My HRM says what???

NikkiJ17

So I used my new wrist watch HRM today. I know it's not the best one out there but it was either that or nothing. I was on the treadmill for 44 minutes doing brisk walking/jogging intervals. The HRM said that to get a more accurate calorie count you should take your heart rate more often, so I took my heart rate about every 4 minutes, when I changed intervals. It ranged anywhere from 150-160. MFP says that for the amount of time spent exercising & speed that I was going I would burn 284 calories, my HRM said 669!! Could that be??

corey_e

I personally always go with my HRM whether it's higher or lower than what the machine or MFP says. Because MFP doesn't track your heart rate, it's just a general or average they use for your height and weight.

Jessi527

This is a great question. I wish i knew the answer since I too bought a monitor not too long ago and it's giving me high readings aswell!

forty3fab

I can't wait to see people's responses to your question, because I wonder that too!

sdhorne

I have decided the best thing to use is your HRM for caloric burn. Before I got my HRM I used whatever the elliptical said and sometimes it was several hundred calories less that what MPF said. What MPF doesn't take in account is the intensity that you workout at, and your HRM does. Yesterday I did 65 min on the elliptical and it said I burned 765 calories but my HRM said 891...oh and MPF says 1066. I use the HRM because since it is attached directly to you, I figure it has to be more accurate.

simplywriting

I have actually noticed that there is a discrepancy between MFP's exercise calories burned and an HRM. I don't really understand why they are so much drastically lower. I don't have a personal HRM yet, but when I do, I will be inputting what is on the HRM and NOT the MFP site.

I am doing the 30 day shred and I noticed the girls that use the HRM burn about triple the amount of calories as I do according to MFP.

I don't know which is right, but its definitely thought provoking.

sunshine79

without knowing your height and weight it's hard to know. Also, does your HRM have a chest strap?

Buckeyt

Does your HRM allow you to enter your personal data, like Age, weight and sex? If not, that could add to some inaccuracy. Also, it sounds like it isn't constantly monitoring your HR either.

However, I also do intervals on the treadmill for 40 minutes a couple times a week. 5 min warm up and 5 minute cool down, then run 2 minutes at 7 mph, walk 1 minutes at 4 mph all at 5 degree incline and I burn +/-550 calories as a 42 year old male that weighs 190.

atomdraco

Everyone's heart work differently, even with 2 people same weight / height / sex, etc. One person's heart might need to pump more hard to get blood flow, the other one may not.

houlee

To my knowledge (which I freely admit is incorrect at times), the calories you burn are based on your sex, age, height, weight, lean muscle mass, the level of exertion, etc. So MFP probably gives you an average calories burned based on your weight, sex, and height. Most HRMs have you enter your statistics for sex, height, and weight when you set them up. Heart rate monitors allow you to track your level of exertion for a more accurate calorie burn.

If you do the exact same exercise over a period of time (ex: walk 30 minutes steady state on the treadmill), you will probably notice that the calories burned are decreasing because your fitness level is increasing and you exert yourself less for the same activity. The machine wont reflect that change, nor will MFP, but your HRM should. Furthermore, many cardio machines require you to hold onto some handle bars to get your HR. When you hold on to these bars, you may exert less effort than if you had your hands at your side. And, many of these machines are not regularly calibrated, so their readings may be off from that.

Also, keep in mind that the more someone weighs, the more calories that are burned for the same activities. So, a 30 year old 5'4 female who weighs 150 pounds burns a lot less calories than a 30 year old 5'4 female who weighs 250 pounds if both walk on a treadmill for 30 minutes at a 0% incline at a 3.5 speed. It takes more energy to move a bigger body. So in summary, if you set up your HRM correctly, it is best to trust that. There will still be some degree of error because they don't track things like lean muscle mass and your metabolism, but it generally more accurate. Just remember to change your weight on your HRM whenever you lose/gain 5 or 10 pounds.

NikkiJ17

This HRM doesn't have a chest strap. It doesn't constantly monitor your heart rate, there is a sensor-button you put your finger on and hold it there. All my readings were consistent with each other. It did allow me to enter age and sex but it didn't ask for weight. I am 5'4" and weigh 195. I'm gonna use it tonight at Zumba and see what it says.

wolfchild59

Keep in mind that MFP does not factor in incline on a treadmill or resistance on an elliptical or stationary bike. When I run on lower inclines on the treadmill then MFP is closer to my HRM calories. But the higher incline I go, the larger and larger the discrepancy. Same with the elliptical and my resistance level. So as long as you have all of the info set properly in your HRM, I'd say to go with the number that gives you. Though, I'd also look towards getting one with a chest strap eventually as well, so you don't have to worry about constantly manually getting a reading.

epa422

I would say if it didn't take into account your height and weight, it probably isn't terribly accurate. Maybe average out what you would get entering from the MFP database and the HRM to get something a little closer to correct. But I haven't seen good reviews on the accuracy of HRM that don't constantly monitor you.

TonysMiss

My HRM has a wrist band along with the chest band. (constant monitoring) If I'm on the eliptical for 45-50 min I burn an average of 500-600 cal. Depending on my speed and resistance. It also depends on your weight and age as to where your HR is. Also, I believe, men burn more calories than women. (I think) My boyfriend and I work out together and he always burns more than me...........
I say, if your HRM says you burn "X" amount, GO with it! It's going to be much more accurate than most gym equipment.
Way to go!!!!!

wolfchild59

Oh, wait, it didn't ask for your height and weight in the set-up? Yeah, no, it's not much better than trusting the actual machine readouts at that point. You should get an HRM that asks for birthdate, sex, height and weight. And, again, chest strap and constant monitoring will be better than the watch alone.

sarah44254

In 50 mins of brisk walking + jogging in intervals outside, I burn, according to my HRM, about 590-620. So if you burn more than me per min (maybe a higher weight or a faster metabolism for some reason) you could easily hit 670 in 45 mins. It does sound like a lot, but I can see it being right.

I'm confused why your HRM wouldn't need your weight. Mine changes so slightly each time I lose weight and enter in the new number. If you can afford it - try getting a monitor that asks for height/weight/age/sex AND comes with a chest strap so you don't have to tell it to do it's job... it's doing it's job the entire time.