Heart Rate Monitor Accuracy

Maryanne1923

Hi. I've got a Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor with chest strap and wondered how accurate they are for calories burned.
I've set it up with my personal stats and it seems consistent with my heart rate, but the calories burned seem quite high.

For example walking at 3mph for 20 minutes - 93 calories burned. This is the same as MFP database which everyone says is too high. I do tend to put a lot of energy in like moving my arms and striding strongly but still.

Thoughts anyone?

MinnieInMaine

Well, they say you can burn about 100 cal per mile walking and going 20 minutes at 3mph would be a mile so it's probably not that far off since you're walking in that particular manner. I'd also question if you're sure about that pace...maybe you're going faster than you think?

Maryanne1923

Well, they say you can burn about 100 cal per mile walking and going 20 minutes at 3mph would be a mile so it's probably not that far off since you're walking in that particular manner. I'd also question if you're sure about that pace...maybe you're going faster than you think?

Maybe I am going faster

So when people say that the database if way off maybe that's only for some activities?

Thanks.

ellybeann

I had the same one and all the reports and reviews stated it was the most accurate. I loved mine and it lasted for over a year with me wearing it 5-6 times a week, Im waiting for my new one now (ft7)...

cari4jc1

Well, they say you can burn about 100 cal per mile walking and going 20 minutes at 3mph would be a mile so it's probably not that far off since you're walking in that particular manner. I'd also question if you're sure about that pace...maybe you're going faster than you think?

Maybe I am going faster

So when people say that the database if way off maybe that's only for some activities?

Thanks.

I think a HRM is fairly accurate. I have found that MFP is off about some exercises I do and some things it matches fairly close to what my HRM says. It just depends, but your safest bet is definitely the HRM.

MinnieInMaine

Definitely - some listings are worse than others. HRMs aren't going to be 100% accurate but they're usually closer than other calculations since they use your real time HR to estimate exertion.

If you're curious enough, you can use mapmywalk.com to figure out how far you're going and then determine your actual pace based on distance and time.

janicelo1971

I have the same HRM-purchased it about a year ago. I think its accurate when I am in the zone only...I have times where I play doubles tennis or singles tennis and push myself MUCH harder in singles and get the same calories burnt in the same amount of time for doubles which is so not accurate. I typically knock 100 plus calories off most estimates it gives me UNLESS im in the zone the entire time which doesn't happen much....then it seems to match up pretty well.

fercar3000

I use a Polar FT7 with chest strap ... LOVE IT !! ... very accurate as well

McCluskey1128

I use a HRM for almost everything I do. However, I've read that to be safe take 80% of whatever the HRM says. That way you're not over estimating. Always better to guess under with exercise, over for food. At least in my opinion.

heybales

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

The cheaper Polars with no stat of VO2max - not very accurate, though you may luck out - but how would you ever know?
Even the more expensive ones with those stats and lab tested measurements for them, for women can be very off.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

For anyone claiming accuracy of their HRM, would love to know how they verify that.
Some say because it's different than MFP, it must be accurate.
Some say because it's lower than MFP, it must be accurate.
Some have no reason why they know that.

DeliriumCanBeFun

I have the same HRM-purchased it about a year ago. I think its accurate when I am in the zone only...I have times where I play doubles tennis or singles tennis and push myself MUCH harder in singles and get the same calories burnt in the same amount of time for doubles which is so not accurate. I typically knock 100 plus calories off most estimates it gives me UNLESS im in the zone the entire time which doesn't happen much....then it seems to match up pretty well.

This is because HRM's are considered mostly accurate only during solid state cardio, like cycling, running, walking, using the eliptical, etc. This is a good gross calorie burn calculator that you can use to get your net calories burned: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
I would recommend comparing that with your HRM and using a GPS enabled app like someone else mentioned to clock your speed. Runtastic is also a good one to use that has a walking feature.

TeaBea

Well, they say you can burn about 100 cal per mile walking and going 20 minutes at 3mph would be a mile so it's probably not that far off since you're walking in that particular manner. I'd also question if you're sure about that pace...maybe you're going faster than you think?

Maybe I am going faster

So when people say that the database if way off maybe that's only for some activities?

Thanks.

HRMs are pretty decent for cardio.....unless you're really short....3 MPH would not be terribly fast. Uneven terrain slows things down a bit for me though.

