HRM Accuracy

dad106

Mine is 100% accurate. I have a Polar FT7.

HR read may be 100% accurate, but the cals burned are based on an equation so it may or may not be that accurate (usually 70-85% accurate, as a portion of caloric burn cannot be accounted for based on age, weight, height, gender, HR, or V02 Max, which are all the inputs into the equations)

My HRM has all of those pieces of data stored in my settings.

Not Vo2 it doesn't.. Unless you're FT7 has some magic setting the rest don't.

It does have age, sex, height and weight though.

Soccer_Chick

I am not completely convinced about subtracting out the "resting calories". If you are exercising, then you are not resting. You can't be doing both at the same time. You sit on the couch and burn 10 calories in 5 minutes or you run down the street and burn 50 calories in the same 5 minutes. The body is in a different state while exercising. It is burning hot, not idling.

I think some people tend to worry too much about the minutiae when talking about calorie burn. If you are working your *kitten* off and your heart is beating hard and you are sweating, you are doing the right thing. That's all that matters troops!!

erickirb

I am not completely convinced about subtracting out the "resting calories". If you are exercising, then you are not resting. You can't be doing both at the same time. You sit on the couch and burn 10 calories in 5 minutes or you run down the street and burn 50 calories in the same 5 minutes. The body is in a different state while exercising. It is burning hot, not idling.

I think some people tend to worry too much about the minutiae when talking about calorie burn. If you are working your *kitten* off and your heart is beating hard and you are sweating, you are doing the right thing. That's all that matters troops!!

The reason you back them out is MFP already allows for 1-1.8 cals/minute for your daily caloric burn with no exercise. When you HRM says you burned say 9 cals/min that is total and included the 1-1.8 that you would have burned had you not worked out, and that MFP already gives you calories for. so yes you burned the full amount durning your workout, but if you eat exercise cals back you must back them out or you would be eating those 1-1.8 cals/minute twice, once in your daily allotment, then again from eating them with your exercise calories.

Even the HRM manufacturers acknowledge that their burn includes the amount you would have burned anyway, plus an additional amount, but only post the total, not the additional amount.

bassettpig

I am not completely convinced about subtracting out the "resting calories". If you are exercising, then you are not resting. You can't be doing both at the same time. You sit on the couch and burn 10 calories in 5 minutes or you run down the street and burn 50 calories in the same 5 minutes. The body is in a different state while exercising. It is burning hot, not idling.

I think some people tend to worry too much about the minutiae when talking about calorie burn. If you are working your *kitten* off and your heart is beating hard and you are sweating, you are doing the right thing. That's all that matters troops!!

The reason you back them out is MFP already allows for 1-1.8 cals/minute for your daily caloric burn with no exercise. When you HRM says you burned say 9 cals/min that is total and included the 1-1.8 that you would have burned had you not worked out, and that MFP already gives you calories for. so yes you burned the full amount durning your workout, but if you eat exercise cals back you must back them out or you would be eating those 1-1.8 cals/minute twice, once in your daily allotment, then again from eating them with your exercise calories.

Even the HRM manufacturers acknowledge that their burn includes the amount you would have burned anyway, plus an additional amount, but only post the total, not the additional amount.

Good explanation, I'm sure others didn't know this either, and as I mentioned in my post earlier, not a huge deal if you're talking about 30 cals a day but much more of a deal if it's 200+.

CeejayGee

I am not completely convinced about subtracting out the "resting calories". If you are exercising, then you are not resting. You can't be doing both at the same time. You sit on the couch and burn 10 calories in 5 minutes or you run down the street and burn 50 calories in the same 5 minutes. The body is in a different state while exercising. It is burning hot, not idling.

I think some people tend to worry too much about the minutiae when talking about calorie burn. If you are working your *kitten* off and your heart is beating hard and you are sweating, you are doing the right thing. That's all that matters troops!!

