn't be trusted. I found that the Calorie King online calculator to be the most accurate, for me at least, since it takes into account, age, weight, height, and sex - but it doesn't tell us the equations it uses.

I also googled (I forget what I searched on) and found the "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004 that discussed "Net Calorie Burn" which gives a simple calorie burn rate equation for running and walking. Total running calories are .75*weight*mi run, Multiplication factor for Net calories are .68, while total walking is .53 and net walking is .30.

I also found "Compendium of Physical Activities Tracking Guide" which lists METS for a whole slew of activities. Where MET (Metabolic Equivalent) =  The ratio of the work metabolic rate to the resting metabolic rate. One MET is defined as 1 kcal/kg/hour and is roughly equivalent to the energy cost of sitting quietly. A MET also is defined as oxygen uptake in ml/kg/min with one MET equal to the oxygen cost of sitting quietly, equivalent to 3.5 ml/kg/min.

Calories burned for oneminute = (METs*3.5*[weight in Kg]*5)/1000

hth

man after looking at those numbers my head hurts lol. But maybe I will give that eqution a shot.

None of these calculations could be accurate because they don't take into account how much muscle mass and fat you have. Muscle burns more calories than fat. If you weigh 150 and are 30% body fat, you may not burn as many calories as those calculators, but if you weigh 150 and are only 20% body fat, you would burn a lot more calories than those calculators estimate...

If you really want to know how many calories you burn you need to have your RMR tested...

Original Post by toastyocie:

None of these calculations could be accurate because they don't take into account how much muscle mass and fat you have. Muscle burns more calories than fat. If you weigh 150 and are 30% body fat, you may not burn as many calories as those calculators, but if you weigh 150 and are only 20% body fat, you would burn a lot more calories than those calculators estimate...

If you really want to know how many calories you burn you need to have your RMR tested...

 I know we are getting off topic but in your example the 150 lb person with 20% bf has 30 lbs of fat and the 150 lb person with 30% fat has 45 lbs of fat.  If we assume that the difference is all muscle and the person with 20% bf is active then the difference in calores burned per day between to two people would be about 45.  That's just 45 calories per day or just less than 2 calories per hour, not what I would call "a lot".

Original Post by trhawley:

 I know we are getting off topic but in your example the 150 lb person with 20% bf has 30 lbs of fat and the 150 lb person with 30% fat has 45 lbs of fat.  If we assume that the difference is all muscle and the person with 20% bf is active then the difference in calores burned per day between to two people would be about 45.  That's just 45 calories per day or just less than 2 calories per hour, not what I would call "a lot".

 Hey TR - How did you get this calculation?  (Back to the calculations again) : )

Original Post by terra0514:

Original Post by trhawley:

 I know we are getting off topic but in your example the 150 lb person with 20% bf has 30 lbs of fat and the 150 lb person with 30% fat has 45 lbs of fat.  If we assume that the difference is all muscle and the person with 20% bf is active then the difference in calores burned per day between to two people would be about 45.  That's just 45 calories per day or just less than 2 calories per hour, not what I would call "a lot".

 Hey TR - How did you get this calculation?  (Back to the calculations again) : )

 From one of Melkor's studies, and don't have the link.  The statement, "muscle burns more calories than fat" is true but the difference is very small, about 3 calories per pound per day.  And the difference is even less in sedentary people.  That is why most formulas for determining daily calorie expenditure are based on weight and ignore body composition, the difference is insignificant.  But still, we want to lose fat not muscle.

Yup, untrained muscle burns about 5.7 kcal/day, trained muscle about 7.2kcal/day, while fat burns 2-3kcal/day per pound. So - untrained muscle, eh, 2.7-3.7kcal/day per pound more than fat, trained muscle 4.2-5.2kcal/day more than fat.

 Big Whoop.

Well, if you've got 10 pounds of fat and replace that with 10 pounds of muscle which is possible to do in about 6 months to a year, you can add 40-50kcal/day to your burn which is quite sufficient to prevent the normal developement of adding 1lbs of fat a year after the age of 25. And the effect of going from untrained to trained muscle can also be useful - you add about 1.5kcal/day per pound of muscle without increasing the mass. Assuming 50lbs of muscle that's another 75kcal/day, so net effect might be to increase your daily burn by 100-150kcal/day.

 Or the equivalent of 10-15g of fat a day. If you were to rely solely on that to lose weight, you'd be in for a long wait to see it reflected on the scale. It would take you 1.5-3 months to lose a single pound, whereas through diet you can lose 1-2lbs a week.

 In theory it helps, but one slice of bread contains enough calories to compensate for the increased burn in most people. So for the big picture of calorie-counting it's close to irrelevant in practice - it's smaller than the margin of error you have in measuring your food and estimating your calorie expenditure.