A different type of HRM question

firstnamekaren
firstnamekaren Posts: 274 Member
edited November 8 in Fitness and Exercise
So this morning at the gym, I hop on the elliptical, plug in my weight and age and start to go. I turned on my HRM as usual (Polar FT4 w/ strap) and start to go. One of the coolest features about these HRMs is that they "talk" to the gym equipment (a ProForm elliptical, I believe) and transmit my heart rate to the machine.

However, when I get off, I notice that according to the machine, I've burned about 22-25 more calories than according to my watch. I'm going to say my watch is more accurate, but the only information my watch has that the machine doesn't is my height. Just curious as to why there's such a difference?

Replies

  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    its not that much of a difference unless its a large percentage of the total. 22-25 calories? pffft...no worries

    in other words...I dont know the answer to your question:smile:
  • deekaydee
    deekaydee Posts: 158 Member
    The watch probably also has your resting heart rate, right? I'd say that's more accurate since it has a better idea of *how much* harder your heart is working above normal.
  • katkins3
    katkins3 Posts: 1,359 Member
    IMHO the HRM is probably more accurate.
    My HRM is consistently about a quarter the calories of what MFP lists for any given exercise. I only get an average of 130-150 calories for an hour of Jazzercise. For me the problem is the beta blockers I am on for high blood pressure. I am hoping that when my weight is in the normal range I will be able to go "pill free".
    Then we'll see if my calorie burn comes in line with "normal".
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    My HRM is consistently about a quarter the calories of what MFP lists for any given exercise.
    What does this have to do with the OP's question? She is comparing 2 readings, both based on the same HRM... not MFP's estimate..
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    its not that much of a difference unless its a large percentage of the total. 22-25 calories? pffft...no worries

    in other words...I dont know the answer to your question:smile:
    The watch probably also has your resting heart rate, right? I'd say that's more accurate since it has a better idea of *how much* harder your heart is working above normal.

    Agreed. I'm not familar with the Polar line, but assuming they track (or you can set) a resting and/or max HR in the watch, then it's calculation is probably a bit more accurate than the one by the eliptical.
  • George1567
    George1567 Posts: 107
    I use a Polar HRM and a Life Fitness 95ti treadmill. I have niticed that if I am up close to the control board on the treadmill the watch and treadmill have very compareable readings. But If I fade back when I jog, away from the treadmill display, the readings varry quite a bit. Have seen a difference over 10 beats per min. I know the chest strap and gym equipment are designed so several people can work out in close quarters without cross transmission. Signal strength has to be limited or your reading would show up on the cardio machine next to you. The watch you wear is usually within 12 to 18 inches of the chest strap putting it in position to have the more consistant signal.
  • katkins3
    katkins3 Posts: 1,359 Member
    I apologize for not addressing the OP's original question. :blushing:
  • firstnamekaren
    firstnamekaren Posts: 274 Member
    Ah, thanks guys!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories