Polar HRM calorie burn estimate accuracy - study

FitnSassy

I have the FT60, and I like it!

jdavis193

I am starting to feel a little stupid. I used your spread sheet to compare the VO2 max thing because I have a polar.

I got 22.11 for the BMI VO2 max and 21.65 for the BF one. I put it in the website you had a link for in there and there was only a difference of like 2 calories burned. I hope I did this right.....

On a side note, if my polar is overestimating my calorie burn, it tends to lose my heart rate when I am on the floor doing crunches (it just drops a lot, into the 120s or 110s), which would drop my average heart rate a little bit, so I guess in a way that would somewhat compensate for the overestimation.....

You got it exactly. It just means your bodyfat% is probably close to expected for your BMI.
So the formula's end up with close enough result.

But for someone very muscular, whose BMI is high but in excellent health and low bodyfat% - they would have a big difference of perhaps 9 VO2.
Which would still only lead to a difference of 60 calories per hr more. But over the course of a week say 6 hrs of exercise, that's 360 calories, over 1/4 lb difference in potential weight loss.

I guess I should add a section to spreadsheet on getting HR zone training based on VO2max figure, it is a valid training method too.
Think that would be useful?

Is this for the Polar FT60? I know that one has you do your own VO2.

Azdak

I am always amazed at how people will dismiss exercise machine calorie numbers out of hand but will accept HRM calorie numbers as "truth" without any question whatsoever.

Whoever designed human brains had a wicked sense of humor.

Do you think the machine values are perhaps way off because the calibration of actual speed is bad?

I was on a treadmill at gym that was flashing a warning about lubricating the belt or such, so I told the staff.
"we'll reset the warning"

Not we'll fix it, not they need oil from time to time, ect. We'll get rid of the warning.

Made me wonder if they ever did the required re-calc after so many belt miles. I got the manual for it awhile back to use the trainer's features on it (nothing like saving your interval routine under a trainer's code for access later, if I get that machine anyway!) and noticed re-calc is supposed to be part of normal routine on it.

If belt is off, then speed is off, then calc's is off. Because I just don't see why they wouldn't use the standard calc's for MET's when they know the weight, pace, incline, ect and could nail the calories needed for that effort.

I don't think treadmill values are "way off" at all. In fact, I think for most commercial treadmills (that require that you input your weight) the calorie readings for walking are as accurate as you can get w/out a metabolic cart (assuming that you do not hold on to the handrails).

The values for running start are more of an overestimate (15%-25%), due to inherent errors in the ACSM equations and differences in the mechanical costs of running on a treadmill vs outside.

Commercial treadmills are calibrated at the factory and speed/elevation controlled by computer sensors. To my knowledge, they cannot be manually "recalibrated" , nor should they be (I am not familiar with every brand of treadmill--I know this is true for Life Fitness).

It stands to reason that with belt wear, one might experience a decrease in accuracy, but it would not be that large--certainly much smaller that the variations experienced with an HRM. In fact I often tell people to use the calorie numbers they get from walking on a treadmill as a quick way to judge the accuracy of their HRM settings. If you are working at a steady-state level, not holding on, in a 60%-70% intensity range and there is a big discrepancy between the treadmill calorie number and your HRM, it is much more likely the the HRM numbers are the more inaccurate.

With cross trainers, it's not the same. That's because the cross trainer algorithms are usually not machine-specific--they use one from another modality (e.g. walking or running). The only company I know that has developed machine-specific energy prediction algorithms for some of their cross trainers is Life Fitness. Unfortunately the most common model seen in health clubs uses an older algorithm developed before LF had their own testing lab and so it greatly overestimates calories. But if you are fortunate enough to be at a facility with the newer "elevation" series cross trainers, those calorie numbers should be very accurate.

DavPul

I have a polar FT4. Been using it for about a year and have had wonderful results. Hate it when people want to put doubt in people's minds.

It's not doubts, it's about how to make it more accurate.

I love how someone that has never had a HRM before will comment "I love mine, very accurate" - based on what exactly?
How in the world would someone know it's accurate?
Because it's different or lower value than MFP?
Wow.

