Is There a Direct Link Between Heart Rate and Calorie Burn During Exercise?

[Evil Bunny]

Is there a direct correlation between calorie burn and heart rate?

If an athlete and a couch potato each weighed 175 lbs and ran a mile in 10 minutes, would they burn the same amount of calories?

I would assume the couch potato would have a much higher heart rate during this event. Does that make any difference at all?

 

[Pierce610]

The main duties of heart are to regulate temperature keeping it constant, to bring O2 and to bring away CO2.
So O2 increases if heart rate increase. But O2 reacts and burns calories if there is a request of muscular force.
I think then there is a correlation if we want get motion of body, for example, but yet one can have a patology with very frequently beats without do any movement.

 

[Evo]

Is there a direct correlation between calorie burn and heart rate?

If an athlete and a couch potato each weighed 175 lbs and ran a mile in 10 minutes, would they burn the same amount of calories?

I would assume the couch potato would have a much higher heart rate during this event. Does that make any difference at all?

This should help answer.

A closer look at physical activity and metabolism

While you don't have much control over the speed of your basal metabolism, you can control how many calories you burn through your level of physical activity. The more active you are, the more calories you burn. In fact, some people who are said to have a fast metabolism are probably just more active — and maybe more fidgety — than are others.

You can burn more calories with:

• Regular aerobic exercise. Aerobic exercise is the most efficient way to burn calories and includes activities such as walking, bicycling and swimming. As a general goal, include at least 30 minutes of physical activity in your daily routine. If you want to lose weight or meet specific fitness goals, you may need to increase the time you spend on physical activity even more. If you can't set aside time for a longer workout, try 10-minute chunks of activity throughout the day. Remember, the more active you are, the greater the benefits.
• Strength training. Strength training exercises, such as weightlifting, are important because they help counteract muscle loss associated with aging. And since muscle tissue burns more calories than fat tissue does, muscle mass is a key factor in weight loss.
• Lifestyle activities. Any extra movement helps burn calories. Look for ways to walk and move around a few minutes more each day than the day before. Taking the stairs more often and parking farther away at the store are simple ways to burn more calories. Even activities such as gardening, washing your car and housework burn calories and contribute to weight loss.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508?pg=2

 

[Evil Bunny]

Thanks for the replies...

I guess what I'm trying to find out is an answer to a more specific question.

In physics, if you move an object with a specific weight (175 lbs in my example) at a specific rate (6 mph in my example), there is a specific energy requirement.

Energy is measured in joules, and a calorie is just a certain amount of joules... Therefore, I would say that both subjects in the example would burn the same amount of calories regardless of how fast their hearts are beating.

But this is in conflict with things like heart rate monitors that tell you how many calories you have burned during your workout based on your heart rate.

So... do the athlete and the couch potato (who weigh the same) burn the same amount of calories after the 10 minute mile or don't they? Their hearts were beating at much different rates, but the energy requirement (calories burned) seems like it should be the same.

 

[Choppy]

So the question you want to ask is whether a fit individual is more efficient than a non-fit individual.

I suspect the answer is yes.

EDIT: But now that I think about it, that might just be a conclusion that results from a circular definition.

 

[Evo]

So... do the athlete and the couch potato (who weigh the same) burn the same amount of calories after the 10 minute mile or don't they?

No, they do not burn calories at the same rate.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/metabolism/art-20046508

 

[Evil Bunny]

I understand that an athlete will have a higher metabolism than a non-athlete. And if they were each sitting on a couch next to each other, the athlete would burn more calories while they're both resting based on metabolism alone.

But what happens with calorie burn when they both run 6 mph for 10 minutes (remembering that they weigh the same)? And how is it related to heart rate?

Are we saying that, since the athlete has a higher metabolism, he will burn more calories?

Further, if each of them were wearing a heart rate monitor that estimated their calorie burn, would this device be in agreement with that idea?

It seems to me that the non-athlete would have a much higher heart rate than the athlete during this event, and his heart rate monitor would tell him that he burned more calories than the athlete did.

Both of these ideas can't be correct.

 

[Evo]

The answer is in the link I gave you, muscle burns more calories. You are referring to one person as an athlete, so I would assume that you are inferring that the athlete has more muscle than the *couch potato*. A heart rate monitor cannot tell the difference between the two people and could not give you an accurate estimate of calories burned.

 

[Martin Evans]

"In physics, if you move an object with a specific weight (175 lbs in my example) at a specific rate (6 mph in my example), there is a specific energy requirement.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/heart-rate-vs-calorie-burn.802589/"
Well, no. Only accelerating an object requires energy. In theory, if you could run without raising and lowering your centre of gravity , on a flat plane you would expend little energy. I think that the heart rate required to keep up any level of activity is just a measure of your body's efficiency. i.e. fitness. I know that, when I am 'fit' my resting heart rate drops significantly.

 

[Evil Bunny]

Good point... I guess gravity is the only reason we need to expend energy on a steady run in the first place.

So, what I learned from this thread is that heart rate monitors are completely useless if you're interested in calorie burn. Interesting...