Maryanne1923

Thanks everyone for the helpful info and thoughts. It seems that it;'s probably accurate as far as HRMs go. I used a pedometer app on my phone to estimate speed and also I did map my walk on map my run (thanks to person who suggested this) to get the distance.

MinnieInMaine

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

The cheaper Polars with no stat of VO2max - not very accurate, though you may luck out - but how would you ever know?
Even the more expensive ones with those stats and lab tested measurements for them, for women can be very off.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

For anyone claiming accuracy of their HRM, would love to know how they verify that.
Some say because it's different than MFP, it must be accurate.
Some say because it's lower than MFP, it must be accurate.
Some have no reason why they know that.

As far as accuracy is concerned, it's more about trial and error. I eat back most/all exercise calories per my HRM and lose fairly consistently (when all else is right and I NET where I should) so to me that proves that it's accurate because I'm not eating so much that I'm maintaining or gaining.

Hornsby

You also have to determine your NET calories burned as HRMs give you a gross calorie burned count. If you have a TDEE of 2400, you burn 100 calories every hour doing nothing, so figure 33 for 20 minutes. Subtract that number from the HRMs number and you get in the 60s which sounds more accurate.

LovelyLibra79

I have the same HRM.
The calories burned are only accurate when you are "in your zone".
Make sure you have your alert tones on so you can hear the chimes go off when you are in and out of your target zone.

scrapjen

I have the same HRM ... seems like everyone says "it's coming in high" but NOT for me! I have a Fitbit, and also pull the numbers from the machines (treadmill, elliptical, bike ... not that I think those numbers are correct, just another comparison).

For a straight jog/intervals ... I can usually get "in the zone" and my HRM burn and Fitbit come in very close. For my elliptical and bike, I have trouble getting "in the zone" ... my bike rides (on the stationary while I read) are not super intense, and I've been doing elliptical workouts for eight years now, so I don't know if my body has adapted. My HRM always comes in quite low with it's estimate.

I've been attending Zumba lately too ... rarely I'll get "in the zone" for 30 minutes out of the hour, but some days my heart rate just doesn't get up. I feel like I'm putting in a decent effort! The other day I only got 211 calorie credit for an HOUR of Zumba!

I have over a dozen different Zumba workouts (HRM compared to Fitbit) in a Facebook album
https://www.facebook.com/jen.blackham.5/media_set?set=a.1416235018633723.1073741841.100007417148882&type=1&l=405a1022cb

rhenry086

Hi. I've got a Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor with chest strap and wondered how accurate they are for calories burned.
I've set it up with my personal stats and it seems consistent with my heart rate, but the calories burned seem quite high.

For example walking at 3mph for 20 minutes - 93 calories burned. This is the same as MFP database which everyone says is too high. I do tend to put a lot of energy in like moving my arms and striding strongly but still.

Thoughts anyone?

I believe mine is at least a lot more accurate than the treadmill says, or MFP calculates. I have a lower heart rate when I workout than most people do because my resting heart rate is also a lot lower.

heybales

Hi. I've got a Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor with chest strap and wondered how accurate they are for calories burned.
I've set it up with my personal stats and it seems consistent with my heart rate, but the calories burned seem quite high.

For example walking at 3mph for 20 minutes - 93 calories burned. This is the same as MFP database which everyone says is too high. I do tend to put a lot of energy in like moving my arms and striding strongly but still.

Thoughts anyone?

I believe mine is at least a lot more accurate than the treadmill says, or MFP calculates. I have a lower heart rate when I workout than most people do because my resting heart rate is also a lot lower.

A lower resting HR outside drug side-effects or medical reason is an indicator of fitness level improved compared to when it was higher.

A HR that starts getting lower and lower doing the same workout at same intensity with same weight is indicator of improving fitness level.

Also, you may have a diesel heart, some have a Honda heart. Beats slower or faster genetically, higher or lower HRmax which has nothing to do with fitness. Fitness level also takes that in to account.

The calories burned are the same in the case above - but your heart can now beat slower to provide the required oxygen to burn fat to supply those calories.

That's why the VO2max stat is essential for decent estimate if that's what the HRM is going to be used for.

Because you can get fit much faster than you can lose weight.