What do you burn with your chest strap HRM?

jennifershoo

I just ordered a Polar FT60. Can't wait to use it! I will post my stats in this thread when I have it.

jaygirl3

your HRM is most likely correct

Rahul_ahuja

Ok im sorry if im posting here as I guess this is the female section or something but still i would like to answer your question i use ft7 and on a daily basis i am burning approx 900 calories currently my weight is 172.6lbs and im 5'11 i am burning this by doing turbo fire 55 ez hiit 20 and stretch 10 on a daily basis i dont know why i am burning that much maybe coz im only 18 or im male however the workouts are preity much intence.

jennifershoo

@OP,
Maybe you're really fit! I have a friend who's twice my weight, but can hike a mountain every weekend. I can't. I get out of breath easily (ok, my years of smoking didn't help, even if I quit 10 years ago). So, he burns less calories than me for the same activity. I know it sucks in a way because you need to push yourself harder to burn the cals.

Taymay75

I just got my HRM on Valentine's Day and it's a Polar FT7. I do the Leslie Sansone Express Walk 4 mile DVD (54 minutes) and today I burned 408 calories and yesterday I burned 430 calories (I guess I worked harder yesterday). I'm 45 years old; 5'6 and 200 pounds.

Mmissy104

I have a polar ft7 and I love it! Definetly way under what mfp estimates, but not that drastically. Make sure all the settings are set to you. The height, weight, female....ect. Also make sure your Max heart rate is set right. That will REALLY effect your calorie burn if it is too high or too low.

just2liveagain

@OP,
Maybe you're really fit! I have a friend who's twice my weight, but can hike a mountain every weekend. I can't. I get out of breath easily (ok, my years of smoking didn't help, even if I quit 10 years ago). So, he burns less calories than me for the same activity. I know it sucks in a way because you need to push yourself harder to burn the cals.

I've had a few ppl write and tell me that, it's hard to believe because of my weight, but I guess with trying to lose weight so many times over the past year I could of gotten my body in better condition even though I haven't been steadily exercising every single day or anything throughout the last year, I still exercise on a fairly regular basis, more than what I have in the years before now. I notice a lot of ppl are saying they burn major calories on a treadmill or elliptical running or jogging, so maybe I need to take it outside and speed walk/jog to see some calories burned!

salene17

I don't trust what my new ft7 said I burned in step class this morning. I know I push, and I still have about 30 pounds to lose... but it seemed as though my heart rate seemed high... often high 180s and even 190. I found myself dropping my risers to bring it down... which it did... but only by about 10 bps. This is a class I have been doing for 4 years and is very intense... but not THAT intense... Even with my extra weight.

I read another forum that said to tighten your strap if your rate seems high so I am going to try that next time. My high was 193 with an average of 174 and that was because I was deliberately trying to bring it down which was a little boring for me... I like to get into it! I want to trust my HRM... bot I don't think I burned over 600 calories in 50 minutes of step... no matter how intense.... I am 42 and have all my stats entered correctly... and I even raised my max heart rate in the settings as advised on another MFP thread to get more accurate stats.... I know it will take awhile, but I really want to figure this thing out!

bek416

After reading this thread, I have some questions.
I've seen posts from all different weights, height, workout intensity --- why does any of that matter, if calorie burn is based on heart rate intensity? The percentage of your own max heart rate, and how long you stay there is what I thought this device was for, and that's how I thought calorie burn was calculated, is this not correct?

