My HRM has hurt my feelings!

Kazzam33

So I got a Polar FT4 over the weekend cause I keep reading that MFP is 'A bit generous' with the exercise burn calculations so I thought this would help me be a bit more accurate & ultimately get me achieving goals on schedule.

Well the half hour walk & half hour kettlebell routine I was logging into MFP at 2400kjs-ish (573cals-ish) now works out to be only 1400kj-ish (334cals-ish). That's a HUGE difference! Way more than what I was assuming the 'over-calculation' to be.

This bums me out a bit cause I feel like I'm working really hard. I'm a gross sweaty mess once I'm done so I thought I would have a higher burn but nooooo.

Is this really normal to have such a dramatic drop in burn? Am I just fitter than what MFP assumed given my current weight/height?

I realise its all for the greater good but its a bit frustrating. :grumble:

Shalaurise

I have presumed that would happen if I got one. It is a large part of the reason I just went with a fitbit. I still get to "feel" accomplished after my walks. My heart rate never gets that high no matter how hard it gets to breath, so I have basically chosen to live in denial.

Cardio4Cupcakes

I hate when that happens! The worst is when I lost about 8 pounds but forgot to update my FT7 settings, so the burn was off. Once I saw the new one the next day at the gym I was like :noway:

DR2501

Don't forget the anaerobic/metabloic effects of your KB workout which a HRM won't measure.

SteveTries

I think we've all been there, and yes I would suggest that your HRM is a lot closer to reality (but it's still an estimate based on statistical averages).

I'm a fairly big guy, 95kgs and 188cms and a 2 hour run for me comes in at about 1,750 according to Garmin. I've ratified this to be pretty close over a prolonged period of food and exercise logging and weight tracking.

A hard, 30 minute run is around 500 cals for me

ellycope

Woohoo!! You're so much fitter than you thought you were! That's awesome :happy:

Yes, it's likely that your new HRM is more accurate than MFP because it does have more data available to it for making the calculations.

I would say that 334 cals for half an hour walk (what speed/pace?) and a half hour kettlebell session would be about right. Can you up the walk to a run for a few extra calories? Maybe move up a weight in the kettlebells?

It comes to us all when the workout that used to give us a massive burn no longer delivers. It does mean you get to up the intensity though which is kind of fun and you get to feel even fitter!

Good luck - it's a positive thing really (though I can see why you're a bit annoyed!)

otter090812

Very similar for me too I'm afraid. MFP often overestimates. As you lose weight (if that is your aim) don't forget to tell the HRM, as I believe it affects your estimated burn too. I'm 160lbs, 5'7" and a 30 minute decent-paced run registers 325 to 350 on my FT4.

ittybittykittyy

334 cals is still a great burn regardless! But yes, MFP is *very* generous with calorie burn. But, you should be happy because from here on out your burn will be way more accurate. You can add more to your workout if you want to bring the calorie count up, and be sure that it is on the dot and no more 'hoping' it is accurate.

Hornsby

The HRM is pointless to wear during your kettlebell routine (for calorie counts).

rightaboutmeow

See, the opposite was true for me when I was using the HRM sensors on the gym equipment. I got my Polar FT7 expecting to have it tell me I wasn't burning what I thought I was but instead it told me I was burning more! But I think it's just because my HR gets so high because some days I really don't feel like I've burned what it says I have.
Granted, it is just an estimation and all my FT7 knows is my height, weight, gender, etc because I don't know how to measure the co2 output or whatever it is called and that is supposed to give you the most accurate calorie burn estimation.
However I wish I could take mine swimming.
160 minutes of a 'leisurely swim' comes in at over 1,000 calories burned, and I just know that can't be right.
::shakes fist at sky::
Curse you, inaccurate measurements of MFP!
I share in your frustration.

stealthq

See, the opposite was true for me when I was using the HRM sensors on the gym equipment. I got my Polar FT7 expecting to have it tell me I wasn't burning what I thought I was but instead it told me I was burning more! But I think it's just because my HR gets so high because some days I really don't feel like I've burned what it says I have.
Granted, it is just an estimation and all my FT7 knows is my height, weight, gender, etc because I don't know how to measure the co2 output or whatever it is called and that is supposed to give you the most accurate calorie burn estimation.
However I wish I could take mine swimming.
160 minutes of a 'leisurely swim' comes in at over 1,000 calories burned, and I just know that can't be right.
::shakes fist at sky::
Curse you, inaccurate measurements of MFP!
I share in your frustration.

Hey - try this site for the swimming: http://www.swimming.org/swimfit/calorie-cruncher/

The burns look much more reasonable.

rightaboutmeow

Hmm..MFP shows it burning 1,139 cal when I log it and this swimfit site shows it burning 1,173.

