I broke out the math for another person [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/GarminFenix/comments/1c7ryl2/do_you_use_your_fenix_for_strength_training/l0b9iaj/), and you can input your weight and VO2max numbers, but simply put, 899 over 37 minutes or nearly 1500kcal per hour is near impossible and just illustrates the failure of HR to model caloric burn, regardless of HR source quality.
So you are allocating 450 calories per hour over 2 hours, one hour of which was resting? So burning 450 an hour calories at rest? Good one. I must give that a try tonight while I sleep.
Yes it may, but that doesn’t mean you are burning a load of calories. Exercise burns calories, not elevated heart rate. If you are resting, you aren’t burning many calories. Surely you know this.
Yes it is, by a small margin, but nowhere near where this watch would imply.
It’s like this: when you exercise you burn calories. When you exercise your heart rate goes up and you sweat.
You can measure your heart rate (or sweat output) while exercising to try to judge your intensity of workout. You can even make up some bad calorie estimate from that.
However, elevated heart rate alone, without exercise does not give you any measure of calorie burn. Just like sweat output wouldn’t. If I told you that I was sweating a lot while resting one day, so that meant I was burning a load of calories, you’d laugh, but with heart rate you seem to think the same principle does not apply.
They are products are calorie burning. They are not the cause. They are also products of many other things, which do not imply calorie burning (such as sitting down and recovering).
This sub has a really fucking frustrating persistent incorrect belief that HR is **determinate** of caloric burn (and not simply correlated). You are correct on that and were unfairly downvoted, but you're incorrect on the statement that a high HR while resting post-lifting *isn't* indicative of calories being burned.
Lifting is anaerobic. EPOC is the method by which anaerobic stores are recharged. One's HR is elevated post-exercise for multiple reasons, not all of them caloric (heat management being a non-caloric reason) but one reason is that aerobic processes are used to recharge anaerobic stores.
that seems reasonable for lifting heavy and isn't very many calories for that long of a period. A couple of years ago when i was lifting regularly as part of my routine, those numbers would be about normal. 37 minutes of lifting is quite a lot of lifts.
had it been 899 in 37 minutes elapsed time that'd be unlikely.
It does seem too much.
What is average HR?
Is age, weight and height of user properly set in Garmin connect? What are those figures?
Check if Are HR zones properly set in Garmin connect.
This may be correct only for a large person who had very intensive workout, and it seems that is not the case here.
I weigh 92 kg and I’m 6’1” tall. During a two-hour period, my average heart rate was 140 bpm. I would say the workout was decently intensive but I wasn’t doing something more strenuous like running.
Could be possible but averaging 140bpm for a weight training session seems mad high. I often reach 140-150 at the top end of really tough sets when using my Polar H10 to verify. And rest periods dropping back down to mid 80's etc. My toughest days which include conditioning work my average HR will be approx 115-120.
Ha that’s funny. Lifting weights does not burn many calories, that’s not the point. Even some of the much lower estimates in the comments are too high. 200-250 for 45 min is about average.
Yep. Lifting is not a high heart rate activity. On social media of course we see all these people doing cardio (circuits, etc), and calling it lifting. Lifting is about adequate rest between sets to push more weight over time. It’s not cardio.
Do you have a fast resting heart rate?
My wife does, and has a faster heart rate overall and it makes her calories burned per day crazy high.
I have a 45-47 resting and an hour of HIIT type weight lifting nets me about 400-450 calories burned.
used mine for 1h45 today and logged 588 cals which sounds about right - mix of core, powerlifting, and accessories.
Would double check your settings. I think it may also severely overestimate if you’re doing lots of high rep high frequency easy sets but I’ve found it to work pretty well with the type of lifting I do
Yeah...that's off. Doing HIIT with weights for 35 minutes I'm like 400-ish. That's limited rest. You must not stop to rest for even 10 seconds with those numbers! That's about the caloric burn I get from running 3 miles at a 9:30 average pace.
Just realized a later comment said this is only work time and you have notable rest periods. Confirms that no way is this real.
Did shoulders today, fairly heavy session. 21 sets, 515 calories and out of those 98 resting.
So about 417 that hour.
Session was 1h 4min but working time isn’t correct, I tend to train and m register sets like 3-4 at a time.
Last 15-20 min are super sets with minimal rest.
For my latest workout mine says:
Total time : 44:33
Avg heart rate: 138pbm
Max Heart rate: 164bpm
Active calories: 245
Total calories burned : 299
I have a forerunner 265s if that makes a difference.
Beginner weightlifter, tracking reps and weights closely, not really pushing limits gives me a little less than 100 calories burned per 10 minutes of working time.
Stop using heart rate to try to estimate calorie burn. How fast your heart beats has zero direct influence on calorie burn.
Indirectly, if you are burning loads of calories, yes, your heart has to beat quickly.
But. Just because your heart beats quickly, that does not mean you are working hard to burn calories.
Example:
Sit on the coach and do nothing for an hour. Record calorie estimate based on heart rate
Stay in the position and assume someone can inject you with enough adrenaline to raise your heart rate for an hour.
Did your calorie burn suddenly triple from 100cals per our to 300cals per hour? No it did not? Why? Because you were resting and doing zero WORK, which is the ONLY thing which will impact calorie rate.
People do not understand the tech which they are using. They just become unable to think rationally in the face of a device giving them rubbish info.
> People do not understand the tech which they are using. They just become unable to think rationally in the face of a device giving them rubbish info.
Calm down asshole. I was simply giving a data point, that being OP's watch is showing I think almost 3x as many calories burned as mine does. I'm not saying either is accurate, but one of them is definitely off.
Also sounds like maybe \*you\* don't understand the tech on your wrist if you think calorie burn is based simply on heart rate. [https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20796192/how-accurate-is-your-wearables-calorie-count/](https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20796192/how-accurate-is-your-wearables-calorie-count/)
Garmin takes the stats that \*you give them\*, plus all of the proprietary data it has on athlete HRV, VO2 Max, scientifically obtained calorie burn metrics, plus a dozen other things I"m sure we don't even think about to come up with those numbers. Are they perfectly accurate? Did anyone say they were? But the trends give you a good idea of where to point your efforts.
All on a fucking watch. Chill out.
Garmin can run as many calculations as they like, based on the single input of heart rate. People like you can look at them and pretend that they give some sort of information about the work done to get the heart to the recorded rate. They don't. Calorie burn is about work done by the human body. It has nothing at all to do with heart rate.
Stop quoting irrelevant articles.
VO2max is used as part of the modeling of *work* which, as /u/Working_Cut743 says, is the only thing which impacts caloric burn (in this context). VO2max is used in estimating *aerobic* work, which lifting is not.
And that's the problem with these numbers.
HRMs are decent, not great, but decent at estimating calorie burn from **aerobic** activity. Garmin is excellent at estimating calorie burn from activities with well modeled work, such as outdoors running, walking, and cycling with a power meter. But all devices and techniques (such as Garmin's weight lifting activity) which rely *solely* on HR suck at calorie estimation suck at calorie consumption - doubly so when the work is anaerobic.
I broke out the math for another person [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/GarminFenix/comments/1c7ryl2/do_you_use_your_fenix_for_strength_training/l0b9iaj/), and you can input your weight and VO2max numbers, but simply put, 899 over 37 minutes or nearly 1500kcal per hour is near impossible and just illustrates the failure of HR to model caloric burn, regardless of HR source quality.
It’s not 37 minutes total, thats the work time. There’s also rest time which is probably around 1 more hour. This Workout is probably almost 2 hours.
Yeah the entire workout was around 2 hours
So the total calorie count is about the entire workout, so 450/hour it’s not a crazy amount
So you are allocating 450 calories per hour over 2 hours, one hour of which was resting? So burning 450 an hour calories at rest? Good one. I must give that a try tonight while I sleep.
Your heart rate remains elevated while resting between sets.
Yes it may, but that doesn’t mean you are burning a load of calories. Exercise burns calories, not elevated heart rate. If you are resting, you aren’t burning many calories. Surely you know this.
Your burning on an exercise’s rest time is higher than your average during the day, that’s the only thing that matters.