Let me give an example... many of you have said what your heart rate is (ex, 150-160, etc) - depending on age, that is a different PERCENTAGE for each person.
In other words, I am 40 years old. I am a woman. My max HR is 186. Working at 75% of this means my heart rate is staying at 139. Working at 80% it is 148. Obviously working at a higher percentage will yield more of a calorie burn. The difference is the EFFORT each person has to exert in order to get to this heart rate zone. Personally, because I'm out of shape and overweight, it doesn't take long or much effort to get to 80% of my max, whereas someone younger, lighter and in better shape may take quite a bit of effort to get to 80% and hold there for 45 minutes. That person is going to have to work harder than I will to maintain that level of exertion - whereas, since I haven't gotten my *kitten* off the couch for 6 months, it only takes me a leisurely pace to maintain that level. Once I get in better shape, I will have to work harder to get that rate up and keep it there. But isn't it apples to apples when we talk about calories burned at a certain percentage? If my friend Sara is 300 lbs, and I am only 160 - and we both walk for 45 minutes, me at 4 mph, her at 1 mph - but we both maintain that 75% of max HR, aren't we burning the same calories? I realize she is pulling more weight, but she's also walking much slower (exerting less effort) than I am to get to 75% and stay there.

Please tell me this makes sense to someone.......lol I'm just trying to get a handle on heart rate training and why/how it benefits me in my efforts to lose weight.

just2liveagain

After reading this thread, I have some questions.
I've seen posts from all different weights, height, workout intensity --- why does any of that matter, if calorie burn is based on heart rate intensity? The percentage of your own max heart rate, and how long you stay there is what I thought this device was for, and that's how I thought calorie burn was calculated, is this not correct?

Let me give an example... many of you have said what your heart rate is (ex, 150-160, etc) - depending on age, that is a different PERCENTAGE for each person.
In other words, I am 40 years old. I am a woman. My max HR is 186. Working at 75% of this means my heart rate is staying at 139. Working at 80% it is 148. Obviously working at a higher percentage will yield more of a calorie burn. The difference is the EFFORT each person has to exert in order to get to this heart rate zone. Personally, because I'm out of shape and overweight, it doesn't take long or much effort to get to 80% of my max, whereas someone younger, lighter and in better shape may take quite a bit of effort to get to 80% and hold there for 45 minutes. That person is going to have to work harder than I will to maintain that level of exertion - whereas, since I haven't gotten my *kitten* off the couch for 6 months, it only takes me a leisurely pace to maintain that level. Once I get in better shape, I will have to work harder to get that rate up and keep it there. But isn't it apples to apples when we talk about calories burned at a certain percentage? If my friend Sara is 300 lbs, and I am only 160 - and we both walk for 45 minutes, me at 4 mph, her at 1 mph - but we both maintain that 75% of max HR, aren't we burning the same calories? I realize she is pulling more weight, but she's also walking much slower (exerting less effort) than I am to get to 75% and stay there.

Please tell me this makes sense to someone.......lol I'm just trying to get a handle on heart rate training and why/how it benefits me in my efforts to lose weight.

I see what you're saying and I found myself the same thing, how can one person no matter what age, weight, burn more than another of a different age and weight if they are both working at the same percentage of each individual's max HR. I don't get it myself, and would be interested in seeing how this works, because after using my HR a few more time since this post, one of which was the 4 mile express walk for an hour, I kept my heart rate steadily at 80% of my max HR except for in the last about 10 minutes, (cooking down), and didn't even burn 300 calories in that hour, I really worked myself to the max, even jogging in place for most of the workout, I figure at over 300 lbs working at that 80% for an hour straight, I would burn more, a lot more than 280. It seems no matter workout I do for whatever time, 30-60 minutes, I burn the same amount of calories, doesn't make sense to me.

I'm beginning to wonder if the whole "the more you weigh the more calories you burn" thing is a load of crap and it really doesn't matter what your stats are. Idk I'm just confused. I feel like it's a waste of money to have bought this, I mean it's good cuz now I know what I typically burn for 30-60 min of exercise, as I've tried various different workouts, if in fact my HRM is in good working condition and it's telling me my calories burned accurately, what do I really need it for now? I mean, if the whole weight per calories thing is true, then the thinner I get I'm just gonna burn less and less than 200-something an hour right? So as it stands right now, it seems I will never burn more than that in an hour of exercise no matter what? I can just eat my calories MFP sets for me, and not even worry about eating back exercise calories, since it's so few anyway.

bek416

I don't trust what my new ft7 said I burned in step class this morning. I know I push, and I still have about 30 pounds to lose... but it seemed as though my heart rate seemed high... often high 180s and even 190. I found myself dropping my risers to bring it down... which it did... but only by about 10 bps. This is a class I have been doing for 4 years and is very intense... but not THAT intense... Even with my extra weight.

