Calories Not Accurate on HRM?

ohohraptor

Ha...I am in the opposite situation that you are in.

I too just got the FT4 and my first day using it was this morning and mine gave me a reading of only 223 calories burned for 40 minutes of P90...

Just out of curiosity...you DID get the female version correct?

Yep, definitely got a the female one!

waverly9876

bump
Im confused after reading that article. Whats the point of buying a heart rate monitor then?

ohohraptor

If you continue reading - he states that all of those "facts" are myths and untrue.

Oh. Guess I should probably finish the article before I start blabbing.

Mindful_Trent

bump
Im confused after reading that article. Whats the point of buying a heart rate monitor then?

The end of the 2nd article I posted sums it up well:

Does this mean that heart rate monitors are not useful? Not at all. For a number of aerobic activities--most ellipticals, spin classes, running outdoors, other aerobic-style classes--they are still the best option for estimating calories. And they can be used for circuit training and some mixed classes or cross fit workouts--both as a more vague estimate of calories burned, but also for workout-to-workout comparisons. And for many people, by the time you get to the point where you can and need to start doing more intense lifting and circuit workouts (e.g. tabata, crossfit), calories burned during a workout is less relevant anyhow.

mikeyml

I was in a similar situation to you when I first bought my HRM. I had been using a HRM that came with my treadmill but it was only good for reading my HR and not for estimating calories. My treadmill would estimate the calories burned and that's what I used when entering exercise in here. Since the weather is getting nicer and I want to exercise outside more, I went out and bought a Polar FT7. The first time I wore it, it said I burned 100 more calories from my normal treadmill workout than the treadmill estimated. I was skeptical, but the HR frequency was nearly the exact same as when I used the treadmill's HRM. I asked a lot of people on and off MFP, including some personal trainers, which one is more accurate and the answer was resoundingly the Polar HRM. So that's my take on it.

Now as far as using it during strength training, I don't know if I would use it for that. I try to use mine solely for cardio or really intense activity. There is just too much resting in strength training in my opinion to use a HRM. Likewise I would not wear it for 24 hours to get an estimate of daily calories burned.

THISisTARRAN

I am no expert, but I am wondering if you used tap water? Mine HRM specifically says DO not use tap water to get the strap wet. I'm not sure why. I think it said to use spit or they sell specific water made for it. Could that be it?

leomom72

i have the ft4, and i trust it more than mfp..it is a sensor from your heart rate, so should be very accurate. you are supposed to get the tab things wet on the back before each use though, i'm sure you knew that there were so many responses, i didn't read thru them all, but i'm sure you will find what you are looking for..best of luck

arodriguez24

I agree with the resting in strength training but if you doing some circuit strength training then it would be very useful, and I believe that the FT series in polar is designed to also consider strength training activities. For instance if I'm doing curls for 20 minutes with little movement I only burn a little, but if I'm switching back and forth from different exercises and out of breath after a series I see that I burned more, I know its not 100% accurate but its better than nothing.

RatBoyGL

I picked up a cheap one in Lidl yesterday (£14.99) and have worn it with chest strap for 24 hrs during which time I have deliberately not exercised. It tells me I have burnt off 3054 calories just doing day-to-day activities; this seems a little excessive to say the least! Obviously I am overweight but if I was genuinely using that many surely I wouldn't have to cut down on food! I was happy that the pulse rate was correct - the lowest was 49 at rest and I hit 120 running up the stairs.

Actually, that MAY not be that excessive.

I am 6'2, 201, and I burn approximately 1904 calories a day at rest.

Your brain burns more calories in a day than you can ever hope to burn at a gym. Trust me on that one. It burns calories to keep your lungs pumping, your heart pumping, sending the electronic signals to all your muscle groups, moving your mouth while eating, blinking your eyes, you name it.

The rate at which you burn in a day at full rest is called BMR.

MFP sets your goal cals to BMR minus a certain number (your deficit) in order to make you lose weight.

robertf57

WOW. Remember the HRM is just a tool for estimating caloric expenditures. The are only as reliable as the estimation method and equations they incorporate a.d generally are not suitable for estimating anything other than steady state aerobic activity. Quite frankly, I find their greatest value is keeping me honest: I have an objective measure of how hard I am working during my workout based on my HR over the exercise period.

Unless you are going to actually measure the consumption of oxygen directly and or CO2 production with fairly expensive medical equipment. All the calorie estimates are just that, estimates!

ohohraptor

So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

RatBoyGL

So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

Try this web site and see what it says: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

But yes, that heart rate seems high.

Mine usually hovers in the 130's while running, and I run slow for someone with my build in the 5 MPH range.

MissTomGettingThin

Just to support the FT4 :laugh:

I have one and have found it to be good.
I eat my calories back based on this monitor and have lost loads!

JohnnyNull

They are not accurate.

ohohraptor

So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

Try this web site and see what it says: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

But yes, that heart rate seems high.

