is my heart rate monitor correct?

Options
kassandra1717
kassandra1717 Posts: 82 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Okay so it's a bit higher than MFP when I do cario so I jut set it and sat on the couch to see how many cals it said I burned doing nothing. It said I burned 185 in 60 minutes of sitting on the couch. That does not seem correct to me. It's a sportline with a chest trap. I double checked and yes my information is correctly. It also says my resting heart rate is from 82 - 89.. Can anyone tell me if this seems off or correct? The whole reason I got it was to have an accurate calorie burn but I'm not feeling like I am getting it.

Replies

  • SheehyCFC
    SheehyCFC Posts: 529 Member
    Options
    Without knowing your height/weight/activity level it is kind of hard to make accurate predictions. But considering your picture, you look to be in decent shape. If you weren't doing ANYTHING before sitting on the count, 82-89 seems like a pretty high "resting' HR. May have to do with calibration or something with the strap?
  • julwills
    julwills Posts: 286 Member
    Options
    HRM are not means to be worn just sitting around. They're meant to be worn during exercise only. You look pretty in shape so a resting heart rate of 82-89 is pretty high. They're not accurate for all day wear but they're much more accurate when wearing during exercise. Remeber you need to subtract your "living" cals from your HRM's listed burn to get the extra cals you burned.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    HRMs do not give you a good read on resting calories, as the equation built in assumes you are moving and exercising. Usually, if you are fit, your HRM will be much lower than MFP, so I'm not sure about the equation built into the Sportline brand.

    Here is a calculation and example to get cals burned using HR: Where you have a high resting HR, your cals burned may be overestimated as well.

    Calculate the calories burned if you're female. This is given by the equation calories burned = (0.074 x age in years - 0.05741 x weight in pounds + 0.4472 x average heart rate - 20.4022) x time elapsed / 4.184.

    For an example calculation, a 43-year-old female weighing 143 pounds exercised for 45 minutes with an average heart rate during the session of 141 bpm: (0.074 x 43 - 0.05741 x 143 + 0.4472 x 141 - 20.4022) x 45 / 4.184 = 405 calories during your exercise session.

    Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/73315-calculate-calories-burned-based-heart/#ixzz1SlEGaNN5
  • funkyspunky871
    funkyspunky871 Posts: 1,675 Member
    Options
    HRM's are not accurate for anything else but cardio exercise. http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=75 This link covers why HRM's are not accurate for strength training, but the same logic can be applied to why HRM's aren't going to be accurate in measuring calories burned while sitting.

    Btw, I just got a Sportline HRM two days ago. My Polar F6 broke, and it was cheaper for me to just buy a new one. My sportline says I burn 50-100 more calories in my workouts compared to the Polar HRM. I'm not sure, however, if that's just because my Polar has been screwing up for a very long time and probably hasn't been monitoring my heart rate very well in the first place.
  • rwd5046
    rwd5046 Posts: 302
    Options
    I would suggest re-checking your personal settings, height, weight, age, etc. Make sure your chest strap is correctly worn, the Polar FT4 I use requires me to wet the strap before using it each and every time. I guess to ensure proper contact. Don't know if other brands are the same. The resting heart rate is a little high too. Hope you get the unit straightened out.
  • Pangea250
    Pangea250 Posts: 965 Member
    Options
    HRM's are only accurate to estimate calories burned during a cardio workout. They will be wildly inaccurate for anything other than that.
  • tomomatic
    tomomatic Posts: 1,794 Member
    Options
    My understanding that the chest strap hrm's are the more reliable than the hand held or the ones on the equipment.. And I think that arm cuff (used to also measure blood pressure) is even more accurate.

    Keep in mind that if you are using the chest strap one in a public place (like a gym) then your HRM could be catching a signal from someone nearby.

    I think HRM's are great for helping to maintain my intensity during a workout and I wear it for cardio and strength training. People will disagree with me but I want to have something to tell me that my heart rate has dipped out of my range and I should pick up the pace or increase resistance. I work out at home so I get interupted by kids and stuff. I need to stay disciplined.

    btw, I have a Polar FT7. What are you using?
  • rainbowbuggy
    rainbowbuggy Posts: 320
    Options
    HRM's are not accurate for anything else but cardio exercise. http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=75 This link covers why HRM's are not accurate for strength training, but the same logic can be applied to why HRM's aren't going to be accurate in measuring calories burned while sitting.

    Btw, I just got a Sportline HRM two days ago. My Polar F6 broke, and it was cheaper for me to just buy a new one. My sportline says I burn 50-100 more calories in my workouts compared to the Polar HRM. I'm not sure, however, if that's just because my Polar has been screwing up for a very long time and probably hasn't been monitoring my heart rate very well in the first place.

    WOW I have never heard of this - HRM not measuring weight training...so I guess I am lost now. I do alot of weight training and am concerned now because how do I know how much I am burning? So confused now......
  • EmilySG2011
    EmilySG2011 Posts: 82
    Options
    Mine does the same thing. I just recently noticed that if I keep my heart rate watch off sitting on the table it calculates a steady rate---and then when I do workout it doesnt seem to speed up at all. Mine seemed to be calculating too low all of a sudden. I have just stopped using it. The only thing is....I don't feel like I am accurately calculating my daily burn--I'm using a lot of guesswork--which I do not like.
  • wickedcricket
    wickedcricket Posts: 1,246 Member
    Options
    ok now I have a question: if HRM don't read your resting heart rate, how accurate can they be? and how DO you measure your resting heart rate?
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    HRM's are not accurate for anything else but cardio exercise. http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=75 This link covers why HRM's are not accurate for strength training, but the same logic can be applied to why HRM's aren't going to be accurate in measuring calories burned while sitting.