Guess maybe I am burning a ton of calories?...
Ugh. I need a waterproof HRM. Lol.
:ohwell:

Kidominos

I have a FT7 and swim with mine all the time. Both the watch and the sensor are water resistant up to 30 meters I believe. I use my in a swimming pool. The manual just states not to push the buttons on the watch while underwater. I use the electrode gel also.

criticaltodd

I've noticed that MapMyFitness tends to be generous relative to my Polar HRM as well. It appears that it's due to their formulas, rather than to the data because I've worked out with two HRMs, one the Polar and the other feeding into MMF and MMF tallies a consistently higher result. Sometimes it's pretty small but other times the difference is quite large. I usually just overwrite MMF's number with the Polar's. I'd rather be conservative.

rightaboutmeow

What is the electrode gel? I'm so scared to swim with it! Haha. It wasn't cheap and I'm a little nervous to put any of it under water. I'm gonna have to look at the manual (not that I don't trust that you're telling the truth, I just want to double check. )
That would be amazing if I could get an accurate count of my swims!

h7463

See, the opposite was true for me when I was using the HRM sensors on the gym equipment. I got my Polar FT7 expecting to have it tell me I wasn't burning what I thought I was but instead it told me I was burning more! But I think it's just because my HR gets so high because some days I really don't feel like I've burned what it says I have.
Granted, it is just an estimation and all my FT7 knows is my height, weight, gender, etc because I don't know how to measure the co2 output or whatever it is called and that is supposed to give you the most accurate calorie burn estimation.
However I wish I could take mine swimming.
160 minutes of a 'leisurely swim' comes in at over 1,000 calories burned, and I just know that can't be right.
::shakes fist at sky::
Curse you, inaccurate measurements of MFP!
I share in your frustration.

I took my Polar H7 swimming. The sensor (chest strap tucked tightly under my sports bra style swim top) links with Bluetooth to my iPhone on the bench, and the signal was strong enough to carry along an olympic size pool.
Not sure what MFP considers a leisurely swim, but I 'leisurely' swim 1 mile in under 1 hr, and it didn't burn more than just under 400 calories. So I'm guessing, if you go for a 2-mile target in those 160 minutes, considering elevated heart rate due to exhaustion, you can probably get close to those 1000 calories. (For comparison, I'm 5'5", 132 lbs, female)

rightaboutmeow

Oh wow, I didn't think the sensor was strong enough to carry that far! That's fantastic!
That may be almost accurate then because I'm a bit heavier than you (5"5', 157 lbs) so I know the lighter we get typically the less calories burned.
Good to know though! Now I'm excited to try it out on my next swim!

Kidominos

What is the electrode gel? I'm so scared to swim with it! Haha. It wasn't cheap and I'm a little nervous to put any of it under water. I'm gonna have to look at the manual (not that I don't trust that you're telling the truth, I just want to double check. )
That would be amazing if I could get an accurate count of my swims!

You can view or download the manual from the Polar website. It has much more info in it than the getting started guide that came in the box. (Page 16- under water resistance for the FT7 Training computer). You can also check the back of the sensor. It says it is water resistance up to 30 meters.

I bought the gel with my HRM because I read that it helps to keep the connection in a pool with chlorine. I use it all the time and works great. It wasn't that much on Amazon and you don't have to put that much on. I just squirt a little bit on the part of the strap and spread it out to cover the rubber area that goes against your skin where the sensor would snap onto on the front side.

rightaboutmeow

Just read the manual online and I'm going to look in to the gel.
Thanks!!

acpgee

My experience completely. My typical cardio workout is 65 minutes on the elliptical targeting a heart rate of 140. My Polar FT4 says I burn a little over 500 kcals, the machine says around 750, and MFP database says 882.

Kazzam33

Don't forget the anaerobic/metabloic effects of your KB workout which a HRM won't measure.

Explain this to me a little more? I'm still fairly newb so the more info I can get the better

Kazzam33

Woohoo!! You're so much fitter than you thought you were! That's awesome :happy:

Yes, it's likely that your new HRM is more accurate than MFP because it does have more data available to it for making the calculations.

I would say that 334 cals for half an hour walk (what speed/pace?) and a half hour kettlebell session would be about right. Can you up the walk to a run for a few extra calories? Maybe move up a weight in the kettlebells?

It comes to us all when the workout that used to give us a massive burn no longer delivers. It does mean you get to up the intensity though which is kind of fun and you get to feel even fitter!

Good luck - it's a positive thing really (though I can see why you're a bit annoyed!)

Sadly I cant do any running at the moment. I've done something terrible to my hip. I thought it was my hip flexor to start with but after many stretches etc its still not responding. I thought I could just work through the pain but it only gets worse. I'm beginning to think it may be a stress fracture (I hope not) as its only pressure sensitive but I have full range of motion with no pain. It only hurts when I step weight on that side. Soooo walks are at a moderate pace 5-5.4km/h (3.1-3.3miles).

This is why I've been doing more resistance/strength work of late. I want to give my hip a break for a couple of months.

Kazzam33

The HRM is pointless to wear during your kettlebell routine (for calorie counts).

Please explain?

Kazzam33

So I decided to ramp it up a notch yesterday as well & did a 30min endurance kettlebell workout (no breaks & sooo many squats & lunges). My legs were jelly when I finished & I was drenched! Today I cant walk properly & going from a sitting to a standing position KILLS!! Total kj burned was only 976 (233cals). I've seen above that there are reasons why it might not be estimating the burn right regardless but unfortunately they didn't explain in detail so I'm still a bit bummed out. Maybe I just need to stop stressing & see how my weigh in on Sun goes.

