Who do you trust---Gym machines or HRM???

trugift
trugift Posts: 102 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Okay as much as I would love:heart: to believe my HRM my calories burned compare to the machine (treadmill) was 100 cal difference (:grumble: ) even the distance was off :ohwell: but my HR was dead on:smile: .

Which one should I truly trust?

**I reset my monitor once I was actually on the machine ready to go-

Treadmill= cal 255/ distance 1.62
HRM= cal 370/ distance 1.2

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: Thoughts??????????

Replies

  • rileyhall00
    rileyhall00 Posts: 98
    bump, i'm interested in this too. I currently trust my treadmill but want to get a HRM for my other cardio i do (basketball)
  • highervibes
    highervibes Posts: 2,219 Member
    I'd be more inclined to trust the HRM but they aren't 100% accurate either. I would think it is more accurate than the machine though.
  • aetzkorn14
    aetzkorn14 Posts: 169 Member
    I usually go buy my HR monitor. Machines usually over estimate for me.
  • carlapendergrass
    carlapendergrass Posts: 42 Member
    I always go by my HRM (Polar FT7). It's consistently lower than all the cardio machines at my gym, and is much lower than MFP's numbers.
  • taeliesyn
    taeliesyn Posts: 1,116 Member
    HRM are generally more accurate, assuming you have a good HRM with a chest strap, verses just a watch type one.
    I'd just split the difference if I wasn't confident with the HRM.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Which one should I truly trust?

    Don't "trust" either one. They're both guessing based on limited, indirect data.

    Pick one, track for 4-8 weeks, then see how closely it matches your actual results and adjust accordingly. This will require meticulous logging, of course.
  • trugift
    trugift Posts: 102 Member
    Which one should I truly trust?

    Don't "trust" either one. They're both guessing based on limited, indirect data.

    Pick one, track for 4-8 weeks, then see how closely it matches your actual results and adjust accordingly. This will require meticulous logging, of course.

    Logging mu cal burned/minutes I am pretty good at logging- I kinda have an OCD for that data..simply for this purpose- the difference.

    I also read that the gym machines are calibrated a certain way which is why it is important to input you age and weight..but again the internet doesn't lie..LOL
  • Ely82010
    Ely82010 Posts: 1,998 Member
    I don't have a HRM so I always trust and trusted the cardio machines at the gym or MFP. I always consider and log the lowest number, and most of the time, I don't eat all my exercises calories.
  • trugift
    trugift Posts: 102 Member
    HRM are generally more accurate, assuming you have a good HRM with a chest strap, verses just a watch type one.
    I'd just split the difference if I wasn't confident with the HRM.

    Funny you say that because that is what I did tonight. However, I use the machines for numbers in the past and my HRM for things like Zumba/Bokwa. mine cost @$50 in walgreens- maybe I should look at a different kind- no chest strap only a watch.
  • cdjs77
    cdjs77 Posts: 176 Member
    Since yours is only a watch and the machine count is lower, I would go with the machine count. HRMs are more fallible than people would like to believe. They are based on your heart rate which does not always accurately represent physical exertion. If you are really out of shape, then your heart rate, and therefore the calorie count, can be very high for only light to moderate exercise. As you become more in shape you may find your HRM calorie counts decrease for the same amount of exercise, but this is mostly because your heart rate will be lower for this exercise, not because you are actually burning less calories (unless you lost some weight).
    As an example, I hike in the hills near my apartment often, for an hour of hiking my calorie burn is usually 300-400 calories based on my HRM. I hiked the same trail in the same amount of time this summer in 35 degree Celsius weather (about 95 degrees Fahrenheit) and got a calorie count of almost 700 calories for one hour. I wasn't exerting any extra effort, the heat just made my heart rate skyrocket and therefore left me with a falsely inflated calorie count.
  • TechOutside
    TechOutside Posts: 101 Member
    If you purchase a Polar or other leading brand HRM, you are buying a dedicated device versus an add on selling factor "Oh we better put in an HRM to stay competitive" for the treadmill. The dedicated device is usually more accurate than an accessory for a treadmill, depending on the quality of your treadmill.

    I had been using my Sole Ellipticals HRM strap and it seemed slightly off from my older and cheaper HRM that I had been using, so with my ADD, I went down the road of checking it all out, using a Polar and now my bluetooth HRM, I found that my $1,600 Elliptical was off. Was it off enough to justify the time and money spent double checking it, no it wasn't. My old HRM, The Polar and the Bluetooth HRM all were within a few heartbeats of one another and the elliptical varied by about 10. Based on that, I think the HRM devices were more consistently accurate.

    Accuracy will always be a question of measuring, what you want is consistency over a period of time. Nothing is 100% accurate for home use, but we have more information at the tips of our fingertips than any other time in history and being able to monitor our heart rate during activity with any of today's high quality HRM devices is better than your fingertip to pulse for 15 seconds x 4.

    Your $50 Walgreens HRM is probably an Omron HR210 if I had to guess, and I have had good experience with Omron. I would suspect that it is sufficient for your needs right now. Double check that you have input your age and weight and I would continue monitoring it's readings over a period of time and focus on improving your numbers, and save your money for a new outfit once you get to your goal.
  • trugift
    trugift Posts: 102 Member
    Thank you all for the GREAT info!!
  • wilsoje74
    wilsoje74 Posts: 1,720 Member
    Okay as much as I would love:heart: to believe my HRM my calories burned compare to the machine (treadmill) was 100 cal difference (:grumble: ) even the distance was off :ohwell: but my HR was dead on:smile: .

    Which one should I truly trust?

    **I reset my monitor once I was actually on the machine ready to go-

    Treadmill= cal 255/ distance 1.62
    HRM= cal 370/ distance 1.2

    :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: Thoughts??????????
    Both seem really high!! 1.2 miles and 370 cals, doubtful!!!
  • XTSH
    XTSH Posts: 129 Member
    I used to workout at a gym where the machines gave lower reading than my HRM. I always log the lower reading.
    This new gym I now go to gave higher readings on the machines so I choose to follow my HRM readings. However, I'm also aware HRM's readings can be off so I log in 80% of what my HRM said.
  • Ely82010
    Ely82010 Posts: 1,998 Member
    Okay as much as I would love:heart: to believe my HRM my calories burned compare to the machine (treadmill) was 100 cal difference (:grumble: ) even the distance was off :ohwell: but my HR was dead on:smile: .

    Which one should I truly trust?

    **I reset my monitor once I was actually on the machine ready to go-

    Treadmill= cal 255/ distance 1.62
    HRM= cal 370/ distance 1.2

    :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: Thoughts??????????
    Both seem really high!! 1.2 miles and 370 cals, doubtful!!!

    It is possible because the OP is 240 lbs, and the more you weight the more you burn.

Categories