Wow!

blazergrad

Okay, so after starting off by buying a stationary desk-top type handcycle for cardio work ... and then a new weight set for strength training ... and a new weight bench for aforementioned strength training ... I finally got a HRM! It was a birthday present and it just came in today, so after getting it all set up, I put it to the test by doing 60 minutes of weight training. I LOVE the fact that it records my avg. heart rate, max heart rate, duration, calories burned and all that good stuff ... but of course the biggest thing I noticed was the difference in calories burned between what it calculated and what MFP shows for 60 minutes of weight training ... 218 on MFP vs. 551 on the HRM!

Oh yeah, I'm gonna' enjoy this investment.

chubby_checkers

what kind of hrm did you get? i want to get one but want to make sure i get one that's good quality.

Azdak

On the one hand, I hate to dampen your enthusiasm. On the other, I am going to try to save you from a lot of overeating.

HRMs cannot be used for estimating strength training calories. Unlike aerobics, when heart rate increases during strength training, calorie burn does not.

The HRM doesn't know the difference, so it puts out significantly overestimated numbers.

blazergrad

I got the Polar FT7. I read plenty of reviews here on MFP as well as on the web before making a purchase and the FT7 received a lot of positive feedback.

Iheartsushi

On the one hand, I hate to dampen your enthusiasm. On the other, I am going to try to save you from a lot of overeating.

HRMs cannot be used for estimating strength training calories. Unlike aerobics, when heart rate increases during strength training, calorie burn does not.

The HRM doesn't know the difference, so it puts out significantly overestimated numbers.

Ditto!

blazergrad

On the one hand, I hate to dampen your enthusiasm. On the other, I am going to try to save you from a lot of overeating.

HRMs cannot be used for estimating strength training calories. Unlike aerobics, when heart rate increases during strength training, calorie burn does not.

The HRM doesn't know the difference, so it puts out significantly overestimated numbers.

Good to know!!

blazergrad

On the one hand, I hate to dampen your enthusiasm. On the other, I am going to try to save you from a lot of overeating.

HRMs cannot be used for estimating strength training calories. Unlike aerobics, when heart rate increases during strength training, calorie burn does not.

The HRM doesn't know the difference, so it puts out significantly overestimated numbers.

With this being said, do you have any feelings as to whether the numbers estimated by MFP for strength training are "in the ballpark"?

Azdak

On the one hand, I hate to dampen your enthusiasm. On the other, I am going to try to save you from a lot of overeating.

HRMs cannot be used for estimating strength training calories. Unlike aerobics, when heart rate increases during strength training, calorie burn does not.

The HRM doesn't know the difference, so it puts out significantly overestimated numbers.

With this being said, do you have any feelings as to whether the numbers estimated by MFP for strength training are "in the ballpark"?

If you are cutting things that closely, then 200 calories is probably not a problem. Traditional strength training doesn't burn a lot of calories directly--the effects occur more during the recovery period.

Keep in mind during these discussions that they are not "good/bad" discussions. The are just accounting issues. Strength training plays an important role in permanent weight loss--the energy expenditures are just not as quantifiable as steady-state aerobics.