It makes a difference if you're eating your exercise calories back, though. If I sat on my couch for 2 hours, I'd burn roughly 120-150 calories. If I go work out hard for those same 2 hours, my HRM will read 1000 calories. So, I only burned 850-880 extra. If I were to eat backt he whole 1000 calories, then I actually would eat 120-150 calories into the deficit that I had planned for the day had I done nothing.

Soccer_Chick

If my car uses up a tank of gas idling or uses up a tank of gas racing around town, I still have to put in the same amount of fuel to refill the tank. It doesn't idle AND drive at the same time. Nor does the body.

Don't get sidetracked by the tiny details. Instead of spending the time worrying about "backing out resting calories", do a few minutes more hard exercise. Or spend more time planning a healthier meal choice.

I understand the concept of wanting to be on point, believe me I do. I weigh, measure and plan every single thing that I eat and I am very demanding of myself in my physical training. So I am right there with you on wanting to do this right. I just personally don't feel the issue of backing out the resting calories in critical. But, of cours that is just my personal opinion. And you know what opinions are like....everyone has one.

Good luck to everyone!

solpwr

I am not completely convinced about subtracting out the "resting calories". If you are exercising, then you are not resting. You can't be doing both at the same time. You sit on the couch and burn 10 calories in 5 minutes or you run down the street and burn 50 calories in the same 5 minutes. The body is in a different state while exercising. It is burning hot, not idling.

I think some people tend to worry too much about the minutiae when talking about calorie burn. If you are working your *kitten* off and your heart is beating hard and you are sweating, you are doing the right thing. That's all that matters troops!!

It makes a difference if you're eating your exercise calories back, though. If I sat on my couch for 2 hours, I'd burn roughly 120-150 calories. If I go work out hard for those same 2 hours, my HRM will read 1000 calories. So, I only burned 850-880 extra. If I were to eat backt he whole 1000 calories, then I actually would eat 120-150 calories into the deficit that I had planned for the day had I done nothing.

If you are getting that critical, you also need to value and factor in the post workout rise in your metabolic rate that burns more calories than if you had been sitting on your couch. The whole issue of trying to put this level of detail into it gets problematic. Backing out some calories on a long bike ride for instance. There's lot's of ways to crunch the numbers. The level of detail probably isn't warranted.

The biggest thing is, if your doing what you believe to be the right thing, and you are not seeing results in months... you are probably doing it wrong, and you may want to tweak your approach.

People who are extremely strict and have limited results are probably eating too little, and people who consistently cheat their plan and aren't always honest with their food and exercise diaries and see little results are probably eating too much.

Exercise is the great equalizer. If you are not seeing results, pick one or two days a week and double your exercise on those days. If you don't have the energy to do that, you're not eating enough. If you are cheating yourself, the exercise will straighten that out. That's one approach.

solpwr

Or get a Body Bug and a monthly fee. Throw more money at the problem.

kennethmgreen

According to Polar, their HRMs do account for BMR calories, so it seems they are reporting Net calories. Use that information how you wish. Me, I'm not going to back out BMR because that would be they were backed out twice. If the difference of those 80 calories/hour causes huge weight fluctuations, I'll report back.

We're talking about a few hundred calories. I know people are worried about being exact, but there just isn't any way to be EXACT living out in the real world. We simply aren't at rest or exercising. It isn't binary. Even if your HRM doesn't back out BMR, you are likely going to account for those simply by moving around during the day.

I agree with those saying the exactness isn't critical.

Soccer_Chick

Totally agree with Solpwr and Kenneth! If you're not seeing results then something needs to be tweaked somewhere. If you are seeing the results you want then just keep doing what you are doing! Simple as that.

As I stated earlier, spend the extra energy and mind power into planning healthy meals and great work-out sessions, not worrying about backing out calories!!

Work out hard - Fuel your body with healthy food - drink lots of water - Sleep well and REPEAT!! Day after day after day!