We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Advice with HRM pls

Strives4Progress
Strives4Progress Posts: 78 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
I find mfp over estimates calorie burns. To get a more accurate reading I plan to start using my polar watch.

My question is, what is more accurate for calorie burns...a wrist based continuous HRM or a chest strap HRM? And if there is any difference, is it a big one?

Thanks:)

Replies

  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Both of these are training tools, not diet tools. Please don't expect much accuracy from them in terms of calories.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Strives4Progress wrote: »
    I find mfp over estimates calorie burns. To get a more accurate reading I plan to start using my polar watch.

    My question is, what is more accurate for calorie burns...a wrist based continuous HRM or a chest strap HRM? And if there is any difference, is it a big one?

    Thanks:)

    What sort of activities are you doing that you want an approximation for?

    In practice it really doesn't matter whether you're taking wrist optical or chest electrical of you're doing something where HR isn't a reliable indicator.
  • gerla_k
    gerla_k Posts: 495 Member
    Chest strap more accurate. However I wore my Fitbit and my polar chest strap during my workout and anything up to 130 bpm they were identical. However anything higher than 130 polar chest strap was way faster to pick up. Calorie burn was pretty close in comparison.
  • Strives4Progress
    Strives4Progress Posts: 78 Member
    Generally my work outs are weight training, swimming or rowing.

    I just wanted something more accurate to judge my progress and know what my output is.It doesn't have to be perfect just better than mfp lol.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Strives4Progress wrote: »
    Generally my work outs are weight training, swimming or rowing.

    Doesn't matter then, HR doesn't have a consistent relationship with calorie expenditure in those circumstances.
    I just wanted something more accurate to judge my progress and know what my output is.It doesn't have to be perfect just better than mfp lol.

    It'll give you a different number then MFP, probably. It's unlikely to give you a consistently different figure, so you've got no idea whether it's better or not.

    The main thing is to track your progress and adjust what proportion of your estimate you eat back as the results suggest. If you're losing too quickly, eat more, otherwise eat less.
  • jennybearlv
    jennybearlv Posts: 1,519 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Both of these are training tools, not diet tools. Please don't expect much accuracy from them in terms of calories.

    This is true. It's still just a guesstimate. Chest straps are more accurate than optical wrist monitors though. I have a chest strap and it can be very finicky when it's dry and windy out. I haven't tried a wrist monitor for comparison. You will need a monitor that can transmit under water or save data for swimming. I've been told heart rate monitors aren't accurate for lifting, but I don't recall why.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    jennybearlv wrote: »
    Chest straps are more accurate than optical wrist monitors though.

    Recent research has demonstrated that is no longer the case.

    I've been told heart rate monitors aren't accurate for lifting, but I don't recall why.

    That's because HR has no relationship with calorie expenditure in many circumstances.
  • Strives4Progress
    Strives4Progress Posts: 78 Member
    If HR has no relationship for cals... what would be the best way to figure out cals burned?

    I don't eat back any of my calories I burn. I just post my work outs and it seems way too high.

    Thank you for all the advice.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited July 2017
    Strives4Progress wrote: »
    If HR has no relationship for cals... what would be the best way to figure out cals burned?

    I don't eat back any of my calories I burn. I just post my work outs and it seems way too high.

    Thank you for all the advice.

    If you're not eating back then find something meaningful to track for performance purposes; speed/ distance/ pace etc.
  • jennybearlv
    jennybearlv Posts: 1,519 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    jennybearlv wrote: »
    Chest straps are more accurate than optical wrist monitors though.

    Recent research has demonstrated that is no longer the case.

    I've been told heart rate monitors aren't accurate for lifting, but I don't recall why.

    That's because HR has no relationship with calorie expenditure in many circumstances.

