My HRM just shat on all my calorie burning dreams...

thepetiterunner

Okay, so I decided to hit the gym for a last minute weekend workout and I took my HRM with me (Garmin Forerunner 110) to see how it works. I've only really used it before this to GPS my runs outdoors. Anyway, so there I am, barreling away on a 15% incline on the treadmill as usual and I can see my HR is in between fat burn and cardio, closer to cardio, around the 150s. I double check my HRM measurement to the treadmill's and they're close - within 1 or 2 bpm each time. I think "Oh gravy! This should be good!"

Uh no.

I get off the machine and look at what the treadmill says I've burned in 55 minutes: 545 calories. I think to myself "Yipee! Go me!!" and then I look at my Garmin: 318 calories. DUDE. that's like a 230 difference!! That's HUGE!

I am now totally depressed.

Pebble321

Hmmm, are you sure that your model of the Garmin is suitable for use on the treadmill?
I have a Garmin Forerunner 405 and to use this one on a treadmill I have to add a foot pod.

Check the manual to make sure you're not missing out!

rudegyal_b

you need a footpod to use it on a treadmill

but either way id go with what an HRM says over the treadmill

jnbud2002

Dang, that's booshat fo really! I really want a HRM and am afraid it's gonna do me the same... just keep it up! We'll see some change!

kasmir8199

I don't know...I'm not the best at using HRMs for calculating calorie burn...I use a Bodybugg. But for 55 minutes, I'd think you would have burned more than that too.

thepetiterunner

Hmmm, are you sure that your model of the Garmin is suitable for use on the treadmill?
I have a Garmin Forerunner 405 and to use this one on a treadmill I have to add a foot pod.

Check the manual to make sure you're not missing out!

Apparently this model, due to it's streamlined simplicity, is not compatible with the foot pod.

I don't know what to do, maybe I'll split the difference and just say it's in the middle?

Trail_Addict

Many of the older Garmins don't use HR to calculate calories burned. They primarily use distance and time. The HR function on those models is mainly so you can track your exertion level.

I was depressed to find I only burned 125 calories after climbing a mountain. The path was only 1.25 miles long, but at a 30-40% incline all of the way (1,200ft elevation gain in 1.25 miles). My Forerunner 305 didn't care that my heart was pounding out of the chest due to the incline. It just saw 1.25 miles walked in 30 minutes. I can only assume I burned closer to 500 calories with the AHR I maintained.

Pickles11

Maybe I'm reading your ticker wrong, but are you between 107lbs and 110lbs? If so, I wouldn't be surprised at wow calorie burn- the more in shape you are, the less calories you burn. I sometimes don't break 300 calories for a 45 min workout. At first I was devastated but I've learned to work in the burn I do get into my eating.

aquapussy

Being in shape sucks for losing more fat. I would assume your HRM is more accurate as it has you put in your weight, height and age.

Basically you should concentrate on your diet more instead of obsessing over a few calories burned or not burned. Eating a piece of toast and jam is 200 calories, its much easier to cut out more food from your diet than to try and do massive calorie burns.

NightOwl1

Maybe I'm reading your ticker wrong, but are you between 107lbs and 110lbs? If so, I wouldn't be surprised at wow calorie burn- the more in shape you are, the less calories you burn. I sometimes don't break 300 calories for a 45 min workout. At first I was devastated but I've learned to work in the burn I do get into my eating.

Good catch. Then the HRM seems more accurate. Did you enter your weight on the treadmill before using it? If you didn't, the readings are going to be way off. The HRM is most likely more accurate for someone of your weight.

EDIT: Also, it's important to know that the Treadmill doesn't actually take your heart rate into consideration when counting calories, it just does it based off of a projection based on weight, incline and speed. So that it had a close HR to your HRM doesn't mean it would calculate it the same.

Pebble321

Hmmm, are you sure that your model of the Garmin is suitable for use on the treadmill?
I have a Garmin Forerunner 405 and to use this one on a treadmill I have to add a foot pod.

Check the manual to make sure you're not missing out!

Apparently this model, due to it's streamlined simplicity, is not compatible with the foot pod.

I don't know what to do, maybe I'll split the difference and just say it's in the middle?

What do you usually burn when you run outside? I estimate about 10 cals/minute for steady running, so if I'm using a treadmill (rare!) or doing some other exercise I tend to use this as a guide.

pg1girl

Go with the hrm! I got the footpod as well for my garmin 405cx and it is always way lower than any machines. I also have the bike cadence to use my road bike on the trainer. Same thing....way lower. Better to go with the hrm!

thepetiterunner

Maybe I'm reading your ticker wrong, but are you between 107lbs and 110lbs? If so, I wouldn't be surprised at wow calorie burn- the more in shape you are, the less calories you burn. I sometimes don't break 300 calories for a 45 min workout. At first I was devastated but I've learned to work in the burn I do get into my eating.

Good catch. Then the HRM seems more accurate. Did you enter your weight on the treadmill before using it? If you didn't, the readings are going to be way off. The HRM is most likely more accurate for someone of your weight.

EDIT: Also, it's important to know that the Treadmill doesn't actually take your heart rate into consideration when counting calories, it just does it based off of a projection based on weight, incline and speed. So that it had a close HR to your HRM doesn't mean it would calculate it the same.

I know my fitness level is a factor, but that just seemed really low, even for me. I do enter my weight into the treadmill.

thepetiterunner

Hmmm, are you sure that your model of the Garmin is suitable for use on the treadmill?
I have a Garmin Forerunner 405 and to use this one on a treadmill I have to add a foot pod.

Check the manual to make sure you're not missing out!

Apparently this model, due to it's streamlined simplicity, is not compatible with the foot pod.

I don't know what to do, maybe I'll split the difference and just say it's in the middle?

What do you usually burn when you run outside? I estimate about 10 cals/minute for steady running, so if I'm using a treadmill (rare!) or doing some other exercise I tend to use this as a guide.

I actually never really used my Garmin for calorie counting during my outdoor runs - I just went to runnersworld.com and used their calculator. I thought it'd be similar, since doing inclines is harder than running flat.

Do you know if this is accurate at all for other activities besides running (i.e. weight lifting or other cardio exercises)? Or maybe I should just invest in a Polar model.

IrishMinx32

I have the same similar type of this happening, but im comparing the ellptical to what MFP says. Im confused. What to believe.

iHEARTcardiacnurses

My Polar FT4 just gave me 212 reading for an easily 450 calorie workout...there's a lot of sh*tting going on with our HRMs

Saruman_w

Judging from your size the HRM is probably correct. It's gonna take extra effort for you to burn the amount of calories you want since you're already pretty small.

brookepenni

Okay, so I decided to hit the gym for a last minute weekend workout and I took my HRM with me (Garmin Forerunner 110) to see how it works. I've only really used it before this to GPS my runs outdoors. Anyway, so there I am, barreling away on a 15% incline on the treadmill as usual and I can see my HR is in between fat burn and cardio, closer to cardio, around the 150s. I double check my HRM measurement to the treadmill's and they're close - within 1 or 2 bpm each time. I think "Oh gravy! This should be good!"

Uh no.

I get off the machine and look at what the treadmill says I've burned in 55 minutes: 545 calories. I think to myself "Yipee! Go me!!" and then I look at my Garmin: 318 calories. DUDE. that's like a 230 difference!! That's HUGE!

I am now totally depressed.

We have the same model and the same depressive problem I think....

I have used mine 4 times since I got it last week - and apparently I dont burn many calories either. On 2 long, fast walks (4 m/p according to the GPS) - up and down hills and where I end up quite breathless AND sweaty - just 110 and 123 calories after 50mins. If I dont use the HRM and just go by what Garmin tells me its either just over or just under 200 calories. Then yesterday I went for a 50min RPM class - and let me tell you, I sweat and I damn well work hard. 170 calories - and its like the hardest I work - ever! According to Les Mills - these classes are designed to burn about 600-800 for the approximate women. Whats with my 170? Ive been doing this for 6 months, once a week and I KNOW I burn more than that. My legs are shaky afterwards and I look like Ive had a shower!! Oh and on a recent run - 26mins, 5kms so you know, not slow - but a PB and hard work all the same - 230 calories only.

I kind of wish I hadnt paid $50 extra for the thing. I was quite happy living in ignorant bliss with mfp and garmins calculations - which are often more than double!!

Ive tried everything - looking at the standing heart rate, performing a resting rate test etc. Nothing. Funily enough though - my partner has the same watch/hrm and he gets excellent burns - almost identical to what MFP estimates. And he is now on goal weight (where as I am still techinically overweight) - so Im not sure where the logic lies - the fitter/slimmer you are the less calories you burn.... Id love any help anyone can give me - before I chuck the stupid thing away or sell on ebay!!!

heybales

I actually never really used my Garmin for calorie counting during my outdoor runs - I just went to runnersworld.com and used their calculator. I thought it'd be similar, since doing inclines is harder than running flat.

Do you know if this is accurate at all for other activities besides running (i.e. weight lifting or other cardio exercises)? Or maybe I should just invest in a Polar model.

Does the runner's world site know how hard an effort was for you? Or just your pace and weight? Does it know gender and age even? Probably should have used HRM for comparison for a while.

You should be able to import your data and see what it has been for many past workouts to compare.

The HRM is more accurate than avg tables. Because someone exactly your size, age, but out of shape could have had a AHR of 180 trying to keep your pace (if they could really), and rightfully so, would have showed more calories burned.

Yep, in shape now. Sounds about right.

Bummer being efficient, huh.

heybales

Ive tried everything - looking at the standing heart rate, performing a resting rate test etc. Nothing. Funily enough though - my partner has the same watch/hrm and he gets excellent burns - almost identical to what MFP estimates. And he is now on goal weight (where as I am still techinically overweight) - so Im not sure where the logic lies - the fitter/slimmer you are the less calories you burn.... Id love any help anyone can give me - before I chuck the stupid thing away or sell on ebay!!!

Have you entered all stats that it wants yourself?

What does it ask for BTW?

I have the Garmin 305 which does NOT use HR at all, and it asks for gender, age, weight. Which can make the pace estimates of calories more accurate than a treadmill at least, but not as much as HR being used.

I'm betting if max HR is not a stat to enter, it is estimating it. And the MHR value in calculations appears to be a bigger factor than age.
And women have a much bigger error of accuracy for the formula's that are used for age and MHR, so that is probably off.

Better to lie to the HRM regarding your age, so that it knows your better estimated MHR.

I have post on that if needed.

parys1

Many of the older Garmins don't use HR to calculate calories burned. They primarily use distance and time. The HR function on those models is mainly so you can track your exertion level.

I was depressed to find I only burned 125 calories after climbing a mountain. The path was only 1.25 miles long, but at a 30-40% incline all of the way (1,200ft elevation gain in 1.25 miles). My Forerunner 305 didn't care that my heart was pounding out of the chest due to the incline. It just saw 1.25 miles walked in 30 minutes. I can only assume I burned closer to 500 calories with the AHR I maintained.

This.
I have a Garmin 301 with HRM and it says right in the manual that the HRM is not used to calculate calories burned. It is only used to track exertion. It was disappointing. Luckily, I have another HRM.

thepetiterunner

I actually never really used my Garmin for calorie counting during my outdoor runs - I just went to runnersworld.com and used their calculator. I thought it'd be similar, since doing inclines is harder than running flat.

Do you know if this is accurate at all for other activities besides running (i.e. weight lifting or other cardio exercises)? Or maybe I should just invest in a Polar model.

Does the runner's world site know how hard an effort was for you? Or just your pace and weight? Does it know gender and age even? Probably should have used HRM for comparison for a while.

You should be able to import your data and see what it has been for many past workouts to compare.

The HRM is more accurate than avg tables. Because someone exactly your size, age, but out of shape could have had a AHR of 180 trying to keep your pace (if they could really), and rightfully so, would have showed more calories burned.

Yep, in shape now. Sounds about right.

Bummer being efficient, huh.

Totally logical. And yes, it is a bummer!

Well, on the bright side, now that I'm out of my ignorant cloud, I can really start tracking calories accurately. At least there's a silver lining to all of this.

heybales

For everyone speaking about inaccurate HRM's and your workouts, you really got share what your avg HR was on the effort you are believing was incorrect.
Petiterunn shared her value during that workout so some ability for others to compare.

yeabby

That's about the difference I've always seen between the machine and my HRMs (I have both Garmin 405 and Polar F7).

brookepenni

For everyone speaking about inaccurate HRM's and your workouts, you really got share what your avg HR was on the effort you are believing was incorrect.
Petiterunn shared her value during that workout so some ability for others to compare.

OK - my bike ride (RPM Class) still sticks in my mind as it was just yesterday.

Resting heart rate is 59, my average was 152 and my max was 168 - 50mins. Im 30 years old, weigh 68.3kgs (150.3lbs) and Im 5 foot 2 I think (156cms).... Surely I burnt more than 170 measly calories!

Makes sense though if the older Garmin's dont track calories burnt. I'd believe this more than I am just superfit and extremely efficient.

heybales

Resting heart rate is 59, my average was 152 and my max was 168 - 50mins. Im 30 years old, weigh 68.3kgs (150.3lbs) and Im 5 foot 2 I think (156cms).... Surely I burnt more than 170 measly calories!

Makes sense though if the older Garmin's dont track calories burnt. I'd believe this more than I am just superfit and extremely efficient.

The Garmin's that don't use HR would not have shown ANY calories burned unless you used a footpod to give it a sense of distance. Unless you kept running out to your car for something while it was on for a workout, and got a fix, and did that distance.

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

This is not likely Garmin's formula, I'm sure they paid for a proprietary one (maybe no), but this has a good study behind it and good accuracy that matches what Polar ends up getting in studies.

So I showed 492. Given that I don't know your VO2max value, which increases the accuracy if known. Should be about 23% accuracy.
So possibly 392 to 605.

BTW, I love the Garmin 305 for most things I do, and I just take the AHR to this site for better calorie estimate.
I'm frightened by the cost of a Polar that could actually match all the things the Garmin can do that I love.

So that workout data seems to be very off. I'd confirm it did not lose any of your stats, and shows that whole time.

april522

I used to use a cheap HRM from Wal-Mart the first year and a half of going to the gym. It was the type that didn't even let you enter your gender or weight (just height). During 1 hour of aerobics, it would say I burned anywhere from 900 - 1100 calories, and the # it gave for 30 minutes of strength training was rather high as well.

I finally got a Polar FT4, and it was depressing to see how much lower the numbers were. During aerobics now, I only burn 500-600 calories, so I'm thinking that's why I was so slow to loose weight beforehand. I wasn't burning as many calories as I thought I was, and I was eating most of those calories back.

whoosh1

For running, a good rule of thumb is 100 calories burned per mile.

This is a good article about calories burned while running/walking: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

thepetiterunner

For running, a good rule of thumb is 100 calories burned per mile.

This is a good article about calories burned while running/walking: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

I usually rely on Runner's World for my outdoor runs, but I know 100 cal/mile doesn't really apply to me because I'm so small and my level of fitness is pretty high at the moment. I wonder how it correlates to hills and treadmill versus being outside.

BTW, I love the Garmin 305 for most things I do, and I just take the AHR to this site for better calorie estimate.
I'm frightened by the cost of a Polar that could actually match all the things the Garmin can do that I love.

This is how I feel! I really like my Garmin Forerunner for all my outdoor runs, but I'm worried buying a Polar won't be much of a difference. That said, I'd really like to have a way to accurately assess my cario workouts - not just runs, but also weight lifting, my Pilates class, any other classes I take, etc.

kdiamond

Try interval training...here is an example of what I would do.

2 min walk 4.0
1 min jog 6.5
30 seconds sprint 7.8 (or whatever sprint rate you would be at - I judge it by a 8 or 9 out of 10 on the scale of how hard it is)
repeat until you get to 30 minutes

You will burn a LOT more calories than just straight jogging.

Edited to say: I am small like you (110 here) and it takes more of an "umph" to get your body burning more calories). It is definitely harder for smaller girls to burn a lot. We just don't have a lot to use!

jeffazi

I've always been told (by trainers and the others that run the gym that I belong to) that the calorie burning numbers on treadmills and elliptical machines are too high. I always cut that number back by 30% to 40%. I remember the first time I used an ellipitcal and did a 30 minute workout it said I had burned 400+ calories. I knew that couldn't be right. I see people on here all the time reporting astoundingly high calorie burning numbers on these machines and I'm very skeptical.

My 2 cents. YMMV