Not denying that some level of users will have as decent accuracy as possible. But they would never know that.

But for women, the majority have a better chance NOT being within HRmax of 220-age by 10 bpm, women are all over the board.

Hence the benefit of testing for real HRmax, getting stat correct on HRM, and getting better calorie estimate - if purpose is to maximize weight loss, but keep a safe deficit.

I am always amazed at how people will dismiss exercise machine calorie numbers out of hand but will accept HRM calorie numbers as "truth" without any question whatsoever.

Whoever designed human brains had a wicked sense of humor.

Agreed. I think it must be the active selection process. The machine numbers are just there. MFP numbers are just there. But the HRM numbers....research was done on which is best, questions were asked about accuracy, threads were read about user experiences, and up to $100 was spent on the final selection. With all that effort put in, whatever random number the device spits out is not just true, but TRUTH.

heybales

Agreed. I think it must be the active selection process. The machine numbers are just there. MFP numbers are just there. But the HRM numbers....research was done on which is best, questions were asked about accuracy, threads were read about user experiences, and up to $100 was spent on the final selection. With all that effort put in, whatever random number the device spits out is not just true, but TRUTH.

Excellent point.

It must be right because I spent the money on it.

For the majority that seem to ask about recommendations though, I'd bet the research part of it didn't happen, merely the recommendation part of. The questions on MFP looking for a HRM never seem to sound like the least bit of research was done first, which means merely going on popular vote, that happened to notice your thread, at that time of day, from ones that you don't know if they have any idea.

I know I've asked several what their avg HR was for a workout, and they are like, that stat is there? I can give you my calorie burn, does that tell you? Huh, I have Polar too, all those stats are there after a workout.

Lance_K

bump

yecatsml

I have a Polar FT40 coming - I purposely got it for the fit test and a bit more accurate burn (though I know nothing is truly accurate). I plan on also using the spreadsheet. I'm just looking for better numbers than MFP or MapMyRun/Runkeeper - they are all over the place!

DavPul

Agreed. I think it must be the active selection process. The machine numbers are just there. MFP numbers are just there. But the HRM numbers....research was done on which is best, questions were asked about accuracy, threads were read about user experiences, and up to $100 was spent on the final selection. With all that effort put in, whatever random number the device spits out is not just true, but TRUTH.

Excellent point.

It must be right because I spent the money on it.

For the majority that seem to ask about recommendations though, I'd bet the research part of it didn't happen, merely the recommendation part of. The questions on MFP looking for a HRM never seem to sound like the least bit of research was done first, which means merely going on popular vote, that happened to notice your thread, at that time of day, from ones that you don't know if they have any idea.

I know I've asked several what their avg HR was for a workout, and they are like, that stat is there? I can give you my calorie burn, does that tell you? Huh, I have Polar too, all those stats are there after a workout.

For most, asking other people what HRM actually counts as the *research*.

The thing that amuses me most is how quickly people bail on their original argument for getting the HRM. Poster after poster says "Don't trust MFP, the burns are too high!" and then you read a thread where the OP says "MFP says 300 cal, my HRM says 550" and every single response says "TRUST THE HRM, use the higher number". Wait, so MFP estimates way too high, except for when it's way too low? Literally any number the HRM spits out, high or low, is taken as gospel, even tho there isn't a source to confirm the numbers with.

MoreBean13

Agreed. I think it must be the active selection process. The machine numbers are just there. MFP numbers are just there. But the HRM numbers....research was done on which is best, questions were asked about accuracy, threads were read about user experiences, and up to $100 was spent on the final selection. With all that effort put in, whatever random number the device spits out is not just true, but TRUTH.

Excellent point.

It must be right because I spent the money on it.

For the majority that seem to ask about recommendations though, I'd bet the research part of it didn't happen, merely the recommendation part of. The questions on MFP looking for a HRM never seem to sound like the least bit of research was done first, which means merely going on popular vote, that happened to notice your thread, at that time of day, from ones that you don't know if they have any idea.

I know I've asked several what their avg HR was for a workout, and they are like, that stat is there? I can give you my calorie burn, does that tell you? Huh, I have Polar too, all those stats are there after a workout.