    Could you post up this recent research? I did a Google search to decide whether to go optical when upgrading my watch six months ago and came to the conclusion optical HR was not accurate enough to be worth the extra cost or battery drain. I am curious to see how it has changed, and I know tech can change a lot in six months.
  • jennybearlv
    jennybearlv Posts: 1,519 Member
    Strives4Progress wrote: »
    If HR has no relationship for cals... what would be the best way to figure out cals burned?

    I don't eat back any of my calories I burn. I just post my work outs and it seems way too high.

    Thank you for all the advice.

    HR is still the best guess you are going to get for most cardio activities. Better than an MFP activity that relies on you to guess your exertion level. Just don't count on it to be perfect. My garmin watch underestimates my burns with or without HR data. Either that or I'm a special snowflake with the elusive high metabolism. I can tell you which one is more likely.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited July 2017
    https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html

    There are some issues with the study, but the material point remains; optical is pretty reliable for HR measurement. HR isn't a good basis to guess calories from.
  • Strives4Progress
    Strives4Progress Posts: 78 Member
    Thank you for the help/advice
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    weight training - HRM estimate for calories would be a complete joke, it's not cardio remember. Just use the "strength training" (under cardio section) estimate on here.

    swimming - that's going to limit your options. Is that non-stop lane swimming?

    rowing - if a Concept2 use their calorie estimates which work from the power you produce, that's a better basis than heartrate. Take your numbers from the rower's display and plug into this.... http://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/calorie-calculator
    (If you are near Concept2's default weight of 175lbs then just take the machine readout.)


    To be honest a HRM sounds like a waste of time and money for you.

  • jennybearlv
    jennybearlv Posts: 1,519 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html

    There are some issues with the study, but the material point remains; optical is pretty reliable for HR measurement. HR isn't a good basis to guess calories from.

    Yeah, like they forgot to include any Garmin devices. I like Garmin and would like to know how far off the mark they get for future purchasing decisions. 5% is a big discrepancy when using it for heart rate training and I've read wrist HR doesn't respond as quickly, like when doing intervals. I think chest straps win there, but I can see it not making much difference when your calorie expenditure is already wrong by 27-93%. I've read articles about the inaccuracies of step tracking as well, so I think the take away as mentioned is don't rely on your activity tracker for how many donuts you can eat.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    jennybearlv wrote: »
    5% is a big discrepancy when using it for heart rate training .

    My MHR is somewhere between 200 and 210bpm, which means 5% is somewhere between 2 and 3 BPM. That's material if I'm doing VO2Max training, so aiming to get to 195 BPM. If I'm in aerobic range I'm training between 135 and 160 BPM. 132-163 BPM isn't really making a huge difference.

    If also note that if I'm doing VO2Max training in not going to be looking at my HRM.

    Spurious accuracy is real.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    jennybearlv wrote: »
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html

    There are some issues with the study, but the material point remains; optical is pretty reliable for HR measurement. HR isn't a good basis to guess calories from.

    Yeah, like they forgot to include any Garmin devices. I like Garmin and would like to know how far off the mark they get for future purchasing decisions. 5% is a big discrepancy when using it for heart rate training and I've read wrist HR doesn't respond as quickly, like when doing intervals. I think chest straps win there, but I can see it not making much difference when your calorie expenditure is already wrong by 27-93%. I've read articles about the inaccuracies of step tracking as well, so I think the take away as mentioned is don't rely on your activity tracker for how many donuts you can eat.

    I'm using a Fenix 5X now, and used a Fenix 3 HR for a year before this. The numbers at rest seem pretty reasonable, and agree with other HRMs. The 5X is better at this than the 3 was.

    Both are terrible (for me) for any type of exercise. I don't mean calories, I mean bpm. On a bike, running, it doesn't matter.

    A few years ago, I had a Mio Fuse wrist HRM. It was much, much better (on a bike, I didn't run back then). It was slower to respond to change than a chest strap by a few seconds. I didn't like that I had to wear it uncomfortably tight, and had to charge the battery too often.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories