heart rate's relationship to calories burned

So, I don't have a body pod, and I can't tell how many calories I burn during workouts, so most times I just go off of either the gym equipment or calorie count's estimates which are usually pretty similar. But, I've been starting to think that maybe I'm burning more calories than the site or machine tells me I am, because my HR is normally well into the high 100s, most above 170 by 5 minutes on the elliptical, and it ranges from 170-195 the whole time. I am young, and in pretty decent shape, although carrying a few extra lbs, but my heart rate has always been this way, so im not too worried, but I was just curious if anyone thinks that my calorie burn during workouts is higher because of this? Or are the not connected?

Thanks for the help!

Heart rate is a personal thing so the actual number doesn't really mean much.  What matters is how hard you are working and it is common to use the percentage of maximum heart rate to gage effort.  In other words, if 170 bpm is 75% of your max heart rate and 145 bpm is 75% of someone else's max heart rate you are both working at the same intensity as each other even though your heart rates are different.  There is more to burning calories than heart rate, but if the two of your are about the same size, similarly fit, and doing the same activity you would probably be burning the same calories even though your heart rates are very different.

I see!

thanks so much!

I was actually thinking about posting a question about this.  I already knew that 75% of your max heart rate is optimal for fat burning vs. cardiovascular workouts, but how do you know what your "max" heart rate is?

Machines always overestimate calories burned, sometimes by A LOT. There have been several studies over the past few years about predicted energy expenditure vs. actual expenditure on every type of cardio machine and each one found that although the accuracy of the prediction varied from person to person, the machine ALWAYS estimated a higher calorie burn. In fact, one study found a particular elliptical trainer overestimated calories burned by 26%, and another study (not sure if it was a different model or not) found it was off by 31%. 

In other words, no, you're probably not burning more than the machine says you are. In fact, you're probably burning less. It sucks, but it's a marketing tool to make you think you are getting unbelievably good results. The only way to determine how many calories you are burning as a whole (not specifically by doing cardio) is to measure your caloric intake and see how quickly you lose or gain weight. Then adjust your intake or activity accordingly. I'm not sure about the accuracy of the bodybugg or similar tools, but that may be another avenue to explore.

It's not an exact science unless you get it tested. A couple formulas are:

220 - Age

217-  (Age * .85)

I think they come out about the same anyway.

I assume also that the machines don't take into account what you would normally burn anyway.  So for example, if in a given day at sedentary, you burn 40 calories in half an hour, and you do half an hour on the eliptical and it tells you that you burned 800 calories, you have to subtract what you would normally burn in that time period before adding the calories to your daily burn.

Not sure if that made any sense at all, but at sedentary I burn about 2100 calories a day, so divide that by 24 hours and that gives me an hourly burn of 87.5 calories.  So when I work out for an hour, I take the amount I think I've burned in that hour, subtract 87.5, and add the result to my 2100 to figure out my daily burn.

I go by that assumption too. But I think it's been mentioned that, if you enter your activities through CC, the log already takes your regular burn into account.

Yes that's true....I don't normally do it on here anymore though lol.  I really just use this site for chatting and my journals. :)

Age formulas are a notoriously bad way to estimate maximum heart rate.  This article give a better approach.