Mine usually hovers in the 130's while running, and I run slow for someone with my build in the 5 MPH range.

I would imagine mine would be closer to that too, considering at 4 mph I can walk... 166 seems way high.

robertf57

So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

I don't know your age, so I don't know your heart rate max; but those are pretty high heart rates, meaning you were working. I believe the HRM is probably fairly accurate.

TrainingWithTonya

So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

Heart rate while working out is an individual thing. The more fit you are, the lower your heart rate will be while you are working out. So, you can't compare your heart rate to anyone else's heart rate doing the same exercise. After several months of regular exercise, your heart rate will be lower doing the same thing. If you are getting the same heart rate manually as the monitor is getting, then it's fine and as accurate as you can get for an estimate of calorie burns as long as there isn't another reason besides exercise that your heart rate would be effected (meds, caffeine, etc.) so i would trust it.

ohohraptor

So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

I don't know your age, so I don't know your heart rate max; but those are pretty high heart rates, meaning you were working. I believe the HRM is probably fairly accurate.

I'm 23. Maybe I'm just really out of shape?

ohohraptor

So today I did an easy run at 4.2 mph for 30 minutes(2 miles). My heart rate measured 155-170 the whole time, with my average rate at 166. My HRM said I burned 353, and the treadmill 247. Does this seem accurate for my heart rate? Even the heart rate seemed high, although I manually did my HR after my my cool down and it was accurate.

Heart rate while working out is an individual thing. The more fit you are, the lower your heart rate will be while you are working out. So, you can't compare your heart rate to anyone else's heart rate doing the same exercise. After several months of regular exercise, your heart rate will be lower doing the same thing. If you are getting the same heart rate manually as the monitor is getting, then it's fine and as accurate as you can get for an estimate of calorie burns as long as there isn't another reason besides exercise that your heart rate would be effected (meds, caffeine, etc.) so i would trust it.

Alright. Thanks Tonya. I suppose I just am really out of shape! I didn't think I was working that hard. And no caffeine or meds, just birth control, but I don't know if that would change it.

mikeyml

Your heart rate sounds pretty accurate to me. You just can't tell when your heart is out of shape unless you are monitoring it all the time. You can be skinny and have an out of shape heart. I'm sure that you will see your HR drop over time with regular exercise.

ohohraptor

Your heart rate sounds pretty accurate to me. You just can't tell when your heart is out of shape unless you are monitoring it all the time. You can be skinny and have an out of shape heart. I'm sure that you will see your HR drop over time with regular exercise.

I've been running for about a year now, but I guess not seriously until a couple of months ago. I went on another run this evening just because this HRM thing has been driving me crazy. Ran 2.81 miles, burned 340 cals or something, my average heart rate was about the same. I guess I'll stick with the HRM from now on! I'm surprised my heart is so out of shape, however I'm not complaining about the extra 100 cals burned!

TrainingWithTonya

Your heart rate sounds pretty accurate to me. You just can't tell when your heart is out of shape unless you are monitoring it all the time. You can be skinny and have an out of shape heart. I'm sure that you will see your HR drop over time with regular exercise.

I've been running for about a year now, but I guess not seriously until a couple of months ago. I went on another run this evening just because this HRM thing has been driving me crazy. Ran 2.81 miles, burned 340 cals or something, my average heart rate was about the same. I guess I'll stick with the HRM from now on! I'm surprised my heart is so out of shape, however I'm not complaining about the extra 100 cals burned!

The secret to training is that the effects only last as long as you are consistent. So, you may have been running for a year, but if you weren't consistent with it then the results (IE: lowered heart rate) won't be there. It only takes 2 weeks to lose training adaptations. So, you could run regularly for 6 months and see a drop in training heart rate of 10 bpm, but then take 2 weeks off and the next time you run you will have a training heart rate somewhere between the initial training heart rate and the new lowered training heart rate. You wouldn't keep that full effect. When looking at clients and trying to assess their cardiac risk factors, exercise doesn't count as decreasing their risk factors until it has been consistent for 6 months.

But, don't get discouraged by that. You have been consistent for 2 months and that is a good thing. Now that you have the tool to see the adaptations of your heart, you will be even more motivated to be consistent for the rest of your life. Especially after you start seeing that heart rate improve in a couple more months.

grenier317

.

grenier317

ohohraptor, You need to finish the article: after the 6 statements it says none of these are true....

4. HRMs can be used to accurately count calories expended during strength training and during rest and 24-hour activity periods.

5. HRMs are always more accurate than the readout from exercise machines.

6. If your heart rate response becomes lower when doing a certain activity, it means you are burning fewer calories.

None of these are true. HRMs only indirectly estimate calories expended during certain types of exercise. Unless they are set up properly and the profile information updated regularly, they can have significant inaccuracies. And not all HRMs are the same.