For most, asking other people what HRM actually counts as the *research*.

The thing that amuses me most is how quickly people bail on their original argument for getting the HRM. Poster after poster says "Don't trust MFP, the burns are too high!" and then you read a thread where the OP says "MFP says 300 cal, my HRM says 550" and every single response says "TRUST THE HRM, use the higher number". Wait, so MFP estimates way too high, except for when it's way too low? Literally any number the HRM spits out, high or low, is taken as gospel, even tho there isn't a source to confirm the numbers with.

I really like the idea of checking it with walking on the treadmill. What's funny about the HRM stuff- I remember I got my first HRM in college circa 2003ish, when I was taking running as a fitness elective- it came with the tuition for the class. The purpose of it was to work on zone training, learn about VO2max, etc. It had a calorie setting, but the teacher/coach told us to use it to gauge performance only- as in, the gross number doesn't mean anything. So I've used it for years that way. Then I got to MFP and saw 8 million posts about using HRMs, and I remember one of my first posts was asking if everyone was using zone training, and how they could possibly be using it for DVDs and whatnot- was I ever surprised to find out the HRM had become exclusively a calorie counter! I really don't have a point to this anecdote, except how interesting it is that the purpose of the tool has changed so much.

DontStopB_Leakin

I got the Polar FT4F (yes, I am a total cheap *kitten*) and I love it. Of course, I take the cal burn with a grain of salt, but I'm normally not hungry enough to eat back my exercise calories so it doesn't really matter how accurate it is.

Like a previous poster said, just seeing the numbers logged gives me the motivation I need to keep going. That, by itself, made the 65 bucks spent worth it.

Edit: Also, I'm less concerned about calories burned and more concerned about keeping my heart rate in it's ideal burning zone. I have tested my HRM against my docter's, and have confirmed it is accurate in that vain, so honestly that's all I care about.

heybales

I really like the idea of checking it with walking on the treadmill. What's funny about the HRM stuff- I remember I got my first HRM in college circa 2003ish, when I was taking running as a fitness elective- it came with the tuition for the class. The purpose of it was to work on zone training, learn about VO2max, etc. It had a calorie setting, but the teacher/coach told us to use it to gauge performance only- as in, the gross number doesn't mean anything. So I've used it for years that way. Then I got to MFP and saw 8 million posts about using HRMs, and I remember one of my first posts was asking if everyone was using zone training, and how they could possibly be using it for DVDs and whatnot- was I ever surprised to find out the HRM had become exclusively a calorie counter! I really don't have a point to this anecdote, except how interesting it is that the purpose of the tool has changed so much.

So true, and the HRM companies have complied by making it a primary focus and leaving out other useful stuff. So the cheaper Polars have no zone alarms, except an upper one. No multiple zones, missing a bunch of other features that the chipset can probably do, but is disabled.

michellekicks

I had a Fitbit for a few days before it broke and I compared some of the data to my Garmin Forerunner 410, which uses Firstbeat algorithms to measure calorie burn.

The Fitbit confirmed what I suspected, which was that I seem to be burning more calories in general just moving around than MFP thinks I do (my goal is set at "lightly active" plus I eat back exercise calories). Where there was an interesting discrepancy was in walking vs. running. Sometimes I go for walks with my husband and the Fitbit seemed to well overestimate my calorie burn when walking. On the other hand, it well underestimated my burn from running.

Because I know I probably burn about 2-300 calories/day more than MFP thinks I do, when I eat back my exercise calories according to my Garmin, I lose just fine.

But yeah, everything is an estimation. We all burn calories at slightly different rates. Plus, foods are different than their nutritional information estimates. You have to find the sweet spot for you.

MoreBean13

I really like the idea of checking it with walking on the treadmill. What's funny about the HRM stuff- I remember I got my first HRM in college circa 2003ish, when I was taking running as a fitness elective- it came with the tuition for the class. The purpose of it was to work on zone training, learn about VO2max, etc. It had a calorie setting, but the teacher/coach told us to use it to gauge performance only- as in, the gross number doesn't mean anything. So I've used it for years that way. Then I got to MFP and saw 8 million posts about using HRMs, and I remember one of my first posts was asking if everyone was using zone training, and how they could possibly be using it for DVDs and whatnot- was I ever surprised to find out the HRM had become exclusively a calorie counter! I really don't have a point to this anecdote, except how interesting it is that the purpose of the tool has changed so much.

