Heart monitor shows too many calories burned... I think

hatchhome

So i did my night time jog with a heart monitor and it put me burning alot more calories then the calculators had been giving me, so much more I dont know if I should trust it. I imputed my age weight and gender into it. any ideas or suggestions? It is a wrist monitor, I used it on a quarter mile track and measured my heart rate every lap.

hush7hush

I'd log it as an average of your HRM and MFP.

Gilbrod

I use a Polar F4. It comes with the chest strap and watch. I've had all the trainers I know at the gym say that since calories are based on heart rate, it's pretty accurate. I burn an average of 1000+ cals every workout. High intensity cardio and moderate lifting with "active rest" in between sets. So far, so good. If your monitor is analog, it could be reading interference from other electronics. The Polar is digital and has a signal specifically for the chest strap. I have had no issues since. Sorry for the rant, but I hope it helps.

hatchhome

Both help, thank you. I may go for a more expensive one with a strap as I like to be accurate.

atomdraco

I heard wrist monitor are not actuate, might want to consider get one with chest strap (Polar is great)

jhardenbergh

Did you enter in your resting heart rate as well, I have a New Balance Fit Plus and find it to be pretty accurate, but there should be a place to put resting HR as well.

I have on several occassions wore it to the doctors and tried it right after the nurse took my bp and heart rate and was spot on. The caloies burnt will fluctuate in the differences between resting and when exercising, I am not a trainer or an exercise physiologist by any means but say your resting HR is 70 and your it is a lot more difficult to reach your desired heartrate for fat burn or cardio than say your resting heartrate being 90

Nomomush

The most accurate reading with be a continuous reading with a chest strap. Wrist monitors tend to be off a bit.

hatchhome

I did skimp a little and just got a cheap one at walmart. but as with most things Im sure you get what you pay for.

ronda_gettinghealthy

my wrist monitor was always off both under and lower- bought a Polar FT4== love it

liveinbliss

My heart rate monitor comes out higher then the calories on here as well. I have an adidas micoach and when I sync it to the computer it gives me a graph showing my heartrate through out the workout and what zone I am in. What I discovered is my heart rate was a lot higher then I expected it to be and therefore my body was working at a lot harder then I thought it was. I always thought running was really hard but I attributed it to me being a wimp...not that I was really working at what would be considered an intense level. As I have gotten better, my heart rate has gradually gotten slightly lower now as I run and I burn slightly fewer calories during the same amount of time. So I would go with what the HR monitor says in that it can more accurately give you feedback on what YOUR body is doing and not what a generic calcultor esitmates you are doing.

hatchhome

There is no resting heart rate, mine tends to be in the 60's to low 70's

anubis609

I'll echo with the investment in a chest strap. Watch monitors hold the HR reading of the last one you put in, meaning if you were to slow down anytime prior to the next HR check, it would still read it as the higher count.

timeforme23

I reluctantly splurged on a polar ft40 and I LOVE it. $150, but it was well spent. You get more out of the nicer ones too (mine shows how much time you spent at fitness level vs fat burn, max and average HR, and calories burnt and what % of them were from fat. Whatever you decide, it definitely needs a chest strap. Good luck!

KickassYas

i have a bowflex with a chest strap and lets put i tthis way... i'm 308lbs and in an hour and a half hike i burned 2235 cals. so far everyone who's looked at it says its accurate.

i didn't believe it at first either and had the pros at my gym check it.



edit i should probably specify thats a hike. LOL so kinda hardcore. lookin at an average heart rate of about 170

Gilbrod

I'll echo with the investment in a chest strap. Watch monitors hold the HR reading of the last one you put in, meaning if you were to slow down anytime prior to the next HR check, it would still read it as the higher count.

Thanks for the sushi calorie counter!!! Also, LMAO @ your GIF!

emariec78

My heart rate monitor comes out higher then the calories on here as well. I have an adidas micoach and when I sync it to the computer it gives me a graph showing my heartrate through out the workout and what zone I am in. What I discovered is my heart rate was a lot higher then I expected it to be and therefore my body was working at a lot harder then I thought it was. I always thought running was really hard but I attributed it to me being a wimp...not that I was really working at what would be considered an intense level. As I have gotten better, my heart rate has gradually gotten slightly lower now as I run and I burn slightly fewer calories during the same amount of time. So I would go with what the HR monitor says in that it can more accurately give you feedback on what YOUR body is doing and not what a generic calcultor esitmates you are doing.

I found the exact same thing. I even double checked the math by hand using a formula I found because I thought it must have been wrong when the calories were so high! (On a side note this also explained why I was feeling completely starving all the time!) I can't afford one of the more expensive ones with the chest strap right now, but I do feel comforable my wrist one is more accurate then the estimates here.

Windi38

mine always shows less burned than the pre-set numbers here! It's weird how that works, isn't it? I guess that is part of the reason they are so popular, because it's a lot more accurate than just guessing, or assuming that the numbers on the computer are right...

anyway, take that thing back and get one with a chest strap. Much more accurate! And you can't go wrong with a Polar. I had another brand, and had to take it back, and the guy at the store says they NEVER get returns on Polar. Ever.

Tiggerrick

Hatchhome: Check Big 5 for specials. They frequetly have some good specials. The Bowflex is sometimes sold for about $30 with chest strap. That's about as cheap as you can get for an entry HRM with strap.

mursey

I like my Polar one with the chest strap.

I've compared it to the machines at the gym and I think it's as accurate as you can hope for. I also have noticed that if I don't plug in my age, sex and weight on the machines, the machines show that I've burned way more calories than my HRM, and that is how it should be, being that the machines will usually assume you're a male weighing more than I do.

I also notice that if I lose weight and adjust my HRM, I burn less calories than before but that's also accurate, the smaller you are the less calories you will burn. Crap! That just reminded me that I haven't adjusted it in a while.

grandpabiker

It sounds as though you are not wearing a chest strap and obtaining a pulse by touching the watch. To the best of my knowledge calories are computed by receiving signals of your continuous heart rate (meaning you would have to wear the chest strap). With my heart rate monitor the calorie count is "real time". I could be wrong as your calorie counter might be able to compute from manual inputs of heart rate.

rileysowner

So i did my night time jog with a heart monitor and it put me burning alot more calories then the calculators had been giving me, so much more I dont know if I should trust it. I imputed my age weight and gender into it. any ideas or suggestions? It is a wrist monitor, I used it on a quarter mile track and measured my heart rate every lap.

If it does not have a chest strap it is useless for calorie estimation. A continuous heart rate monitoring is needed and the wrist only models only take your heart rate when you tell them to. Basically, no chest strap means the calorie count is not in anyway correct, it is a guess.

grandpabiker

Heart rate monitors cannot compute calories unless they are receiving a continuous heart rate input. This means if you are only checking your heart rate by contacting your fingers, you are only providing a momentary input. The weight and gender must be inputted for correct computation. If you weigh 200 lbs and your HRM is set up for 100 the calories displayed will be exactly one-half what it should be (If you are lighter than the default weight then you will be awarded to many calories). The age is input for maximum heart rate. Most heart rate monitors require a chest strap to detect your pulse continuously.