How many calories am I really burning?!? (HRM vs Bike vs MFP

Steph_135

Hi everyone! I did a stationary bike routine yesterday, and worked really hard at it, but my HRM says I only burnt 370 calories!! (In 56 mins). Earlier I had done the 30 Day Shred and burnt 208 (25 mins), and I thought that was pretty accurate.

But my stationary bike display said I had burnt 902 calories!!! That's a huge difference! In past stationary bike sessions where I haven't worked as hard, it would say I had burnt 300 cals in 30 mins, or 450 cals in 45 mins, so the bike was clearly calculating my harder effort put in yesterday.

MFP says I would be burning about 785 cals (vigorous effort).

Can anyone please help me? I have no clue what's going on here.

ChessRonin

What kind of HRM do you have and was it calibrated correctly?

sarahnicolexoxo

Does your HRM have a chest strap? I'd always go with what your HRM says! I have the Polar FT7!

IsMollyReallyHungry

I recommend going with your HRM. If your HRM has a chest strap and is a Polar it is probably the most accurate. You can always take a number in between all three. Unfortnuately none of these including your HRM is 100 percent accurate. You dilemma is the main reason why I set my HRM to I weigh 199 pounds. I do not want an over inflated number for sure. I rather be under than over, especially at my current size.

udallmom101

I am with a few others on here! I go with my HRM definitely! It has a strap around my chest and is way more accurate than the machines, because the machines don't ask age, weight, and you aren't constantly checking your HR when on a machine. I say the HRM is right.

Black_Swan

I agree, if HRM has chest strap, then its much more accurate than MFP or bike...

JustMichelleB

NO way does anyone burn 900 calories an hour on a stationary bike.

Definitely go with the HRM.

healthydoseofglitter

Well the bike usually does not have the correct info on your current weight/age/sex so the bike would be off .... my treadmill is never close to my hrm ..... I normally go by what my HRM tells me, since I can program my age/sex/weight and height into it I feel that my HRM is more accurate for my body.

Suzeesmu

Ok, I'm going to put in my 2 cents because I've had the same dilemma myself. The equipment (treadmill, AMT, elliptical) I use at the gym all ask my weight and age. On the treadmill, I've found the calories burned readings on my Polar F4 (with chest strap) to be very similar (a smidge lower) than the reading on the treadmill. So when I use the treadmill, I've always gone with the HRM number.

However; when I use the AMT (combo stairmaster, elliptical kind of thing, works arms too), the readings are vastly different (sometimes 200 calories higher on the machine). On the AMT, I am sweating like crazy within about 5 minutes and feel like I'm getting a much tougher work out than on the treadmill where I start sweating after 25 minutes. I have to really work to keep my heart rate in range (keep from going to high), whereas it takes me a long time to get to the upper range of my hr on the treadmill (guess I need to up the resistance or incline!). Just as example: AMT HRM calories burned in 65 minutes: 505, AMT calories burned according to machine 65 min: 728.

When I use the AMT I do go with what the machine says as I think it may take into account the amount of calories burned for the resistance level (and use of arms too) versus just heart rate.

I may be wrong, but it make sense to me that when your thighs (your largest muscle group) and arms (on the AMT) are having to push harder to get somewhere they burn more calories regardless of hr (plus the more fit you become the more your hr goes down, causing you to up your resistance/go faster...). I could get the same calories burned walking on flat ground if I went with the HRM numbers, but that doesn't take into account the use of the arms.

I split the difference (go on the lower side) when I use the elliptical), since again, I feel it takes in to account the amount of effort (calories burned) for the resistance level. AMT and elliptical are the only times I deviate from the HRM numbers.

Anyone please feel free to weigh in (little giggle) on this as I too have been a little unsure of which to go with!

IsMollyReallyHungry

NO way does anyone burn 900 calories an hour on a stationary bike.

Definitely go with the HRM.

I totally agree. The only way this happen is if the person weighed over 500 pounds.