So true, and the HRM companies have complied by making it a primary focus and leaving out other useful stuff. So the cheaper Polars have no zone alarms, except an upper one. No multiple zones, missing a bunch of other features that the chipset can probably do, but is disabled.

LOL, well in doing so they have definitely exploded their target market- too bad if they leave behind the people who wanted it for it's intended purpose, I guess.

DavPul

Agreed. I think it must be the active selection process. The machine numbers are just there. MFP numbers are just there. But the HRM numbers....research was done on which is best, questions were asked about accuracy, threads were read about user experiences, and up to $100 was spent on the final selection. With all that effort put in, whatever random number the device spits out is not just true, but TRUTH.

Excellent point.

It must be right because I spent the money on it.

For the majority that seem to ask about recommendations though, I'd bet the research part of it didn't happen, merely the recommendation part of. The questions on MFP looking for a HRM never seem to sound like the least bit of research was done first, which means merely going on popular vote, that happened to notice your thread, at that time of day, from ones that you don't know if they have any idea.

I know I've asked several what their avg HR was for a workout, and they are like, that stat is there? I can give you my calorie burn, does that tell you? Huh, I have Polar too, all those stats are there after a workout.

For most, asking other people what HRM actually counts as the *research*.

The thing that amuses me most is how quickly people bail on their original argument for getting the HRM. Poster after poster says "Don't trust MFP, the burns are too high!" and then you read a thread where the OP says "MFP says 300 cal, my HRM says 550" and every single response says "TRUST THE HRM, use the higher number". Wait, so MFP estimates way too high, except for when it's way too low? Literally any number the HRM spits out, high or low, is taken as gospel, even tho there isn't a source to confirm the numbers with.

I really like the idea of checking it with walking on the treadmill. What's funny about the HRM stuff- I remember I got my first HRM in college circa 2003ish, when I was taking running as a fitness elective- it came with the tuition for the class. The purpose of it was to work on zone training, learn about VO2max, etc. It had a calorie setting, but the teacher/coach told us to use it to gauge performance only- as in, the gross number doesn't mean anything. So I've used it for years that way. Then I got to MFP and saw 8 million posts about using HRMs, and I remember one of my first posts was asking if everyone was using zone training, and how they could possibly be using it for DVDs and whatnot- was I ever surprised to find out the HRM had become exclusively a calorie counter! I really don't have a point to this anecdote, except how interesting it is that the purpose of the tool has changed so much.

Good point. What drives me crazy is that the manufacturers don't really tout the calorie counting aspects of the products that much. It's almost a hidden feature in the owners manuals and treated more as an added benefit on the packaging. It's mostly the MFP forums that treat them not only are pure calorie counters, but the authoritative answer in calories burned. It's not the HRMs themselves that I rail against because I think they are cool, useful tools and kept putting one in my Amazon cart over and over again. It's more the blind faith aspect in them (or anything) that drives me bonkers.

bsharrah

Its the blind faith issue that drives me nuts as well. The fact that these, and other devices, are not accurate is no secret, and has been stated many many times, even on this forum, but people believe what they want to believe. I see people posting over and over that hrm readings inflate calorie burn for strength training, and studies that support that fact, but also see post after post telling others to wear a hrm during strength training to know your calorie burn.

Hrm's are designed to do one thing, tell you your heart rate. The calorie burn function is best described as "for entertainment purposes only". Don't know about others, but I find people using the readings so literally, and making sure they eat those numbers back, to be VERY entertaining sometimes.

heybales

Its the blind faith issue that drives me nuts as well. The fact that these, and other devices, are not accurate is no secret, and has been stated many many times, even on this forum, but people believe what they want to believe. I see people posting over and over that hrm readings inflate calorie burn for strength training, and studies that support that fact, but also see post after post telling others to wear a hrm during strength training to know your calorie burn.

Hrm's are designed to do one thing, tell you your heart rate. The calorie burn function is best described as "for entertainment purposes only". Don't know about others, but I find people using the readings so literally, and making sure they eat those numbers back, to be VERY entertaining sometimes.

Well, the studies have shown they can get closer than probably just to entertain or curiosity aspect.
The Firstbeat algorithm HRM's have shown really good accuracy over course of a day in a study, if within 10% is good anyway of metabolic chamber.

But still again, that all applies on other stats being entered correctly on it, or the assumptions the HRM must be making if it's a stat you can't enter.

And correct usage as you indicate, most are designed with steady-state aerobic, anything outside that, even with correct stats entered, is going to lose accuracy, like weight lifting you mentioned. Or HIIT that is popular.
You look at the studies on the benefits of HIIT for fat burning say, and the energy expended is 1/2 or less what the aerobic endurance group did per hr, and you realize that the logged 900-1000 cal burns doing HIIT are no where near accurate.
Of course, that implies the HIIT is being done correctly too.

Azdak

Its the blind faith issue that drives me nuts as well. The fact that these, and other devices, are not accurate is no secret, and has been stated many many times, even on this forum, but people believe what they want to believe. I see people posting over and over that hrm readings inflate calorie burn for strength training, and studies that support that fact, but also see post after post telling others to wear a hrm during strength training to know your calorie burn.

Hrm's are designed to do one thing, tell you your heart rate. The calorie burn function is best described as "for entertainment purposes only". Don't know about others, but I find people using the readings so literally, and making sure they eat those numbers back, to be VERY entertaining sometimes.

Well, the studies have shown they can get closer than probably just to entertain or curiosity aspect.
The Firstbeat algorithm HRM's have shown really good accuracy over course of a day in a study, if within 10% is good anyway of metabolic chamber.

But still again, that all applies on other stats being entered correctly on it, or the assumptions the HRM must be making if it's a stat you can't enter.

And correct usage as you indicate, most are designed with steady-state aerobic, anything outside that, even with correct stats entered, is going to lose accuracy, like weight lifting you mentioned. Or HIIT that is popular.
You look at the studies on the benefits of HIIT for fat burning say, and the energy expended is 1/2 or less what the aerobic endurance group did per hr, and you realize that the logged 900-1000 cal burns doing HIIT are no where near accurate.
Of course, that implies the HIIT is being done correctly too.

Practically, how many HRMs use Firstbeat technology? And how many actually use R-R analysis? (which I think you need in order to get the full benefit of the FB software, although I could be wrong). For example, you have to go all the way up to a Polar RX800 (RS800?) or Suunto T6d to get the full R-R analysis feature and now you are over $400 for the HRM. I asked some of these questions to people at First Beat, but never got a real answer (I got answers, but, even in English they didn't make any sense ;-). And I could never bring myself to drop the $$ on one for myself to try it out.

heybales

Practically, how many HRMs use Firstbeat technology? And how many actually use R-R analysis? (which I think you need in order to get the full benefit of the FB software, although I could be wrong). For example, you have to go all the way up to a Polar RX800 (RS800?) or Suunto T6d to get the full R-R analysis feature and now you are over $400 for the HRM. I asked some of these questions to people at First Beat, but never got a real answer (I got answers, but, even in English they didn't make any sense ;-). And I could never bring myself to drop the $$ on one for myself to try it out.

Excellent point.

Even the Garmin's are up there in price, but not that bad though, wow. I knew Suunto always seemed overpriced to me, and the nicer Polar's, but wow. And I've noticed some of the Suunto's use the Firstbeat training stuff, not calorie burn stuff.

But probably when you are getting that nice of a HRM, that is indeed for training and logging and ease of doing intervals because of correct timers, easier to use zone control, ect. Now at that level, calories is probably a side stat, interesting, but the athlete knows how much they need to eat to keep performing.

I have been very impressed with the Garmin 310XT. I'll do extra laps so a segment has stats on it's own, just for comparison.

