HRM vs Machine?

sc1572

I did my HRM for the first time yesterday and these are my results...

50 minute elliptical
Machine= 500+ calories
HRM= 250+ calories

10 minute bike
Machine= 70+ calories
HRM= 40+ calories

10 minute treadmill
Machine= 70+ calories
HRM= 40+ calories

I can't remember the exact, but I remember they were around there. Anyways...that's a HUGE difference! Does anyone else experience this? Now I'm not sure which numbers to go by or enter to MFP, but yesterday I did HRM. I was just surprised because that's over 300 calories difference...

MrMVP2011

I just got my HRM FT4 and there is going to always be a HUGE difference in the calories you see on-screen with a machine versus the number on your HRM. If you have an HRM stick to it because that is getting a reading right from your heart. I've been told the calories you see on the screen is really about 1/2 of what you are burning and by looking at your numbers it seems pretty accurate.

PixelTreason

I just got my Polar FT7 HRM for Christmas and I have noticed that so far, it's very close to what my elliptical machine said I was doing.

Do you have your weight/height/age in your machine?

I would go with the HRM, seeing as it's measuring your heart rate and would be far more accurate in terms of calories burned.

dad106

Depending on what HRM you have, I say stick with the HRM.. it really will be the most accurate at estimating calories, if you have a chest strap and have it set up properly(IE all personal info).

My FT7 always reads less than the machines by a good 100-200 calories.. and at first it was shock, but now it's the norm.

uk_ja

Go with the HRM and to be safe I always

Under estimate calories burned and round down
over estimate calories consumed and round up

Dauntlessness

Yeah!!! I think when I started exercising the machines and MFP were more accurate but now I burn about half of what they say.
I encourage everyone to get an HRM because I feel like people are not getting an accurate idea on how many calories they burn, which can mess up how many they think they consume. It can really mess with their weight loss.
Just sayin...

I use a Polar ft4, its reasonably priced and super easy to use.

tecallahan

Those machines are not accurate - nor is the MFP exercise database. Most of the time, it greatly over-estimates your calories burned. HRM is more reliable.

stayxtrue

There will be a huge difference, as you program all your specific details into your HRM and its going to be much more accurate! Even though you can program these details into the machine, they still are not accurate as they are not actually tracing how your heart is beating. Some peoples hearts are beating a lot harder and faster than others.

I would highly recommend HRM over the stats given by the machine

InTenn

Your HRM numbers sound awfully low. I'd check the settings (age, weight, sex) and make sure it is set properly. But I can't tell how hard you are challenging your body on the equipment, but 250 calories

There is a site here - http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm - that allows you to put in the info yourself. You would need to estimate average heart rate during the exercise, but that shouldn't be difficult using the HRM. You can probably tell if you are averaging closer to 100 or 120 or 140. It would be a good way to cross check.

sc1572

Thanks, everyone! I have a Polar FT7 and yes, I have it set to my height/age/weight.

ladylu11

the same thing happened to me when I got my Polar HRM. I go by what that says to log my stuff.

liezelcha

I have PT4 and have had it for a few months. Originally my HRM was 100/200 cals less than my treadmill. Lately though, and I don't understand it, but I've noticed my HRM is running pretty close now with my treadmill??? I was just wondering to myself yesterday if my HRM is not working properly now. I was thinking about asking around here to see if anybody had experienced this situation when I saw your post and everybody on here so far seems to have less.

ashlielinn

Do you have the machines track your heart rate? If you use their heart rate sensors, and use a program in which you enter your weight, they're pretty close to being accurate. If you're going by a number without tracking your heart rate, though, they'll definitely be off by a considerable amount.

GrammyM

Your HRM numbers sound awfully low. I'd check the settings (age, weight, sex) and make sure it is set properly. But I can't tell how hard you are challenging your body on the equipment, but 250 calories

There is a site here - http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm - that allows you to put in the info yourself. You would need to estimate average heart rate during the exercise, but that shouldn't be difficult using the HRM. You can probably tell if you are averaging closer to 100 or 120 or 140. It would be a good way to cross check.

Thank you, thank you! I have been searching for a site like this.