HRM calories look wrong?

ehilgeman

OK, here's the deal. Should I trust my new HRM when it is consistently telling me the calories I'm burning are only about half of what MFP tells me an exercise should burn, and even less of what the machines in the gym are telling me? Now, if I were slacking, that would be an easy call, but I busted my hump on the elliptical this morning for half an hour (average HR 131, max 185) doing interval training, etc, and the HRM told me I burned only 200 calories. MFP says that's 355 and the elliptical said over 400. I went for a one hour brisk walk tonight - again, only 180 calories, where MFP says 395 and my Nike Plus pedometer says 350.

If it were even close, I'd say OK, but it's so different that I'm confused. MFP friends, need your help - is my HRM broken? Should I re-do the fitness test or something?

Amy_Do

I'm not sure about this either because I have the exact same thing happening - the machines, MFP and my nike active all tell me relatively higher than my HRM - my HRM is strapless so I am wondering if that is the difference. I have been following my HRM calories because I would rather estimate under than over - the only problem with this is if its a substantial difference I may go into starvation mode - am curious to see what others say.

hush7hush

Does your HRM have a chest strap?
If not, it's not as effective.

joyce1973

Just a thought but check your weight setting ect on th HRM.

Keefypoos

and check the Vomax settings

rileysowner

I'm not sure about this either because I have the exact same thing happening - the machines, MFP and my nike active all tell me relatively higher than my HRM - my HRM is strapless so I am wondering if that is the difference. I have been following my HRM calories because I would rather estimate under than over - the only problem with this is if its a substantial difference I may go into starvation mode - am curious to see what others say.

A HRM without a chest strap is useless for calculating calories. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

sauza

I'm not going to be much help here. I'm simply joining the confusion. I am experiencing the exact same thing. PLUS, I use two different moniters and even they are not in agreement. Of course, I know I need to just keep on keeping on, but I would like to accelerate the process, wish I knew how. I keep averaging the numbers, but that takes time.

Agglaki

Similar case here. Everyone I've spoken to at the gym agrees that the machines tend to overestimate. So I only use them to track distances.

As for the HRM make sure you have entered all your settings as accurately as possible i.e. height, weight, age etc etc

Next, you should find the HRM and MFP are closer than the HRM and Machine.

Regarding the starvation mode that someone mentioned. Unless you are eating at just over or around the 1200 calorie limit (before exercise), I doubt you should have a problem.

minburke

I have the same problem and mine has a chest strap.

wheelieblade

was thinking of getting a HRM but after reading this thread wondering if it'll be worth it, don't get me wrong I want to know what I'm burning but if they're not that accurate.....

minburke

I'm not sure if it's an accuracy thing in regard to the HRM.. I'm assuming it's more the machines or MFP maybe..

merrillfoster

My HRM has a chest strap and tells me roughly twice what the machines and MFP tells me. Now, I know it tracks my heart rate accurately and I input my weight, but I have no idea what to believe.

Agglaki

This has already been linked but I don't think anyone followed the link, so here is a copy and paste of the the importnat parts of the blog:

---

First of all--how do HRMs count calories? First thing is that HRMs do NOT measure caloric expenditure--neither directly nor indirectly. HRMs measure heart rate and that's it. They estimate caloric expenditure during steady-state cardiovascular exercise using the relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake (or VO2).

For greatest calorie count accuracy, an HRM must have the following features:

1. Chest strap sensor for continuous monitoring

2. Ability to manually input HR max, VO2 max, gender, age weight and HR rest.

3. Sophisticated analysis technology and software which has been validated on large numbers of test subjects.

For those features, your choices are going to be limited and you cannot go super-cheap. If you cannot enter VO2 max, then the HRM is using a more general format to determine your fitness level, which means greater inaccuracy.

---

if you want to find out more and read the whole article as already mentioned, follow the link already mentioned in this thread...

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

MrBrown72

Sorry I can't fall in line with the "heart rate monitors don't work because someone posted a blog that says so." crowd. A cheap HRM will be inaccurate as it tends to average too much and drops signal. Still the HRM is generally the best way to gauge effort, output, progress and consistency.