I read another forum that said to tighten your strap if your rate seems high so I am going to try that next time. My high was 193 with an average of 174 and that was because I was deliberately trying to bring it down which was a little boring for me... I like to get into it! I want to trust my HRM... bot I don't think I burned over 600 calories in 50 minutes of step... no matter how intense.... I am 42 and have all my stats entered correctly... and I even raised my max heart rate in the settings as advised on another MFP thread to get more accurate stats.... I know it will take awhile, but I really want to figure this thing out!

Have you ever used a HRM before though? The reason I ask is because out perceived rate of exertion is often much higher than what our heart rate says. In other words, we don't have to work as hard as we thought to stay in that fat burning zone. When we go above that percentage, my understanding was always that we were getting into protein stores to get the energy needed to sustain this higher heart rates. I only have interest in burning fat, and not working too hard. When we work too hard, we run the risk of overtraining, injury or just plain hating the exercise we are doing. This is exactly why I bought one, because as I suspected, I was working harder than I needed to be and since I am genuinely trying to make this a way of life, I want don't want to burn out.

PoochPottery

Ah yes, welcome to the more accurate (and often disappointing) world of chest strap HRMs

These are correct. Machines and MFP inflate caloric burn because they're simply not as accurate.

Is it disappointing? Yes.
Is it more truthful? Yes.
Would you rather know what you're *really* burning (and can then eat or not eat, accordingly)? YES.

This is a good thing, even if it sort of sucks (okay, it sucks a lot).

YEP!! It sucks but it keeps you accountable! You can't cheat your body into thinking you burned more than you actually did.

Rahul_ahuja

BTW does anyone know how to transfer workouts to computer for an ft7? I can't figure it out.. is there another part I need? lol probably sounds stupid!

Yes u need polar flowlink in order to transfer your data to polar website

mrsjennifermaffei

I have the polar ft4 also and I typically burn 10 calories per minute no matter what I do.

lawmama_

i'm getting the same numbers you are for the same types of exercises, done for the same amount of time. we just have to get used to the fact that MFP and treadmills/ellipitcals/etc. were all overlogging how many calories were really burned during the workout. after i got the heart rate monitor, it became very obvious to me that i really wasn't burning all those calories MFP said i was. sometimes it's wrong by 200%!

sandy729

Bump

georgia98_98

I have the ft7 & mine is a little higher then mfp...Make sure u wet the ele. bands well... I do Bob's boot Camp from the biggest loser & burn around 350 for 30 mins. I am 5 7 237lbs.. 30 yrs. old!

MyaPapaya75

trust the hrm ....its way more accurate than mfp...especially if you have chest strap...mfp told me 590 was burned for my kickbox....polar says 190..i would rather be under than over

missym357

I have the Polar FT7 and tend to burn between 400 and 450 cals per hour depending on the intensity- for cardio I mostly do zumba classes, tabata-style interval classes, and stairmill. I am very petite though at 5'2" and 100-103 lbs. My heart rate averages 150 and maxes around 175. I always knew I was not burning what mfp says simply because I am smaller than average.

GTOgirl1969

I have the polar ft4 also and I typically burn 10 calories per minute no matter what I do.