IsMollyReallyHungry

Ok, I'm going to put in my 2 cents because I've had the same dilemma myself. The equipment (treadmill, AMT, elliptical) I use at the gym all ask me my weight and age and I've found the calories burned readings on my Polar F4 to be very similar (a smidge lower) than the reading on the treadmill. So on that, I've always gone with the HRM number.

However; when I use the AMT (combo stairmaster, elliptical kind of thing, works arms too), the readings are vastly different (sometimes 200 calories higher on the machine). But, on the AMT, I am sweating like crazy within about 5 minutes and feel like I'm getting a much tougher work out than on the treadmill where I start sweating about 25 minutes into a workout). I have to really work to keep my heart rate in range (keep from going to high), whereas it takes me a long time to get to the upper range of my hr on the treadmill (guess I need to up the resistance or incline!). Just as example: AMT HRM calories burned in 65 minutes: 505, AMT calories burned according to machine 65 min: 728.

When I use the AMT I do go with what the machine says as I think it may take into account the amount of calories burned for the resistance level versus just heart rate.

I may be wrong on that, but it make sense to me that when your thighs (your largest muscle group) are having to push harder to get somewhere they burn more calories regardless of hr (plus the more fit you become the more your hr goes down, causing you to up your resistance/go faster...).

Anyone please feel free to weigh in (little giggle) on this as I to have been a little unsure of which to go with!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Well this is interesting for sure. I recommend sticking with your HRM on all machines since it still is the most accurate. Your AMT sounds like MFP in regards to the high calorie burn they give to Elliptical machines just because it is more effort involved. If you are fit and as you get fitter, you are going to burn less calories no matter how hard you work and sweat.

Sweating is cooling off your body, not an indication of how good your heart is working or HR......:-) I have noticed when you are using your legs more you can sweat like a pig but no difference in HR. That is why important to mix it up and do low HR workouts with more vigorous workouts also.

When I was working with a trainer I sweated like a pig but did not burn too many more calories than if I were on a bike. The difference was her workouts really helped me lose a lot of inches and toned up my body much more than just doing the stuff I was doing.

That is my 2 cents......:-)

Steph_135

Thank you very much for all your responses!!

What kind of HRM do you have and was it calibrated correctly?

It's a Bowflex Hybrid Plus HRM and I put in all my stats.

Does your HRM have a chest strap? I'd always go with what your HRM says! I have the Polar FT7!

Yes it does!

Mollie... Thanks! I just can't believe the number is so low!! :laugh: And thanks for your response to Suzeesmu as well.

When I use the AMT I do go with what the machine says as I think it may take into account the amount of calories burned for the resistance level (and use of arms too) versus just heart rate.

I may be wrong, but it make sense to me that when your thighs (your largest muscle group) and arms (on the AMT) are having to push harder to get somewhere they burn more calories regardless of hr (plus the more fit you become the more your hr goes down, causing you to up your resistance/go faster...). I could get the same calories burned walking on flat ground if I went with the HRM numbers, but that doesn't take into account the use of the arms.

Yes, this is exactly what I was thinking! Because I was upping the resistance, it made sense that it would be more of a workout (aka more calories burnt), and that heart rate would only be a part of the equation.

Suzeesmu

bump

HayesSanborn

As a point of reference. I would burn about 900 an hour prepping for some of my races. This a hard effort that would be back of the pack in a CAT 4 race, towards the front in Cat 5.

I'd say on a gym bike you're looking at 400-500 an hour at the most. Some of my female clients would be about 600 an hour and they are racing/competitive.

A power meter will actual calculate the number of kilo joules you've generate and then you can convert them to calories burned. Based on the conversion and the efficiency of a bike luckly 1 KJ = 1 cal (or close enough)

Entire workout (232 watts):
Duration: 1:12:35 (1:12:40)
Work: 1011 kJ
TSS: 104.6 (intensity factor 0.933)
Norm Power: 243
VI: 1.04

Steph_135

Thanks HayesSanborn, that's really technical! I definitely do NOT think I am working out at that 900, aka "race prep", number! :noway: