Effects of heart rate on calorie count

[Jbone]

Ok, so I am a new fit bit user. I just got mine a couple weeks ago, and other than a few minor technical things, I love it. My only issue is that I use it to keep track of all calories I take in and I set it up so that I am trying to maintain a 500 calorie deficit. I am 5'10" , 227lbs, at a 23% bmi. While muscular, my main purpose of having the fit bit is to keep track of calories in and out. I walk a whole lot at work. An average of 12 miles a day. Given that is a lot of walking, and I am not a small guy, I understand that I burn a lot of calories, but I am often reaching 4000 calories by the days end, and between 5 and 6k by days end depending on what I do at the gym... there is no way that can be right. Or can it? I would be losing weight like crazy, but I am only maintaining. I notice that with my heart rate off, my calorie count significantly lower only being about 3200 by the end of the day with just my step count to go off of.anyway, my question is that this has to be wrong... right? I cannot be burning 5k calories a day. What effect does he have on the calories, and would customizing my heart rate to a higher fat burning zone and cardiovascular zone help correct this? Would my calorie count be accurate with heart rate turned off? Please, someone school me.

[Chris1963]

Hi, it is a bit of a mystery. As you know your resting metabolic rate is probably around 2000, mine is 1760 as I'm a bit lighter than you. So that accounts for that without moving. HR certainly affects the calculation but it is still a guess - but it shouldnt be a million miles out even accounting for different levels of fitness between people of similar age, height and weight. And actually when I do a bike ride as I did today, I also wear a chest strap using an app on the phone - the polar app and surge recorded within 50 calories of each other over 1300 burnt, that is not bad, the difference being surge isnt quite as consistent on recording the heart rate, but suggests both are in the ball park.

I target 3000 a day calorie burn and that is generally a 25-30 mile bike ride and 5- 10 miles walking to achieve that including of course RMR. I generally will burn 3500 on a typical day with that activity level.

Curiously though, even though I am logging food and consume about 2000 my weight has been static at 185lb for a month having lost 10lbs in the previous month....nope, I dont know why either!!

Not sure if this helps you but its my take on my own experience.  

[Jbone]

I appreciate the feedback. That long of a bike ride seems like it should definitely warrant a 3000 calorie a day burn. Especially being that you will be up in the cardio level for most of it. I believe the static weight you are running into is body efficiency. For people that workout and exercise, it is good elevate or switch up workouts every month or every other month. While instrumentation may say you are burning so many calories, it takes longer or more physical workouts to get the same results. You often hear about runners or weight lifters hitting a wall in their progress, and at that point it is essential to switch up and work the body in different ways. My own example would be my deadlift and bench hit a wall at 385/275. So I switched to lighter weights, more reps, and a lot more cardio for a couple months. When I went heavy again, I found my bench jumped to 315, and my deadlift to 435, and eventually 485. Same idea with losing weight. If biking is your main source of cardio, you're muscles become so efficient at it, that you hit a wall. Maybe try switching to high intensity interval training for a month or so with only light biking just to maintain, then go back. I think you might break your weight from being static. It worked for me anyway. As for the calories, I had my heart rate off all day. I just got off work. I am at 10 miles walking, and 3400 calories. I'm about to hit the gym, and try to tamper with the custom heart rates. I am hoping that the calorie burn looks more reasonable. 6000 cals in a day with a regular work day, then an hr at the gym doesnt seem to warrant that. I wish fit bit had advice on how to set it up more accurately. I'm sure there is a way.

[Martian69]

I am 47 and I do the elliptical for about two hours a day and I St the machine for cardio/fat burn the hr on my surge is dead on with hr monitor on the elliptical machine and I do 10 miles a day on the elliptical know the elliptical shows calorie burn at 1,400 to 1,600 depending how hard I push my self my hr stays around 156 and when push my self putting the elliptical on like level 4 or higher like you're walking up a step hill my hr goes to about 160 to 166 and after al that my surge shows my calorie burn ate almost 1,600 to 2,000 so any where from a 200 to a 400 calorie differently I also have it set to loose two pounds per week and I hitting that goal every week so far for the last two and half months and I set my account up on the desktop first then I set it up on my phone I am burning a total of 5,700 to 5,300 calories a day and on sat and Sunday my rest day I have a average burn of about 1900 to 2100 so I think mine is pretty acuat

[MariamV]

@Jbone & @Martian69 welcome to the forums! @Chris1963 pretty good insights my friend.  Please keep in mind that your trackers calculate your calories burned based on your basal metabolic rate (BMR) which is the rate at which you burn calories at rest just to maintain vital body functions like breathing, heartbeat, and brain activity. our BMR usually accounts for at least half of the calories you burn in a day and is estimated based on the physical data you entered when you set up your account: gender, age, height, and weight; double check if that info is correct for the calories to be counted more accurately. 

Also, the calorie burn estimate that Fitbit provides takes into account your BMR, the activity recorded by your tracker, and any activities you log manually. Now, if you wear your tracker while cycling then use the bike exercise on your Surge to track it and see how it contributes to your daily calories burn. Just like you guys were discussing the fat burn zone definitely causes a higher percentage of calories are burned from fat, but the total calorie burn rate is lower. 

Hope this info helps. Catch you later!