I've noticed that the first 5-10 min has higher cal/min during that warmup, compared to cooldown last 5-10 min at a higher HR actually. And any laps at harder effort, even with same or higher HR, start showing less and less cal/min.
I've noticed that at the exact same HR, a hot day has less cal/min, because of heat elevated HR, but effort isn't really that hard.
I've noticed that a low HR cardio activity the day after weight lifting of same muscles, gets higher cal/min than same low HR day after an aerobic day. Harder to use the sore muscles, more effort even though HR doesn't reflect that fact.
On HIIT activity, despite the high HR, I show the smaller cal/min as expected, and depending on how fast I let the HR drop to recovery.

Found it very cool.

In fact you can do a Leaf test to put your stats on there as to how many calories burned for HR ranges, but I think that would actually be less accurate.
I do wish though I could put in my own tested VO2max rather than it using the formula and data logging to calculate what it must be. It's probably semi-close, but since it's based on BMI rather than bodyfat%, I know it's off.
I'm planning on making a spreadsheet with what the Leaf test would do anyway, test some sample data and see where it's at.

Azdak

Practically, how many HRMs use Firstbeat technology? And how many actually use R-R analysis? (which I think you need in order to get the full benefit of the FB software, although I could be wrong). For example, you have to go all the way up to a Polar RX800 (RS800?) or Suunto T6d to get the full R-R analysis feature and now you are over $400 for the HRM. I asked some of these questions to people at First Beat, but never got a real answer (I got answers, but, even in English they didn't make any sense ;-). And I could never bring myself to drop the $$ on one for myself to try it out.

Excellent point.

Even the Garmin's are up there in price, but not that bad though, wow. I knew Suunto always seemed overpriced to me, and the nicer Polar's, but wow. And I've noticed some of the Suunto's use the Firstbeat training stuff, not calorie burn stuff.

But probably when you are getting that nice of a HRM, that is indeed for training and logging and ease of doing intervals because of correct timers, easier to use zone control, ect. Now at that level, calories is probably a side stat, interesting, but the athlete knows how much they need to eat to keep performing.

I have been very impressed with the Garmin 310XT. I'll do extra laps so a segment has stats on it's own, just for comparison.

I've noticed that the first 5-10 min has higher cal/min during that warmup, compared to cooldown last 5-10 min at a higher HR actually. And any laps at harder effort, even with same or higher HR, start showing less and less cal/min.
I've noticed that at the exact same HR, a hot day has less cal/min, because of heat elevated HR, but effort isn't really that hard.
I've noticed that a low HR cardio activity the day after weight lifting of same muscles, gets higher cal/min than same low HR day after an aerobic day. Harder to use the sore muscles, more effort even though HR doesn't reflect that fact.
On HIIT activity, despite the high HR, I show the smaller cal/min as expected, and depending on how fast I let the HR drop to recovery.

Found it very cool.

In fact you can do a Leaf test to put your stats on there as to how many calories burned for HR ranges, but I think that would actually be less accurate.
I do wish though I could put in my own tested VO2max rather than it using the formula and data logging to calculate what it must be. It's probably semi-close, but since it's based on BMI rather than bodyfat%, I know it's off.
I'm planning on making a spreadsheet with what the Leaf test would do anyway, test some sample data and see where it's at.

You'll appreciate this. When I was out of work in 2009, I seriously considered purchasing a New Leaf system and starting up a business as an itinerant metabolic tester ("VO2 max! Get yer VO2max right here!"). Mrs Azdak was concerned--and rightfully so--that I would spend all my time using it on myself for various experiments ("You are NOT bringing that thing in the bedroom!").

I passed at the time, but it's still something I would like to do.

heybales

You'll appreciate this. When I was out of work in 2009, I seriously considered purchasing a New Leaf system and starting up a business as an itinerant metabolic tester ("VO2 max! Get yer VO2max right here!"). Mrs Azdak was concerned--and rightfully so--that I would spend all my time using it on myself for various experiments ("You are NOT bringing that thing in the bedroom!").

I passed at the time, but it's still something I would like to do.

LOL.

I'm sure it's standard type gas exchange setup? That is too funny. Neighbors seeing you head out with cart and battery for a run.

Hey, at least you could have done cheaper RMR testing too. Find the corporate campus gyms and offer services and setup.

Oh, wait, no ideas, Mrs Azdak still wouldn't appreciate it I'm sure.