I just like having a big burn so I can still eat ALL the foods! :sad:

h7463

I'm doing DVD workouts from Jillian Michaels like this. 30 minutes straight as cardio/weight circuit. I've worked my way up from a 8lbs to 15 lbs kettlebell, and I'm still 'only' burning between 180 and 250 calories on them after 2 years.
Heavy sweating has nothing to do with calorie burn....sadly.... if you want to notch up the intensity, you will have to do the squats and lunges lower and pick up the speed. That has been the only way to torch more fat.
On the UP side of all, since you use weights in this workout, your sore muscles will still burn calories while they heal and recover. There is just no way to measure it. Don't get your hopes up, it won't be enough for a cheat meal, but it will give you a bit wiggle room.
Good luck! Train safe!

Kazzam33

I'm doing DVD workouts from Jillian Michaels like this. 30 minutes straight as cardio/weight circuit. I've worked my way up from a 8lbs to 15 lbs kettlebell, and I'm still 'only' burning between 180 and 250 calories on them after 2 years.
Heavy sweating has nothing to do with calorie burn....sadly.... if you want to notch up the intensity, you will have to do the squats and lunges lower and pick up the speed. That has been the only way to torch more fat.
On the UP side of all, since you use weights in this workout, your sore muscles will still burn calories while they heal and recover. There is just no way to measure it. Don't get your hopes up, it won't be enough for a cheat meal, but it will give you a bit wiggle room.
Good luck! Train safe!

That's good info. So all my paining today will help with the burn as well. That's some good news.

Kevalicious99

Even though people here seem to think that HRM's are amazing machines and are just so right.

But .. from personal experience, I walked for about 3 hours and my HRM (Same Polar FT4) .. said I burned 1998 calories. But upon looking at the more likely situation .. it is probably closer to 600-700 cal burned.

So .. a difference of 1300 calories ?

This why I gave it to my sister .. :flowerforyou:

Really .. your HRM cannot tell calories burned, it is just someone's guess at how many calories you will burn based on your HR. This after all is ALL that the unit can actually truly measure. A math calculation .... nothing less / nothing more and is subject to much much error.

h7463

The HRM is pointless to wear during your kettlebell routine (for calorie counts).

Please explain?

Don't worry about this. This out of context remark doesn't apply to the cardio/weight circuit that you have been describing. Unlike a weight-lifting type of workout, where heavy weights are moved for fewer reps, with rest between sets, kettlebell swings incorporated into circuit training, will certainly burn calories, because you are non-stop killing it, heart rate through the roof.

h7463

Even though people here seem to think that HRM's are amazing machines and are just so right.

But .. from personal experience, I walked for about 3 hours and my HRM (Same Polar FT4) .. said I burned 1998 calories. But upon looking at the more likely situation .. it is probably closer to 600-700 cal burned.

So .. a difference of 1300 calories ?

This why I gave it to my sister .. :flowerforyou:

Really .. your HRM cannot tell calories burned, it is just someone's guess at how many calories you will burn based on your HR. This after all is ALL that the unit can actually truly measure. A math calculation .... nothing less / nothing more and is subject to much much error.

It always depends on what you want from this handy little computer. When I 'walk', then it's a power walk in the 5mph range. There is no casual conversation with a walking partner, because I will be huffing and puffing on top of my lungs. Not to mention the burn from my glutes being on fire. One hour will give me 500 calories torched, HR average 135, max160. If you're on a casual walk, then you have some extra calorie burn, compared to the burn that you can calculate from daily activities. For logging this walk, I would suggest, you subtract the daily activities from HRM reading to get you closer to reality.

In the end. however, all the numbers around here are estimates. Personally, I try not to beat myself up about it, and I'm enjoying the process. The HRM may not be as accurate as I would want it, but over the 2 years that I've been training with it, I can certainly see progress and consistency for me, personally. I think, in the end that's all that matters...

tarcotti

See, the opposite was true for me when I was using the HRM sensors on the gym equipment. I got my Polar FT7 expecting to have it tell me I wasn't burning what I thought I was but instead it told me I was burning more! But I think it's just because my HR gets so high because some days I really don't feel like I've burned what it says I have.
Granted, it is just an estimation and all my FT7 knows is my height, weight, gender, etc because I don't know how to measure the co2 output or whatever it is called and that is supposed to give you the most accurate calorie burn estimation.
However I wish I could take mine swimming.
160 minutes of a 'leisurely swim' comes in at over 1,000 calories burned, and I just know that can't be right.
::shakes fist at sky::
Curse you, inaccurate measurements of MFP!
I share in your frustration.

Me too! My Polar heart rate monitor says I'm burning a lot more than what MFP says. I'll trust Polar over MFP any day.

itsbasschick

i haven't found MFP to be particularly over-generous with burn - it's usually very close to my HRM. perhaps you're choosing higher intensity for your exercise - "very brisk": for your walks instead of moderate, or faster jogging speeds (8.6 instead of 6).