HRM help pretty please!!

butreally12

Hey all!

Sorry if this kind of question has been asked a zillion times already... I'd really appreciate any advice, though!

I just got a Polar FT4 HRM, and I absolutely love it! I used it yesterday in my jazzercise class (don't judge!) and it seemed to estimate me burning about as many calories as I usually estimate myself.

I used it on my jog today, and I was really nervous because I was expecting my estimated calories burned to be a loooooot lower than what I usually estimate. I'm 5'3'', 125 pounds, so I know I won't burn as much as taller people do! After my jog, however, I was astounded to see that I burned 799 calories! I ran a little over 6 miles in 60 minutes (about a 9:45 pace). Normally I would have said I burned at MOST 600 calories. Could 799 be accurate? What could be a cause of its inaccuracy? My average heart rate was 173, and my maximum was 197. (That sounds a little high, too. I've always struggled a lot a lot a lot with running but still...)

So... what kind of success have you guys had with this monitor? Also, I know it probably won't be very accurate when I use it for HIIT training or weight lifting, but has anybody used it with those kinds of exercises with any level of success?

Thanks!

AJL437

Did you run outside? Heat can inflate your heart rate and make it seem like you burned more than you did.

jacksonpt

That's a little over 13cals per minute, which is a little high, but certainly doable. As far as estimates go from HRMs, I'd take it as reasonable.

I assume the HRM is setup correctly... age, weight, gender, etc.?

butreally12

I did run outside, so maybe that could be part of it... though it was at 8am so it was only about 68 degrees out.

Yep, I just triple-checked to make sure that my height, weight, age, and gender are entered correctly!

omma_to_3

Given your HR averages, that's about right. It's a fairly quick pace too. How did it feel to you? Were you really exerted?

Keep in mind, the HRM calorie values include your BMR. So, for 60 minutes of running, it probably includes at least 50 calories of your BMR.

SwindonJogger

Sounds ok to me, i burn around 850 cals running a 10k as a 170 lb male.

butreally12

I was definitely exerted haha... like I said, running has always been extremely difficult for me so I was very tired by the end! Interesting point about the BMR - I hadn't realized this!

Thank you everyone!!

BrianSharpe

That does sound a little high for your weight.

As a sanity check Runners World suggest a formula of .75 x your body weight (in lbs) x distance in miles (net calories multiply by .63) which would make your estimate of 600 cal sound much more reasonable.

In the context of weight loss you're more interested in net calories, in this case it would be approximately 472

butreally12

But aren't those numbers estimates? My whole point of buying the HRM was so that I could have a better idea of how hard I'm working and how many calories I'm burning. It seems a little silly, then, to go back to formulas! I know the HRM isn't going to be perfect, but since it did seem to track my heart rate steadily, shouldn't the calorie count be close too?

I know you guys can't know for sure how accurate this measurement was, but does anybody have firsthand experience with this monitor or a similar one?

GetSoda

Honestly, I'd be surprised at even 600 calories.

My HRM gave me crazy high readings too... one reason i tossed it.


HRMs calculate based on how many calories a specific test athlete burns, then tries to apply the formula to YOU.

jacksonpt

But aren't those numbers estimates? My whole point of buying the HRM was so that I could have a better idea of how hard I'm working and how many calories I'm burning. It seems a little silly, then, to go back to formulas! I know the HRM isn't going to be perfect, but since it did seem to track my heart rate steadily, shouldn't the calorie count be close too?

I know you guys can't know for sure how accurate this measurement was, but does anybody have firsthand experience with this monitor or a similar one?

Any idea how accurate your max HR setting is? I believe many HRMs use % of max HR as part of their calculation. Though, I could be wrong.

Jewels_in_the_rough

Sounds similar to my calories burn. I'm 5'3, 140ish lbs and when I run 4 miles at 10:30 minute pace, my hrm says about 600 calories. It also tends to be higher than elliptical workouts of about the same length. Surprisingly, considering all the talk on here about how low mfp tends to be, my burns are either higher or extremely close to the estimates given by mfp.

ETA: I use a polar FT7.

butreally12

Hmmm I have no idea how accurate the max HR setting is... how would I find that out? @Jewels: Exactly! I hear a lot about MFP overestimating calories, so I was reallyyyy surprised by my HRM reading!

jacksonpt

Hmmm I have no idea how accurate the max HR setting is... how would I find that out? @Jewels: Exactly! I hear a lot about MFP overestimating calories, so I was reallyyyy surprised by my HRM reading!

I assume the polar has that setting, so you should be able to set/adjust it. See what it is, does it make sense relative to your typical high-intensity HR? For example, the max HR I've recorded on my HRM is 191, which is what the setting defaults to. However, a little common sense and I realize if I hit 191 during a run, I'm sure I could hit 195 or 200 (probably more than that) if I was really trying to.

butreally12

Hmmm I have no idea how accurate the max HR setting is... how would I find that out? @Jewels: Exactly! I hear a lot about MFP overestimating calories, so I was reallyyyy surprised by my HRM reading!

I assume the polar has that setting, so you should be able to set/adjust it. See what it is, does it make sense relative to your typical high-intensity HR? For example, the max HR I've recorded on my HRM is 191, which is what the setting defaults to. However, a little common sense and I realize if I hit 191 during a run, I'm sure I could hit 195 or 200 (probably more than that) if I was really trying to.

Hmmm I'll have to check that out, thanks! It has mine set to 198 (which I believe is from the formula that is always floating around) but you're right, I could probably go higher on my full on sprints.

I used it with my stationary biking today, and for 40 minutes it had me burning about 250 calories, which is almost exactly the same as mfp estimates... and that seems reasonable as I was working but not too hard. So confused!

jacksonpt

Hmmm I have no idea how accurate the max HR setting is... how would I find that out? @Jewels: Exactly! I hear a lot about MFP overestimating calories, so I was reallyyyy surprised by my HRM reading!

I assume the polar has that setting, so you should be able to set/adjust it. See what it is, does it make sense relative to your typical high-intensity HR? For example, the max HR I've recorded on my HRM is 191, which is what the setting defaults to. However, a little common sense and I realize if I hit 191 during a run, I'm sure I could hit 195 or 200 (probably more than that) if I was really trying to.

Hmmm I'll have to check that out, thanks! It has mine set to 198 (which I believe is from the formula that is always floating around) but you're right, I could probably go higher on my full on sprints.

I used it with my stationary biking today, and for 40 minutes it had me burning about 250 calories, which is almost exactly the same as mfp estimates... and that seems reasonable as I was working but not too hard. So confused!

Ultimately it's just an estimate, like anything else.

Your best bet (both for long term success and your own sanity) is to pick 1 source for calorie burns (HRM, MFP, other websites, a basic formula, something) and use that exclusively. After a month's time, compare your expected results to yoru actual results. If they aren't reasonably close, then tweak something (maybe only log 3/4 of the estimated cals burned, for example).