    Btw, I just got a Sportline HRM two days ago. My Polar F6 broke, and it was cheaper for me to just buy a new one. My sportline says I burn 50-100 more calories in my workouts compared to the Polar HRM. I'm not sure, however, if that's just because my Polar has been screwing up for a very long time and probably hasn't been monitoring my heart rate very well in the first place.

    WOW I have never heard of this - HRM not measuring weight training...so I guess I am lost now. I do alot of weight training and am concerned now because how do I know how much I am burning? So confused now......

    They will give you an estimate of cals burned, but it will be an over estimation, so as long as you plan accordingly nor harm.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    ok now I have a question: if HRM don't read your resting heart rate, how accurate can they be? and how DO you measure your resting heart rate?

    they can measure your resting HR, but they calories burned while at rest will be wrong as HR is only one of the variables in the equation, other parts of the equation assume your are moving constantly, and that the HR it is ready, for cals burned, is an elevated one.
  • SoCalSwimmerDude
    SoCalSwimmerDude Posts: 480 Member
    Options
    Yup, 182 cals/hr is alot. I burn approx 75 cals/hr and I'm a guy... but my resting heart rate is much lower at 55ish. You can easily see if the resting heart rate is accurate... simply take your pulse. Count how many beats you have in 10 seconds and multiply that by 6 to get your resting heart rate. As for HRM's not being accurate while sitting down... I just don't fully get that argument. I mean, they apply the same formula to you burning cals while exercising or sitting on the couch... which is why I always subtract what I burn naturally when entering my exercise on MFP.
  • rainbowbuggy
    rainbowbuggy Posts: 320
    Options
    HRM's are not accurate for anything else but cardio exercise. http://www.sparkpeople.com/community/ask_the_experts.asp?q=75 This link covers why HRM's are not accurate for strength training, but the same logic can be applied to why HRM's aren't going to be accurate in measuring calories burned while sitting.

    Btw, I just got a Sportline HRM two days ago. My Polar F6 broke, and it was cheaper for me to just buy a new one. My sportline says I burn 50-100 more calories in my workouts compared to the Polar HRM. I'm not sure, however, if that's just because my Polar has been screwing up for a very long time and probably hasn't been monitoring my heart rate very well in the first place.

    WOW I have never heard of this - HRM not measuring weight training...so I guess I am lost now. I do alot of weight training and am concerned now because how do I know how much I am burning? So confused now......

    They will give you an estimate of cals burned, but it will be an over estimation, so as long as you plan accordingly nor harm.

    Thankd Eric for responding..... I eat my exercise calories daily and those calories are included in what I am eating. I'm worried that I am overeating now...
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    Yup, 182 cals/hr is alot. I burn approx 75 cals/hr and I'm a guy... but my resting heart rate is much lower at 55ish. You can easily see if the resting heart rate is accurate... simply take your pulse. Count how many beats you have in 10 seconds and multiply that by 6 to get your resting heart rate. As for HRM's not being accurate while sitting down... I just don't fully get that argument. I mean, they apply the same formula to you burning cals while exercising or sitting on the couch... which is why I always subtract what I burn naturally when entering my exercise on MFP.

    Yes, and part of the equation assumes your are moving constantly, so if you are sitting there that variable is wrong.
  • PeachyKeene
    PeachyKeene Posts: 1,645 Member
    Options
    My teenagers are in great shape and have resting heart rates in the 90's.
  • SoCalSwimmerDude
    SoCalSwimmerDude Posts: 480 Member
    Options
    Yup, 182 cals/hr is alot. I burn approx 75 cals/hr and I'm a guy... but my resting heart rate is much lower at 55ish. You can easily see if the resting heart rate is accurate... simply take your pulse. Count how many beats you have in 10 seconds and multiply that by 6 to get your resting heart rate. As for HRM's not being accurate while sitting down... I just don't fully get that argument. I mean, they apply the same formula to you burning cals while exercising or sitting on the couch... which is why I always subtract what I burn naturally when entering my exercise on MFP.

    Yes, and part of the equation assumes your are moving constantly, so if you are sitting there that variable is wrong.

    All I'm saying is that I've worn my FT7 while sitting on the couch... and I made sure that I was truly at my resting heart rate of under 60... and my FT7 said I burned the same as what my BMI would come to if I wore it for 24hrs of sitting on the couch (I wore it for 10 minutes and the average was in-line w/ my BMI).

    Further, I wear my HRM during weight/strength training. I base my sets of weights on intervals of heart rate as opposed to time. So at the peak of my weight set (during activity), my HR will peak at 150-160+. Instead of giving myself a 30 second rest, I'll begin the next set when my heart rate gets back down to 110-120 which will keep my HR in a target range similar to if I was doing cardio. Last, during weight training, I've found that I burn about 250-300 cals per half hr while I'll burn 300-350 per half hr for cardio. In the end the weight training is slightly lower in cals burned due to the heart rate being lower more consistently.

    This shouldn't be taken as fact by any means, but this is what has been pretty darn accurate for me so I don't think the opposing argument should be taken as fact either as long as your being smart about and monitoring exactly how those cals are being burned.
  • kassandra1717
    kassandra1717 Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    I just remembered i'm taking medication and I'm wondering if its raising my heart rate. I made a doctors apointment and I will get my heart rate checked to see if its my meds or not. I guess ill know then if my HRM is correct.

Categories