That's pretty close to true for me. I also have the FT4, and I have all the Turbo Jam DVDs, a few Jillian Michaels workouts, EA Sports Active and UFC Trainer. There's also a walking trail near my house. For Turbo Jam and JM, I burn about 8-10 calories no matter which workout I choose, the same goes for EA Sports Active. The only time I've ever burned more than ten calories a minute is doing the UFC Trainer (game for Wii).

doublezizzle

If you follow the Jillian Michael's school of thinking...there is no such thing as a "fat burning zone". in order to get the best results, you need to push yourself as hard as you can go. you will burn more calories and lose more weight overall if you push to your max, rather than try to stay in your fat burning "zone".

I am in the low 200s and my heart rate gets pretty high. For an hour of Zumba, and I go all out...it tells me I burn anywhere from 800-1000 calories.

Butterfly3730

I have a Polar FT4 and it is way under the machines at the gym and MFP. However, when I am at the higher end of my heart training zone (120 - 144), then I burn more calories so I work on staying up there but I do go over if I'm doing interval training or a more intense workout. I burn from 200 - 250 calories for 30 minutes now (I had to work my way up to that). And the 2nd 30 minutes I burn 300 - 350 calories. I'm 5'9 / 229 lbs / age: 51

lynne_p

I also have the Polar FT4 which I received this week. Today was the second time I have used it. It kept saying to check the signal while I was working out. Maybe I didn't have it positioned properly?

Anyway, the first time I used it, I was surprised at the calorie burn. It was way lower than what MFP has set and also way lower than what my treadmill said. I guess I have been over-estimating my calorie burn all this time.

mwestonp

I haven't done Turbo Jam, but if you're looking for averages for comparison sake, I use a Suunto M4 with a chest strap. I burn about 800 calories per hour (depending on intensity) on the elliptical machine with a heart rate range of 140-160 bpm. I burn around 400 calories per hour lifting weights (again, depending on intensity) with a wide heart rate range of 90-135 bpm.

Hope it helps.

akjmart2002

See and I've been wondering the same thing because mine says I burn way more than I thought I did. I jogged for 20 minutes and it said I burned 350 calories... I usually take whatever the machines at the gym tell me and cut it in half, but my HRM says they were right on all along. I'm 193 and 5'8" I have always had a really high heart rate though, even resting, so IDK how accurate it really is or if I am just a freak of nature haha. As my doctor always tells me, my body does things that aren't supposed to be physically possible, but usually when I'm jogging even if I'm not super winded my HR is around 195...

The HRM will estimate your calories burned as a function of what percentage of your maximum HR your average measured HR was. If you naturally have a high heart rate, then you may need to up your estimated max HR in the HRM to avoid skewing your results.

chell53

I have FT4 and love it..............I am 56 weigh 185 and I burn anywhere from 150 to 260..............I guess it depends on how much energy you put forward I don't know..........I know when I am at the point I can't speak then I am at my highest and I keep the HR at the max............

AnaVerasGettingFit

I have a Suunto T1 that I've had for years. The heart rate is accurate- it always matches up to the machines at the gym. I use the activity class 5 on it. The Activity Class describes overall physical activity. It varies from 0 to 10 and is needed to calculate the most accurate kcal and training effect. My average burn is 100 calories every 10 minutes. Yesterday I only had 30 minutes to work out before my second job so I pushed it and did 510 calories in that half hour. I don't think you should compare yourself to other people too much, since everyone is at such different levels. If we all work hard, we will see results eventually. Looking at others who might be getting to where they want to be to what looks to us as quicker or easier would only be discouraging.

suzzann666

Used mine today for the first time, and I am having the opposite problem. During my workout at the gym I did 15 minutes of intervals on the treadmill (7mph/3.5mph), 5 minutes at 4.0 mph on a steep incline, 10 minutes on the eliptical machine, then around 45 minutes of upper body strength training (supersets with minimal rest in between) and my HRM claims that I burned 1050 calories. Yes, I worked my *kitten* off, but this seems high to me.

AnaVerasGettingFit

I don't know what your size is or what fitness level you're at, but both of those things seem to play a role (the bodies of people who are larger or have more muscle burn more calories, even at rest) - so I believe your HRM!