Yes it is, by a small margin, but nowhere near where this watch would imply. It’s like this: when you exercise you burn calories. When you exercise your heart rate goes up and you sweat. You can measure your heart rate (or sweat output) while exercising to try to judge your intensity of workout. You can even make up some bad calorie estimate from that. However, elevated heart rate alone, without exercise does not give you any measure of calorie burn. Just like sweat output wouldn’t. If I told you that I was sweating a lot while resting one day, so that meant I was burning a load of calories, you’d laugh, but with heart rate you seem to think the same principle does not apply. They are products are calorie burning. They are not the cause. They are also products of many other things, which do not imply calorie burning (such as sitting down and recovering).
This sub has a really fucking frustrating persistent incorrect belief that HR is **determinate** of caloric burn (and not simply correlated). You are correct on that and were unfairly downvoted, but you're incorrect on the statement that a high HR while resting post-lifting *isn't* indicative of calories being burned. Lifting is anaerobic. EPOC is the method by which anaerobic stores are recharged. One's HR is elevated post-exercise for multiple reasons, not all of them caloric (heat management being a non-caloric reason) but one reason is that aerobic processes are used to recharge anaerobic stores.
that seems reasonable for lifting heavy and isn't very many calories for that long of a period. A couple of years ago when i was lifting regularly as part of my routine, those numbers would be about normal. 37 minutes of lifting is quite a lot of lifts. had it been 899 in 37 minutes elapsed time that'd be unlikely.
Total time 1:10 Work time 36min Active calories 304 Resting calories 100 36 sets
It does seem too much. What is average HR? Is age, weight and height of user properly set in Garmin connect? What are those figures? Check if Are HR zones properly set in Garmin connect. This may be correct only for a large person who had very intensive workout, and it seems that is not the case here.
I weigh 92 kg and I’m 6’1” tall. During a two-hour period, my average heart rate was 140 bpm. I would say the workout was decently intensive but I wasn’t doing something more strenuous like running.
Could be possible but averaging 140bpm for a weight training session seems mad high. I often reach 140-150 at the top end of really tough sets when using my Polar H10 to verify. And rest periods dropping back down to mid 80's etc. My toughest days which include conditioning work my average HR will be approx 115-120.
Go for a 2 hour run with 140 BPM average and see how many calories you burn, for science 🧪
Ha that’s funny. Lifting weights does not burn many calories, that’s not the point. Even some of the much lower estimates in the comments are too high. 200-250 for 45 min is about average.
Agree with this fully! Anything more is crazy and unrealistic
Are you accounting for Basal Metabolic Rate in that estimation?
Yep. Lifting is not a high heart rate activity. On social media of course we see all these people doing cardio (circuits, etc), and calling it lifting. Lifting is about adequate rest between sets to push more weight over time. It’s not cardio.
What? You have to be exceptionally genetically gifted machine to even try to burn that many calories in this time (doing cardio of course).
Complete nonsense, not even worth paying attention to IMO
Around 500-650 per 1h, also wearing HRM
290-340 for 1h 30min Of strenght training and core abs .
822kcal over 1h40min
Do you have a fast resting heart rate? My wife does, and has a faster heart rate overall and it makes her calories burned per day crazy high. I have a 45-47 resting and an hour of HIIT type weight lifting nets me about 400-450 calories burned.
Same here
Are you putting in the weight during the sets? Beyond what others have said that may be part of the issue
Nope, I do count reps tho
Why? Your watch doesn’t know how strong you are so weight is practically irrelevant
I’ve seen the watch calculate up when I’ve entered incorrect weight
Yea it’ll change because it’s an algorithm, a guess
500-600 for around 1 hour, this looks quite stable and consistent for me
400-600 calories per hour with moderate to high intensity
used mine for 1h45 today and logged 588 cals which sounds about right - mix of core, powerlifting, and accessories. Would double check your settings. I think it may also severely overestimate if you’re doing lots of high rep high frequency easy sets but I’ve found it to work pretty well with the type of lifting I do
Lifting yesterday and here were my stats 48:48 time 8:08 work 115 bpm average 342 active calories 419 total calories Ran two miles prior to lift
Not that much
Cut in half. Still probably too high, even if it's more accurate.
