Heart rate monitor in treadmill accurate for calorie burn?

lisaidem
lisaidem Posts: 194 Member
edited September 25 in Fitness and Exercise
My treadmill has heart rate monitor handles that I can use while I'm walking. Until I can talk my husband into allowing me to order an expensive HRM (I just bought the $1K treadmill!), do you all think that the heart rate handles are giving me a relatively accurate reading for the my walking time? Obviously I still have no idea what my calories burnt are when I'm strength training, but I'd like to feel comfortable using the readout that the machine gives me. The machine does have my weight (although no height), and combined with my heart rate, do you think that's pretty accurate?

MFP only lists walking by .5 mph intervals, when I frequently jump up and down by .2 mph. MPF also doesn't take into account the incline.

I don't actually like to walk or jog at a quick pace and hold the handles, because it completely throws me off balance and is kind of weird. I know the older machines and ellipticals tend to overestimate the calories burned--how many of you that have treadmills and external HRM get wacky contradictory readings regarding calories burned?

Replies

  • angebean
    angebean Posts: 195 Member
    I just recently bought a Polar FT7 HRM and am in the process of comparing it to the machines that I use. So far, I've been able to compare it to the elliptical and the elliptical has read out that I am burning more calories and that I have a higher heart rate than the HRM.
  • lnosgood
    lnosgood Posts: 92
    I'm not exactly sure how accurate they are, but i know the ones up at the YMCA where I work out at calculate the calories burned and it is very very close to what MFP says my burned calories are for my workout. Normally it's only off by less than 10 calories. As for the HRM I have been looking into those on amazon.com and they have a few that are under $50. You might want to look into getting one of those. I know i'm seriously considering it! :)
  • multigrain
    multigrain Posts: 2
    I also wondered. I have a Polar monitor & have found they are fairly accurate, may vary from machine to machine but gives a pretty good picture
  • multigrain
    multigrain Posts: 2
    I also wondered. I have a Polar monitor & have found they are fairly accurate, may vary from machine to machine but gives a pretty good picture
  • 6Pk2Go
    6Pk2Go Posts: 105
    My experience has been that most cardio machines ask age and weight and base your calorie burn on that along with your heart rate. From my perspective the missing peice in this equation is sex. In general females have less lean mass and burn less calories than males. Unfortunately, the machine is generally higher than the read on my heart rate monitor. The variance is often 10-30 calories per 10 minutes depending on the machine/activity.
  • teasha43
    teasha43 Posts: 101
    Welllll:0) HI! as for me, I do have both. There is a large discrepancy between them for me. I do not run either...little jogs at 3.2 here and there. The treadmill says 142 usually for a mile..where my HRM will say around 80. Tonight I went to the gym and ckd them against each other...same thing. I would try to use the lesser to be on the safe side. As far as the HRM goes, I just bought the Polar Ft 40 a cpl weeks ago and I love it. I paid 160 for it. I know several ppl who say the Ft11 is awesome too..it runs 109.00 at the ****s here. Good luck to you and congrats on your new treadmill...I love mine:).....................Teash
This discussion has been closed.

Categories