CoderGal

^I'm enjoying watching my 2 buddies chat and picturing one of them running down the street with a battery.

salgalruns

Just in my experience, my heart rate monitor gives MUCH higher readings that my BodyMedia. I have both a Polar FT4 and a BodyMedia Fit. I use the HRM very infrequently - I don't trust it at all.

For example, we went on a tough hike last Thursday. Just for kicks, I wore both my BodyMedia and my Polar FT4. The Polar said I burned 1829 calories and the BodyMedia said I burned 889.

Here are a few other examples of the discrepancy between the two devices:

65 minutes of circuit training
Body Media Fit: 284 calories
Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 537 calories

65 minutes of circuit training
Body Media Fit: 284 calories
Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 537 calories

35 minutes of step aerobics and 30 minutes hiking
Body Media Fit: 439 calories
Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 738 calories

60 minutes of cardio drills
Body Media Fit: 361 calories
Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 627 calories

I stopped using my HRM regularly a couple months ago and have been using the BodyMedia to determine my TDEE. It's been very effective. I finally feel like I'm not struggling to accurately figure my maintenance calories.

Using the BodyMedia, I've stayed a 137 pounds (female, 5'9", 20%bf) for six weeks now - which is exactly where I want to be!

This is similar to what I"ve been doing with my F11 - tonight, with a combo of running on treadmill for 20 minutes, followed by an intense workout with my trainer to another 25 on the treadmill, my Body Media Fit was approximately 550, while my HRM was 932. I logged the lower of the two. It also has me regularly running with a heartrate of 170ish, and while I'm sweating, I can still talk. Any advice? It's an old HRM, but it's Polar. Generally a good brand.

kiminikimkim

My Polar RCX5 lets me modify my VO2 max range.... But I am too lazy to adjust it.... I just recently figured out how to add " another sport" to log my bootcamp calories burned.

heybales

This is similar to what I"ve been doing with my F11 - tonight, with a combo of running on treadmill for 20 minutes, followed by an intense workout with my trainer to another 25 on the treadmill, my Body Media Fit was approximately 550, while my HRM was 932. I logged the lower of the two. It also has me regularly running with a heartrate of 170ish, and while I'm sweating, I can still talk. Any advice? It's an old HRM, but it's Polar. Generally a good brand.

If you are in the 170's talking, and if you look in the HRM personal stats and it says your HRmax is 174 (220-age) - then you are getting greatly inflated calorie burn estimates.

I'd suggest thinking about what is the highest HR you ever saw, when you really pushed yourself so hard you had to stop to recover, and add 5 to that number as your HRmax.

Don't go off what may have been an inaccurate blip in the post-workout stats, but what you saw getting there and dropping back down.

Or measure yourself - sounds like you may be up for some pain, I mean fun.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466973-i-want-to-test-for-my-max-heart-rate-vo2-max

If that model does VO2max stat too, here ya go to correct that one also.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/577839-hrm-s-with-vo2max-stat-improve-calorie-estimate

Chipmaniac

For the majority of my weight loss I logged the calories that the Precor treadmills were telling me I burned. I diligently entered my weight each time as that is a crucial factor in the calculation. I used the Precor estimates because they seemed reasonable and the treadmill actually knows exactly what you are doing and almost every factor involved (weight, speed, incline). I've always tried to educate folks who automatically assume that the gym machines are inaccurate. It depends on brand and especially depends on whether you provide your weight. My weight loss was dead on during this period, so my TDEE must not have been too far off MFP's BMR + entered exercise calories.

Interestingly, I acquired a new HRM during this process (a FT7, I didn't really need the additional features of the nicer ones) and began to compare my HRM's calorie calculation to the Precor. At first, my heart rate monitor indicated that I burned more calories than the treadmill. However, I was getting fitter over time and my heart/lung capacity was rapidly improving. Eventually, the HRM and Precor started coinciding and later the HRM started recording less calories than the Precor. Now, I understand that as you become more adept at an exercise your new efficiency is going to lead to a lower energy expenditure, but I have hard time believing that it would make that much difference to a non-elite athlete such as myself. I think as you get more fit the HRMs accuracy goes down to some extent. My guess is that the formulas it uses is based on some average person (a Finnish person maybe). As you become less average and more "elite" you start to fall out of the norm. The reverse is true as well, I suspect. If your heart and lungs are way below average you will show a much higher burn even though you may not be expending any more energy.