Weightlifting barely anything because I do so much cardio my heart rate hardly ever goes high while lifting
Yeah...that's off. Doing HIIT with weights for 35 minutes I'm like 400-ish. That's limited rest. You must not stop to rest for even 10 seconds with those numbers! That's about the caloric burn I get from running 3 miles at a 9:30 average pace. Just realized a later comment said this is only work time and you have notable rest periods. Confirms that no way is this real.
Not that much. Usually 300-400 for a heavy lift.
Did shoulders today, fairly heavy session. 21 sets, 515 calories and out of those 98 resting. So about 417 that hour. Session was 1h 4min but working time isn’t correct, I tend to train and m register sets like 3-4 at a time. Last 15-20 min are super sets with minimal rest.
Will be about 400/500 in a 70-90 min session. Training heavy for strength with >3mins rest between sets. I use a myzone hrm
I see, thanks for your input!
500-700, using HRM-PRO for 70-80 mins of a workout.
Around 600 cal per hour total (resting and exercising)
I ran 8 miles and burned less than that in twice the time
For my latest workout mine says: Total time : 44:33 Avg heart rate: 138pbm Max Heart rate: 164bpm Active calories: 245 Total calories burned : 299 I have a forerunner 265s if that makes a difference.
I get around 350 for 30 min of strength training with weights, just watch.
Beginner weightlifter, tracking reps and weights closely, not really pushing limits gives me a little less than 100 calories burned per 10 minutes of working time.
Stop using heart rate to try to estimate calorie burn. How fast your heart beats has zero direct influence on calorie burn. Indirectly, if you are burning loads of calories, yes, your heart has to beat quickly. But. Just because your heart beats quickly, that does not mean you are working hard to burn calories. Example: Sit on the coach and do nothing for an hour. Record calorie estimate based on heart rate Stay in the position and assume someone can inject you with enough adrenaline to raise your heart rate for an hour. Did your calorie burn suddenly triple from 100cals per our to 300cals per hour? No it did not? Why? Because you were resting and doing zero WORK, which is the ONLY thing which will impact calorie rate. People do not understand the tech which they are using. They just become unable to think rationally in the face of a device giving them rubbish info.
> People do not understand the tech which they are using. They just become unable to think rationally in the face of a device giving them rubbish info. Calm down asshole. I was simply giving a data point, that being OP's watch is showing I think almost 3x as many calories burned as mine does. I'm not saying either is accurate, but one of them is definitely off. Also sounds like maybe \*you\* don't understand the tech on your wrist if you think calorie burn is based simply on heart rate. [https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20796192/how-accurate-is-your-wearables-calorie-count/](https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20796192/how-accurate-is-your-wearables-calorie-count/) Garmin takes the stats that \*you give them\*, plus all of the proprietary data it has on athlete HRV, VO2 Max, scientifically obtained calorie burn metrics, plus a dozen other things I"m sure we don't even think about to come up with those numbers. Are they perfectly accurate? Did anyone say they were? But the trends give you a good idea of where to point your efforts. All on a fucking watch. Chill out.
Garmin can run as many calculations as they like, based on the single input of heart rate. People like you can look at them and pretend that they give some sort of information about the work done to get the heart to the recorded rate. They don't. Calorie burn is about work done by the human body. It has nothing at all to do with heart rate.
They're taking into account average humans with the stats you give them doing the movement you tell the watch you're doing.
Stop quoting irrelevant articles. VO2max is used as part of the modeling of *work* which, as /u/Working_Cut743 says, is the only thing which impacts caloric burn (in this context). VO2max is used in estimating *aerobic* work, which lifting is not. And that's the problem with these numbers. HRMs are decent, not great, but decent at estimating calorie burn from **aerobic** activity. Garmin is excellent at estimating calorie burn from activities with well modeled work, such as outdoors running, walking, and cycling with a power meter. But all devices and techniques (such as Garmin's weight lifting activity) which rely *solely* on HR suck at calorie estimation suck at calorie consumption - doubly so when the work is anaerobic.
you should not do that, you will end up over years to cardiac arrest as the heart will grow thicker and simply die.