how accurate is the heart rate monitor?

laurabritton54

so I read on here that the number of calories burned with exercise are exaggerated, as I expected, so I got a heart rate monitor. sportline elite I think? it seems pretty nice and has the chest strap. I've compared my pulse rate against it's readings numerous times and it seems fairly accurate. I just got done working out, 30 minutes on a gazelle elliptical. it monitors your hear rate (obviously) and tells you how long you were in the target zone or above/below. it says I burned 420 calories during this 30 minute period. that seems awfully high to me? MFP does give 480 calories for a 30 minute elliptical workout so it's comparable. however, it's not like an elliptical you see at a gym. it's just a gazelle! so 420 calories for 30 minutes on that seems super high!

WalkingAlong

It sounds high to me, too, but maybe not, depending on your weight. What is your weight? And did the HRM have you input it? And how hard was the workout? Most people who aren't obese don't burn much more than 10 calories a minute at hard cardio.

laratacita

Elliptical machines are known to overestimate burned calories a great deal, but heart rate monitors are fairly accurate if they have aches strap.

laurabritton54

I'm 240 and yes it had me input my weight, height, DOB, and gender. it also has a chest strap.

laurabritton54

so can anyone here tell me if what I burned during these 30 minutes is a fairly accurate estimate? or should I just forgo the monitor and use a % of what MFP estimates?

JoeCampbell85

HRM is likely more accurate than MFP imo. I'd always go with the smallest number anyway.

fitnessgoddess17

Use the HRM. From what I understand it's not perfect but it's way better than what mfp or the machines estimate. Think of it as educated guessing. I don't think anything has been invented yet that's 100% accurate.

MOTH477

I have the same issue. I started doing P90x and my HRM shows I burned 880 calories when doing Plyometrics routine. While I like this number, I am afraid it might be too high. I'm 37 yrs old male and weigh 211. Is it possible I am working out that hard to get these numbers? My maximum heart rate is at 183 my average during workout was 157.

SaintGiff

Heart rate monitors are normally very accurate at measure one's heart rate. After that they fall victim to the same bell curve algorithms that plague everything else.

h7463

so can anyone here tell me if what I burned during these 30 minutes is a fairly accurate estimate? or should I just forgo the monitor and use a % of what MFP estimates?

Hi there!
I have trained a lady who had about the same body weight as you, and your HRM results seem possible. I suggest, you keep using the HRM, and if the readings are consistently in the same ballpark for the same workouts, you will at least be able to track your progress. As you get fitter, the heart rate and calorie burns will go down.
For your official (calorie in, calorie out....) log, you can always use the lower number, if MFP is different from your readings. There is a note section below the charts, where you can record everything else.

Happy training!

QuietBloom

For your weight, that sounds pretty close IMO. You also might want to find your average HR (should be displayed for the session) and plug your numbers into this website for your gross calories burned, and then take that number and calculate your net calories burned (link for that will be displayed).

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

DayByDayGetStronger

It sounds high to me, too, but maybe not, depending on your weight. What is your weight? And did the HRM have you input it? And how hard was the workout? Most people who aren't obese don't burn much more than 10 calories a minute at hard cardio.

I have a Polar HRM and it has the option of doing a FITNESS TEST where you lie flat for 5 minutes (monitor on of course) and it tracks your absolute resting heart rate. The lower your resting heart rate is, the more fit you are and the harder you will have to workout to get into your 80% target zone. My model of the Polar is the FT60 and it cost about $112 on sale on Amazon. Love it!

When I first started using it about 4 months ago I was sad at first to realize how few calories I was burning compared to what the elliptical read at the gym or what MFP calculates. Uggh. Now I wear it on every workout and I have a much better gauge of my heart rate and my intensity. It's helped tremedously!!!

tsprong

Definitely continue to use the HRM. I think overall they are pretty accurate compared to a machine read out.

For me, I find that MFP way over estimates my calorie burn for my cycling per time period. Not sure why this is, but I've seen MFP estimate my calorie burn at nearly double what my Garmin says.

I tend to trust my Garmin alot more, as it measures a whole host of other things as well as heart rate. Of course, in order not to over inflate my calorie burn, I end up underestimating the cycling time period to match approximately what my Garmin measured for calorie burn for input into MFP. Just so I'm not tempted to eat that Hagen Dazs sundae smothered in chocolate syrup because I have a surplus of 3000 calories on a given day LOL.

Tilran

It sounds high to me, too, but maybe not, depending on your weight. What is your weight? And did the HRM have you input it? And how hard was the workout? Most people who aren't obese don't burn much more than 10 calories a minute at hard cardio.

I have a Polar HRM and it has the option of doing a FITNESS TEST where you lie flat for 5 minutes (monitor on of course) and it tracks your absolute resting heart rate. The lower your resting heart rate is, the more fit you are and the harder you will have to workout to get into your 80% target zone. My model of the Polar is the FT60 and it cost about $112 on sale on Amazon. Love it!

When I first started using it about 4 months ago I was sad at first to realize how few calories I was burning compared to what the elliptical read at the gym or what MFP calculates. Uggh. Now I wear it on every workout and I have a much better gauge of my heart rate and my intensity. It's helped tremedously!!!

This! I highly recommend Polar as they are the top name in HRMs currently. They seem to be the most accurate and have pretty cool features.

Typically on an elliptical you burn 10 calories a minute like someone mentioned earlier assuming you are keeping heart rate around 70-80% (high intensity) and assuming you are average weight. The heavier you are, the more you will burn per minute.

laurabritton54

For your weight, that sounds pretty close IMO. You also might want to find your average HR (should be displayed for the session) and plug your numbers into this website for your gross calories burned, and then take that number and calculate your net calories burned (link for that will be displayed).

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

thank you all for your insight! you've been most helpful! this sight here (above) seems a lot more plausible! tonight I did 15 minutes of step aerobics with a 6 inch step while lifting weights, then 20 minutes on the elliptical. my HRM gave me an average HR of 152 which according to this site is a calorie burn of 302 as compared to my HRM which gives me a calorie burn of 490 or MFP which says I've burned 554. while I of course really like those higher numbers, I want as accurate a measurement as I can get.