Heart Rate Monitor Exaggerating Calories Burnt.

BeckiCharlotte13x

I went to the gym today for the first time ever and actually really enjoyed it. I used my heart rate monitor whilst I was on the treadmill, I was doing a pretty brisk walk and added some running in briefly with an incline of about 3.0. My heart rate monitor says I burnt 324 calories but this seems a bit high to me in only 20 minutes?! My heart rate, according to the monitor was an average of 157 and a high of 192.

I use the Wahoo Heart rate monitor with a chest strap.

What do you think?

fishgutzy

What did the tread mill indicate?
An incline of 3 must have gotten your heart rate up pretty good.
If your heart rate got into the 80+% range, it is entirely possible that the number is close.
But most HRMs have built in averages based on age and weight.
Some of the more complex HRMs like the Moto Active can be calibrated to you but require someone addtional equipment that some trainers have.

Arydria

That seems kind of high. Make sure your HRM doesn't think you're a guy.

When I first started, I didn't know there was a difference, and that my app could distinguish between male and female. When I went in to adjust other settings, I saw that I was listed as 'male'. (I'm clearly female) I switched it to female and immediately saw my calorie burns drop significantly. I went from 18-20 cal per min to 10-12 cal per min (at a 160HR)

I miss those 2500cal+ workouts, but I know the lower numbers are more accurate.

momma2azoo

Had to giggle at this. Darn being female and our lower calorie burns. I guess there are other compensating factors.

I'm contemplating getting a Polar FT7. One of my concerns is whether the calories burned displayed by the HRM will be more accurate than what MFP generates for activities.

Right now I'm trying to manipulate the MFP exercise calorie numbers down because they just seem too high (and I've read they are). I'm mostly concerned with eating enough calories without overeating. Some days, when I eat & exercise really good, my gross calorie count is pretty low and my net calorie count is really low. Never thought going too low would be my issue, but here I am with it.

I hate to get too obsessed with numbers (calories, scales, HRM, etc), but I do like the data. Gives me something to ponder in between meals, workouts, weigh ins and real life. Ha!

That seems kind of high. Make sure your HRM doesn't think you're a guy.

When I first started, I didn't know there was a difference, and that my app could distinguish between male and female. When I went in to adjust other settings, I saw that I was listed as 'male'. (I'm clearly female) I switched it to female and immediately saw my calorie burns drop significantly. I went from 18-20 cal per min to 10-12 cal per min (at a 160HR)

I miss those 2500cal+ workouts, but I know the lower numbers are more accurate.

BeckiCharlotte13x

My heart rate according to the monitor was at 180 average

Jruzer

Seems a bit high to me too, especially for fast walking/jogging, even at an incline. 16 kcal/minute is a lot.

Have you customized the HRM at all? Does it know your weight, sex, age, max HR, resting HR, etc.?

Do you know your max HR? Mine is fairly high so my HRM was overestimating my burn until I adjusted it.

Shaylaurkoski

:happy: I would check your monitor. I use the Polar FT7 and I am 28 year old Female who is 5'1" and weigh about 146. I do not use a treadmill but when I do Jillian Michaels Ripped in 30 in my living room I usually don't get my heart rate up quite that high. I am a smoker but not sure that makes any difference. I usually burn about 250-300 calories per workout with an average heart rate of about 145-150. Hope this helps!

dixiewhiskey

Yes I believe it's too high.

BeckiCharlotte13x

Thank you for all your input. I did set my heart rate monitor up so it had all my information! I will double check this.

Usually when I do 30 day shred, it says my burn is about 150 calories which I think is probably pretty realistic.

BeckiCharlotte13x

Seems a bit high to me too, especially for fast walking/jogging, even at an incline. 16 kcal/minute is a lot.

Have you customized the HRM at all? Does it know your weight, sex, age, max HR, resting HR, etc.?

Do you know your max HR? Mine is fairly high so my HRM was overestimating my burn until I adjusted it.

You legend! Thank you. I did set it all up so it new all my details but I got a new phone so it must have reset! Hopefully this will work better tomorrow Glad I noticed after only one work out.

fishgutzy

assuming the heart of 180 was accurate, that is probably why the calories are so high.
The algorithm uses the average female of your age and weight.

bwogilvie

That sounds too high. I'm a 5'10", 165-lb. guy, and to burn 12 calories a minute I have to be pushing myself at 8 or 9 on the Borg 10-point scale, with sweat pouring down my brow.

I did some nosing around in the peer-reviewed research on HRMs last summer. One study of the Polar F6 showed that, even calibrated with subjects' actual VO2max and HRmax, it overestimated energy expenditure by 27% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923). An earlier study showed that the Polar S410 overestimated energy expenditure in women by 12% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292754). Another study found that the Polar S810i overestimated expenditure when exercising lightly but not moderately (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n3/21/v9n3-21abst.php). The research seems to suggest that HRMs are less accurate for women than they are for men.

The study by Keytel et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15966347) that produced a widely-used formula found that it was reasonably accurate for groups when VO2max had been measured, but less accurate without measurement of VO2max - in the latter case, over 26% of the variance in energy expenditure was not explained by their equation, which uses heart rate, gender, age, and weight to estimate calories consumed.

Tl;dr: HRMs aren't necessarily reliable, especially for women.

Edited to add: however, if you log your food accurately, you can calibrate your HRM by looking at your predicted weight loss based on HRM calories, and your actual weight loss. That will let you know how close your HRM is to reality.

omma_to_3

Had to giggle at this. Darn being female and our lower calorie burns. I guess there are other compensating factors.

I'm contemplating getting a Polar FT7. One of my concerns is whether the calories burned displayed by the HRM will be more accurate than what MFP generates for activities.

Right now I'm trying to manipulate the MFP exercise calorie numbers down because they just seem too high (and I've read they are). I'm mostly concerned with eating enough calories without overeating. Some days, when I eat & exercise really good, my gross calorie count is pretty low and my net calorie count is really low. Never thought going too low would be my issue, but here I am with it.

I hate to get too obsessed with numbers (calories, scales, HRM, etc), but I do like the data. Gives me something to ponder in between meals, workouts, weigh ins and real life. Ha!

That seems kind of high. Make sure your HRM doesn't think you're a guy.

When I first started, I didn't know there was a difference, and that my app could distinguish between male and female. When I went in to adjust other settings, I saw that I was listed as 'male'. (I'm clearly female) I switched it to female and immediately saw my calorie burns drop significantly. I went from 18-20 cal per min to 10-12 cal per min (at a 160HR)

I miss those 2500cal+ workouts, but I know the lower numbers are more accurate.

I have the FT60 and love it. When I first started using an HRM (an FT7), my burns went UP from what MFP had. What I found is that MFP assumes someone of average fitness. If you're obese, and with poor fitness, your burn is probably above what MFP states. Now, that I'm much smaller and much more fit, MFP is above what my HRM states, though not nearly what others talk about. If I were using MFP numbers, I'd probably still be OK as they're close. Now, I have seen that MFP estimates for some exercises are quite off, but for walking, running, and cycling (outside, not sure on stationary bike numbers) they're been fairly close to my HRM.

glreim21

It really depends on what your weight is. It doesn't sound high to me, I had those kinds of burns when I first started exercising. Your calories burned are based on you sex, weight, age and activity level. Without knowing all of those, we can't say for sure if gear number is high.