Lanfear

Your heart rate sounds pretty accurate to me. You just can't tell when your heart is out of shape unless you are monitoring it all the time. You can be skinny and have an out of shape heart. I'm sure that you will see your HR drop over time with regular exercise.

I've been running for about a year now, but I guess not seriously until a couple of months ago. I went on another run this evening just because this HRM thing has been driving me crazy. Ran 2.81 miles, burned 340 cals or something, my average heart rate was about the same. I guess I'll stick with the HRM from now on! I'm surprised my heart is so out of shape, however I'm not complaining about the extra 100 cals burned!

The secret to training is that the effects only last as long as you are consistent. So, you may have been running for a year, but if you weren't consistent with it then the results (IE: lowered heart rate) won't be there. It only takes 2 weeks to lose training adaptations. So, you could run regularly for 6 months and see a drop in training heart rate of 10 bpm, but then take 2 weeks off and the next time you run you will have a training heart rate somewhere between the initial training heart rate and the new lowered training heart rate. You wouldn't keep that full effect. When looking at clients and trying to assess their cardiac risk factors, exercise doesn't count as decreasing their risk factors until it has been consistent for 6 months.

But, don't get discouraged by that. You have been consistent for 2 months and that is a good thing. Now that you have the tool to see the adaptations of your heart, you will be even more motivated to be consistent for the rest of your life. Especially after you start seeing that heart rate improve in a couple more months.

I find this interesting - I have been cycling to/from work 5 days a week for 6 months. However my heart rate is consistently high - for instance on Friday my average was 137 max 166 (way home) and average 138 max 164 (way in). I would have thought it would be starting to drop by now? I also horse ride once a week and have been doing 30 DS so I would have thought I was getting a bit fitter by now but that doesn't seem to be the case...

gogophers

Maybe I'm missing something, but how could you ever know whether it's accurate or not. There doesn't seem to be a way (except maybe in some experimental setting, and even then...) to determine actual calories burned. What are you comparing it too?

dave4d

It's my understanding that a treadmill will use a simple physics formula of Work= mass x distance to calculate your caloric burn. If you do a mile on the treadmill, you should get around the same caloric burn as a mile on the street(as long as that mile is level). You might try an experiment, where you try it out to compare. If nothing else you could do 4 laps around the track at your local high school with your HRM, and at the same pace do a mile on the treadmill. See how close they are to each other.

ohohraptor

Your heart rate sounds pretty accurate to me. You just can't tell when your heart is out of shape unless you are monitoring it all the time. You can be skinny and have an out of shape heart. I'm sure that you will see your HR drop over time with regular exercise.

I've been running for about a year now, but I guess not seriously until a couple of months ago. I went on another run this evening just because this HRM thing has been driving me crazy. Ran 2.81 miles, burned 340 cals or something, my average heart rate was about the same. I guess I'll stick with the HRM from now on! I'm surprised my heart is so out of shape, however I'm not complaining about the extra 100 cals burned!

The secret to training is that the effects only last as long as you are consistent. So, you may have been running for a year, but if you weren't consistent with it then the results (IE: lowered heart rate) won't be there. It only takes 2 weeks to lose training adaptations. So, you could run regularly for 6 months and see a drop in training heart rate of 10 bpm, but then take 2 weeks off and the next time you run you will have a training heart rate somewhere between the initial training heart rate and the new lowered training heart rate. You wouldn't keep that full effect. When looking at clients and trying to assess their cardiac risk factors, exercise doesn't count as decreasing their risk factors until it has been consistent for 6 months.

But, don't get discouraged by that. You have been consistent for 2 months and that is a good thing. Now that you have the tool to see the adaptations of your heart, you will be even more motivated to be consistent for the rest of your life. Especially after you start seeing that heart rate improve in a couple more months.

This makes sense. I tend to get lazy for a week weeks to month and have not been consistent throughout. We will see what happens in a month or two.

ohohraptor

ohohraptor, You need to finish the article: after the 6 statements it says none of these are true....

4. HRMs can be used to accurately count calories expended during strength training and during rest and 24-hour activity periods.

5. HRMs are always more accurate than the readout from exercise machines.

6. If your heart rate response becomes lower when doing a certain activity, it means you are burning fewer calories.

None of these are true. HRMs only indirectly estimate calories expended during certain types of exercise. Unless they are set up properly and the profile information updated regularly, they can have significant inaccuracies. And not all HRMs are the same.

I read the rest of the article, and apologized earlier for my blab.

ohohraptor

Maybe I'm missing something, but how could you ever know whether it's accurate or not. There doesn't seem to be a way (except maybe in some experimental setting, and even then...) to determine actual calories burned. What are you comparing it too?

I was more concerned about it not getting my heart rate accurately. It seemed too high for how I felt. 166 is terribly high, and I didn't feel like I was working that hard.