In any event, I switched to actual biking as my main exercise in May and thus have to rely on the heart rate monitor for calorie burns. I do wish apps such as Endomondo which I use for exercise tracking were smart enough to do really accurate calorie calculations. After all, it knows the time, your weight, your speed, and the elevation you gained. The only things it can't account for is weather, though by plugging into available weather data it could potentially account for things like headwind etc. Instead, it uses some generic formula which seems to inflate calories burned by about 20%. When I enter my polar average and max heart rates it recalculates the calories burned and comes awful close to the Polar calculation, which means that they likely use the same formula.

At the end of the day, everything is an estimate. People need to be observant of how the numbers they entered are calculated and adjust accordingly.

little_lisid

Bump

Azdak

eg
For the majority of my weight loss I logged the calories that the Precor treadmills were telling me I burned. I diligently entered my weight each time as that is a crucial factor in the calculation. I used the Precor estimates because they seemed reasonable and the treadmill actually knows exactly what you are doing and almost every factor involved (weight, speed, incline). I've always tried to educate folks who automatically assume that the gym machines are inaccurate. It depends on brand and especially depends on whether you provide your weight. My weight loss was dead on during this period, so my TDEE must not have been too far off MFP's BMR + entered exercise calories.

Interestingly, I acquired a new HRM during this process (a FT7, I didn't really need the additional features of the nicer ones) and began to compare my HRM's calorie calculation to the Precor. At first, my heart rate monitor indicated that I burned more calories than the treadmill. However, I was getting fitter over time and my heart/lung capacity was rapidly improving. Eventually, the HRM and Precor started coinciding and later the HRM started recording less calories than the Precor. Now, I understand that as you become more adept at an exercise your new efficiency is going to lead to a lower energy expenditure, but I have hard time believing that it would make that much difference to a non-elite athlete such as myself. I think as you get more fit the HRMs accuracy goes down to some extent. My guess is that the formulas it uses is based on some average person (a Finnish person maybe). As you become less average and more "elite" you start to fall out of the norm. The reverse is true as well, I suspect. If your heart and lungs are way below average you will show a much higher burn even though you may not be expending any more energy.

In any event, I switched to actual biking as my main exercise in May and thus have to rely on the heart rate monitor for calorie burns. I do wish apps such as Endomondo which I use for exercise tracking were smart enough to do really accurate calorie calculations. After all, it knows the time, your weight, your speed, and the elevation you gained. The only things it can't account for is weather, though by plugging into available weather data it could potentially account for things like headwind etc. Instead, it uses some generic formula which seems to inflate calories burned by about 20%. When I enter my polar average and max heart rates it recalculates the calories burned and comes awful close to the Polar calculation, which means that they likely use the same formula.

At the end of the day, everything is an estimate. People need to be observant of how the numbers they entered are calculated and adjust accordingly.

The reason your HRM became out of sync over time is because the settings became outdated as your fitness level improved. People mistakenly believe that you "burn fewer calories as you become more fit". That is usually not the case. It's just the HRM becomes less accurate because it doesnt know your new fitness level.

IsMollyReallyHungry

Personally I don't care if mine is off, just having one in itself, seeing the results makes me WANT to workout more. It makes me want to get more exercise in to see the numbers go up. Ever since I got it I've been in love with it :P Interesting study I guess, mine's an FT60 so I would assume it's a least a little more accurate either way I'm happy, was $130 or whatever it cost well spent imo

Ditto to this statement! and to add I already knew that there is no HRM 100% accurate. Just like calories in and out are not 100%.. These are good guages for us to go by and close enough to work if we are trying to lose weight. When we plautue than we should tweak things a bit.

LaNena01

bump

Smudjie

I have a Polar F7 and have been using it regularily during my workouts. It always shows more calories burned than my fitbit which i wear daily under my clothing.

So now you are saying that my Polar is lying to me?