HR monitor vs machine - bigger difference than I expected

amy_ryan

I recently purchased a Polar HR monitor (which I love!). I used it for the first time today on the elliptical, with both the machine and my monitor programmed with my weight and age. I know HR monitors are typically much more accurate than machines, but I found the decrepancy pretty startling nonetheless. Although both measured my HR almost identically throughout the workout, the monitor estimated I burned 275 calories for a 40 min. workout, and the machine estimated close to 400! I had expected with roughly the same data input and HR measurement to get pretty close results. Curious, I used the calories burned estimator on this website, and it guessed somewhere between the two (365).

For all of us here trying to keep track of our food intake and activity--especially when it comes to eating our exercise calories, a point of frequent discussion--this range seems significant. I will obviously go with my HR monitor for now (as much as I prefer the higher number), but for times I don't have it, or for others who don't have one, has anybody found a site they feel is pretty accurate in estimating calories (to include this one)?

I searched some of the old threads on this topic, but did not see anything addressing this exact issue. Welcome others' thoughts! Thanks in advance.

amy_ryan

I recently purchased a Polar HR monitor (which I love!). I used it for the first time today on the elliptical, with both the machine and my monitor programmed with my weight and age. I know HR monitors are typically much more accurate than machines, but I found the decrepancy pretty startling nonetheless. Although both measured my HR almost identically throughout the workout, the monitor estimated I burned 275 calories for a 40 min. workout, and the machine estimated close to 400! I had expected with roughly the same data input and HR measurement to get pretty close results. Curious, I used the calories burned estimator on this website, and it guessed somewhere between the two (365).

For all of us here trying to keep track of our food intake and activity--especially when it comes to eating our exercise calories, a point of frequent discussion--this range seems significant. I will obviously go with my HR monitor for now (as much as I prefer the higher number), but for times I don't have it, or for others who don't have one, has anybody found a site they feel is pretty accurate in estimating calories (to include this one)?

I searched some of the old threads on this topic, but did not see anything addressing this exact issue. Welcome others' thoughts! Thanks in advance.

songbyrdsweet

I found that caloriesperhour was accurate for me personally...the BMR and TDEE estimates where within about 50 calories of my RMR test and HR monitor readings.

amy_ryan

Great advice! I just checked it out and (at least in this case) it was almost exactly the same as my HR monitor. Thanks!

skiski

hi amy

i have a polar HRM also and have found the same thing! I tend to go with the polar as it is attached to me thus feels more accurate...however there have been times when i have worked out hard and it doesn't show me what i want to see lol!!! good luck x