A good HRM will keep track of your average heart rate, the amount of time you spend working out at that level, and show you on either a graph or calendar if you've been stagnating or progressing in your efforts. It also tracks calories burned by computing your heart rate and the amount of time you stayed in a heart rate zone.

This is what your gym equipment does, however the gym equipment can only work on the last reading it got while the HRM gets constant updates. MFP gives a generality in calories burned, gym equipment does an average for last read and expected heart rate, and a HRM does the same math on a more informed scale.

You do HAVE to give it an accurate resting heart rate and you HAVE to practice personal honesty by ending your workout when your workout actually ends, not while you're laying on the floor wondering why you just worked out.

Your HRM will generally tell you a different story than other sources. I was sad to realize that my elliptical tells me I burn 33% more than my HRM does. However I go by the HRM.

At the end of the day the really important thing the HRM does is track that time and effort. In time that workout you do every day will take drastically less effort and therefore give drastically lesser results. That thirty minute workout that did wonders last year is now likely to be why you are on a plateau now, you're not pushing it as hard to get through it. Consistent use of a HRM can point that out and, tell you you're getting lazy and cause you to push it even harder.

No matter how hard you push it, you will not starve eating 1800 calories a day. The rest of the exercise calories are just gravy, or maybe cake...

beccarockslife

Defo don't trust the machines at the gym, they are awful and only work out an average. HRM with a strap should be accurate, it takes it to account when your heart rate is in fitness and in fat burning modes, I always feel I've worked hard for very little calorie return but you are creating fitness not fat burn. You will see results if you keep at it.

ehilgeman

Yes, it has a chest strap. Got a Polar FT60, good brand.

CookieCatCatcher

Yes, it has a chest strap. Got a Polar FT60, good brand.

If it has a chest strap- go with your HRM. The Polar's are accurate within 15 calories, and MFP usually gives me 150 more calories per sweat session then my Polar FT4. Sucks, but- at least its honest.

jaimejean478

Go with what your HRM tells you. As much as you want to believe the machine, or MFP, you cannot. Those are just estimates. It pains me to see people imputing 1000 calories for an exercise based on MFP's calculation, but being educated with a HRM now, I know it's way off. MFP has no idea how hard you were actually working during your workout.... HRM does. (I have a Polar FT4 and love it!)

Minnie_Moo

Don't know if this will help you any but...........Here is a link that was posted in another thread with a lot of information on HRM's. Also, I would suggest getting one with a chest strap as they are better to calculate an accurate HR.


http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472


I just purchased a Polar FT40 about 2 weeks ago. The FT-40 has the Polar Fitness test which measures your aerobic fitness at rest and tells you your progress.

saltorian

Interestingly, my Polar FT4 comes in fairly close to what MFP tells me, especially for bicycling, but when I set it up so my partner could use it, she found that she was burning way MORE calories than what the website calculates. She's fairly heavy right now, has lived a largely sedentary lifestyle for quite a while, has an injury in her leg that makes it difficult to walk at times, and has a very high body fat %, so I'm not surprised that she burns more than an "average" woman of her height and weight.

It makes sense if you think about it. I mean, another person could weigh exactly the same and be exactly as tall, but maybe they have a different frame size or maybe they are more used to exercise than she is. That woman would be burning fewer calories doing the same activities.

Just goes to show you that the information on MFP is general and doesn't take into account your fitness level, body composition, etc. I personally think the HRM is more accurate than other ways to estimate what you burn, but the best way to find out if it's working for you might just be to go with what it tells you for a few weeks and see if you're getting the results that you expect.

Flyntiggr

Yes, it has a chest strap. Got a Polar FT60, good brand.

If you have it set correctly, then the HRM was correct. Not sure how old you are, but you look about my age in your pics. If that's the case, an average HR in the 130's is pretty low. Mine generally runs in the 150-160 range, and I burn about 8-10 calories a minute while running on treadmill. In the 130s, that drops a bit. So IMO, your monitor doesn't seem to be off at all?