HRM vs Machine Calorie Burn
agataarchangel
Posts: 292 Member
Good Morning All!
Two days ago I purchased a Polar FT4 HRM. So, yesterday I decided to take it to the gym to see how many calories it would tell me I burn during my regular gym routine; 40-mins on the elliptical (with resisiance throughout), and then a 40-minute run with hills and sprint intervals.
I always set the machines to my current body weight, and round down from the totals the machines read out after each workout. The combined total of burned calories shown is usually 950.
The HRM, on the other hand, showed 550 yesterday.....
Which do you think is more accurate? I've been basing my food choices and exercise logging on the 950 (and it's worked for me), but now this new number of 550 kinda throws me off.... Maybe I should stick to the machine readouts for gym workouts, and use the HRM for things like fitness classes, and roller-blading and such?
Two days ago I purchased a Polar FT4 HRM. So, yesterday I decided to take it to the gym to see how many calories it would tell me I burn during my regular gym routine; 40-mins on the elliptical (with resisiance throughout), and then a 40-minute run with hills and sprint intervals.
I always set the machines to my current body weight, and round down from the totals the machines read out after each workout. The combined total of burned calories shown is usually 950.
The HRM, on the other hand, showed 550 yesterday.....
Which do you think is more accurate? I've been basing my food choices and exercise logging on the 950 (and it's worked for me), but now this new number of 550 kinda throws me off.... Maybe I should stick to the machine readouts for gym workouts, and use the HRM for things like fitness classes, and roller-blading and such?
0
Replies
-
HRM totally. The machines in the gym massively overestimate because they don't take in to account your fitness level, whether you hold on or not, etc etc0
-
But then, if it aint broke, don't fix it0
-
WoW! That's a huge difference. I have the PFT7, and use its output as my calorie burn. I'm not sure about the 4, but w/the 7 it factors in my resting heart rate to determine my fatburning and fitness burning zone. I also have to wet the strap.
Are you placing the band in the correct place? If you are, and you've seen results using the machine calculation, then I would simply average it out. What's the worse that could happen?0 -
I would go by your HRM for a week or 2. See if your weight loss increases or slows down. That will give you a good idea on what works best for you.0
-
Unfortunately I'd say the Polar HRM is more accurate assuming you have the settings correctly set to your age, weight, activity level, etc.0
-
Coolio. Thanks guys :-)0
-
Def. go with your HRM.. I have the FT7 for a 30 min sprint/walk program on the elliptical today, it told me I burned 451. The elliptical said about 220 something... big difference? yes! but I know its pretty accurate.0
-
I also have the polar FT4. I have noticed it is almost never the same as what I burn on the treadmill, but it all depends what my heartrate is. The higher, the more calories I burn. I almost always go with my HRM since it's more accurate to your heartrate and all0
-
I have the Polar FT7. For myself, I go by that.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions