Any ideas? Reebok HRM calorie counting...

Options
ckroys
ckroys Posts: 219 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I know this topic has been covered before, but I didn't find anything that addressed my situation. I just got an HRM and wore it today for the first time, after programming my height, weight, sex, activitiy level, etc. in, and it showed me burning more calories than the MFP database typically does. I know most people say the exact opposite happens to them, so I'm just wondering if anyone else has had this happen? Should I believe the HRM? (I have a Reebok Precision Trainer XT, and saw that others on here who had it really liked it.) :huh:

Replies

  • ckroys
    ckroys Posts: 219 Member
    Options
    I know this topic has been covered before, but I didn't find anything that addressed my situation. I just got an HRM and wore it today for the first time, after programming my height, weight, sex, activitiy level, etc. in, and it showed me burning more calories than the MFP database typically does. I know most people say the exact opposite happens to them, so I'm just wondering if anyone else has had this happen? Should I believe the HRM? (I have a Reebok Precision Trainer XT, and saw that others on here who had it really liked it.) :huh:
  • kristie874
    kristie874 Posts: 774 Member
    Options
    I have the same one and the same thing happens to me! My treadmill will show I've burned 500 calories and my HRM will show 700 calories. I was going with the HRM number for a few weeks and eating those calories. I didn't lose much weight. I've since starting going with the treadmill count and decided I'd only use the HRM for things that I can't figure out like hiking or walking outside then just deduct about 20%.
  • FitnessGeek
    FitnessGeek Posts: 487
    Options
    I have the same HRM. My numbers too were higher than MFP's numbers, but they were still pretty close.

    I am trusting the HRM all the way.
  • pettmybunny
    pettmybunny Posts: 1,986 Member
    Options
    I have a Timex Ironman, and it does the same thing. Do you have a chest strap with yours? It is more accurate if there's a strap. Mine has one, and when I first started exercising, I was seeing numbers 3 times as high as machines and websites. Now that I'm a bit more fit (I hope anyways), the numbers are only about twice as high.

    That being said, I usually put in the numbers from the machines and sites, and eat back that number of calories. I'm not saying my HRM is wrong, but I wouldn't be able to eat all those calories anyhow, and if there is a margin of error, I'd rather take the lower number.
  • jeffwyeg
    jeffwyeg Posts: 105
    Options
    I have to agree with those here that say "trust the HRM"...I've got a Polar F6 HRM - which has a chest strap - and I think that's probably way more accurate than what the elliptical machine I'm using displays. Especially since the machine isn't always taking my heart rate (only if I've got my hands on the sensors).
  • nitag
    nitag Posts: 706 Member
    Options
    I have a Reebok HRM.. Pink and I love it...

    I noticed the same thing.. Shows me burning more but I am trusting it and going with it.. I don't eat back my exercise calories so I am still noticing a loss every week...
  • ckroys
    ckroys Posts: 219 Member
    Options
    I have a Timex Ironman, and it does the same thing. Do you have a chest strap with yours? It is more accurate if there's a strap. Mine has one, and when I first started exercising, I was seeing numbers 3 times as high as machines and websites. Now that I'm a bit more fit (I hope anyways), the numbers are only about twice as high.

    That being said, I usually put in the numbers from the machines and sites, and eat back that number of calories. I'm not saying my HRM is wrong, but I wouldn't be able to eat all those calories anyhow, and if there is a margin of error, I'd rather take the lower number.

    Yep - it has the chest strap. I'm happy to hear that others have the same "problem" of the HRM being higher. I definitely feel like I've worked that hard and always thought "wow, that's it" when I enter my exercise calories here, but figured it must be close (if not high according to a lot of those whose HRMs register lower calores). I may do the 20% subtraction that kristie suggested.

    Thanks for the support!!! :drinker: :drinker: I :heart: this site!
  • ckroys
    ckroys Posts: 219 Member
    Options
    I have a Reebok HRM.. Pink and I love it...

    I noticed the same thing.. Shows me burning more but I am trusting it and going with it.. I don't eat back my exercise calories so I am still noticing a loss every week...

    Good to know. I will probably eat some, but not all of the calories I enter now. Thanks! :wink:
  • ckroys
    ckroys Posts: 219 Member
    Options
    I guess the one that surprised me the most were the 60 minutes of strength-training - 630 calories! I'm guessing part of that is because this was right after using the elliptical for 30 minutes and 10 of calisthenics, but the during the strength-training I kept my heart-rate up there where it was for the calisthenics, so maybe it's right. It was just such a shock :noway: compared to what MFP says for 60 minutes of strenth-training.
  • aprilvet
    aprilvet Posts: 724 Member
    Options
    I have the Polar FT40. I tend to trust the calories it tells me because they are significantly lower than the treadmill. When I add back those calories, I do not manipulate them; however, I saw a post by Banks recently talking about subtracting your AMR calories from the hourly exercise total. Thus, if my AMR is 1700 cals per day, that's on average 70 cals per hour. Banks suggested that you should subtract this from your exercise total since that is what your body burns already when not exercising. Since my calorie burns seem somewhat lower that many people's, I don't do that. I don't know if this would put your calorie burn more in line with what you expect or not!! Just my thoughts!!:smile:
  • debmac63
    debmac63 Posts: 459 Member
    Options
    I have the Polar F11 and I burn more than what the treadmill says. The treadmill doesn't know how much I weigh, how tall I am, etc. My HRM does so I go with that.
  • bathedinshadow
    bathedinshadow Posts: 117 Member
    Options
    A similar question....

    Yesterday I had a sort of lower impact exercise. I hiked up a mountain for just over 2 hours. But I really wasn't feeling tired at all and my heart rate was pretty low. Given that i wasn't on my own, I couldn't just up the pace. Anyway I burnt almost 900 calories but because it took me so long to burn that much I really wanted to deduct from that number how many calories I would have burnt if I were just sitting around the house. So I was going to wear my HRM for a few hours to get an idea of how many calories that would be. As it turns out, my HRM doesn't show calories burned when my heart rate is that low. I don't know how high it needs to be in order to register, but I have a very low resting heart rate at 49-51 bpm.


    SO... I was wondering if anybody else has this problem? I have the Timex Ironman. It works great otherwise. Or perhaps does anybody know what the equation is that these watches use? I could just wear it for my average heart rate and figure it out myself.

    Thanks. :smile:
  • singfree
    singfree Posts: 1,591 Member
    Options
    I just received my Reebok Precision XT HRM on Saturday. I tried it out on a bike ride yesterday. It showed that I buned more cals than my estimate (yay). This morning on the treadmill, it showed lower than the treadmill (boo). All in all, I will trust the HRM. It seems like it is the only reliable way to determine cals burned.

Categories