Need help with my new HRM!!

najla56

Hi,
So I bought my first ever hrm yesterday, and went gym wearing it today. (today is my cardio day)But the calories burned shown in the hrm is far more than what the machines at the gym shows and what i used to log in! on a usual cardio day, after the morning 1.5 hr gym session and the afternoon 30DS and the 20 min walk in between, i burn around 700 cal, but today, even without the 30DS, the hrm says i have burned 819 cal. could this be true? or am i doing something wrong with my hrm?

the hrm i bought is kalenji cw-300
age-23
female
height-165cm/5'5"
weight-65.5 kg/144 lbs
target heart rate zone-131 to 157
average heart rate during exercise- 120
resting heart rate-64 bpm

any help will be really appreciated, thanks!

najla56

nobody?:(

isaacs06

the only thing i see that is different from my thinking is your target zone seems low for your age. but i dont think that would add calories to your burn lol. i was told to subtract my age from 220 to get my target hr.

erickirb

the only thing i see that is different from my thinking is your target zone seems low for your age. but i dont think that would add calories to your burn lol. i was told to subtract my age from 220 to get my target hr.

That calculation is for your maximum, not target HR.

That being said OP, your HR seems really low for a workout only 120?.

Try putting your info into the following sites to double check what you HRM says:
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm (but put in 35 for the V02 Max, 0 is the same as setting it in the 60 range)
http://www.gersic.com/calories/index.php?daAge=32&daRHR=52&daAHR=148&daMinutes=27&daSeconds=0&Submit=Submit&action=1

JMac0415

Both machines and MFP drastically underestimate your burn - I know I was alarmed by how much higher my burn was when I got my HRM, but it is the most accurate reading. Just enjoy feeling like a beast when you're done with your workout and see how much you actually burned vs. an estimate that's based on only a few pieces of information!

iKristine

Well, :frown:

That's odd, I would say the machines are overestimating. They are notorious for this. It helps them to sell machines by being high.

But the HRM says you burned more than that?

I would try this. Use the HRM only when doing high aerobics. Like karate, elliptical, running (not walking, ill explain why), boxing etc.

Not while using weights.

Walking caclulations are pretty accurate. Just time and speed, usually people mess up the later part. I would suggest using an app that tracks distance and time together. Like Edomondo. Or you could use google maps to figure the distance then just record the time.

Either way with both time and distance the calculators here are good enough. But HRM don't really work for weights. HRM are really limited in their uses.

Might I suggest a bodybugg... they do all the above really good.

erickirb

Both machines and MFP drastically underestimate your burn - I know I was alarmed by how much higher my burn was when I got my HRM, but it is the most accurate reading. Just enjoy feeling like a beast when you're done with your workout and see how much you actually burned vs. an estimate that's based on only a few pieces of information!

Most people find it the exact opposite (HRM and machines typically overestimate 10-50%) This also depends on the HRM Polar and Garmin tend to be the more accurate models.

The_Jurgen

HRM, if configured correctly are more accurate than the machines. Because heart rate correlates with oxygen burn which correlates with calorie burn. There are direct relationships between them. I have the opposite problem, the machine says I burned more. The machine is using a formula that only factors in age/weight + speed of machine. It doesn't factor in your actual aerobic fitness level (e.g. VO2 max), which your HRM does naturally. So the more in shape you are, the less calories you're going to burn for the same level of effort (bummer). That's good news though for people who are just starting out.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/305560-the-accuracy-of-heart-rate-monitors-for-calories/

I agree your zones look low - you might want to research that and adjust based on your fitness goals. With an avg heart rate of 120, you're not getting much of a cardio workout.

Gt3ch

HRMs simply aren’t accurate for counting calorie expenditure. A HRM has absolutely no idea the work your muscles are doing (energy is defined as the ability to do work). It guestimates that based on your pulse and factors like your size and profiles of “average” users or users with similar fitness levels. I don’t know why HRMs tend to be generous with calories expenditure- they just do. It’s probably to make people like the HRM’s more.

let’s say last month I go on an elliptical or exercise bike for 30 mins at a specific rpm and resistance. Now today I do the exact same workout but I’m more acclimated to it so I’m not breathing as heavy and my pulse is less. Did I burn less calories? (Of course not)

Lets say tomorrow I have a few shots of espresso before working out so the pulse runs higher the whole time. Was the workout more intense? (of course not)

What about when the belt is a little loose but the HRM isn’t warning you about erratic or dropped measurements?

The calorie number from a HRM is good only as a general “intensity score” and should always be taken with a grain of salt.

HWeatherholt

Did you set up the HRM with your sex, age, weight, height, etc.?

I bought one on Saturday morning. Played with it for a bit, got it all set up (had to look online for a more detailed users manual), and then wore it around the house for a bit, just out of curosity. Then hit the gym with a gf and found that mine came up with about 15 - 30 calories less than what the ArcTrainer and Treadmill said - despite setting up those with my weight and letting them monitor my heart rate (which was always within about a bpm of what the hrm said.

MonkeyBars

Hi,

counting calories is fun, but there are many factors to consider against what algorithm is used. Quality of data, fitness of individual, metabolism, hydration, how many times you've exercised that day, what calculations are employed (partial or full data) etc...

My urge is to point you (as others have) to another website:-
http://www.livestrong.com/article/78365-estimate-calories-burned-heart-rate/

Another option is to swap with a friend's different branded HR monitor and see if you're both getting different results to what you'd expect!

The other option is, just choose the lowest, and follow the mirror test!
Jump up and down, if you're not happy with the view, eat less bad things, eat only good things and enjoy your exercise!

Lifestyle rules over diets and fads

Please give us some feed back on how you get on!

cheers

captainlindarg

What brand is your HRM? I bought a Timex and it did the same thing for me. Said I burned 350 calories doing 30DS while MFP gives me ~200. I looked up reviews for the model and many other users had the same complaints. You could try reading the manual and tweaking the settings. I ended up returning mine and buying a different brand -- New Balance N4, and it seems to be pretty accurate.

HWeatherholt

Somewhere, in the forums, I posted on this Saturday night, and got quite a few replys I will see if I can find it, and send you a link.

HWeatherholt

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/503774-accurate-excersise-calorie-counts

erickirb

HRMs simply aren’t accurate for counting calorie expenditure. A HRM has absolutely no idea the work your muscles are doing (energy is defined as the ability to do work). It guestimates that based on your pulse and factors like your size and profiles of “average” users or users with similar fitness levels. I don’t know why HRMs tend to be generous with calories expenditure- they just do. It’s probably to make people like the HRM’s more.

let’s say last month I go on an elliptical or exercise bike for 30 mins at a specific rpm and resistance. Now today I do the exact same workout but I’m more acclimated to it so I’m not breathing as heavy and my pulse is less. Did I burn less calories? (Of course not)

Lets say tomorrow I have a few shots of espresso before working out so the pulse runs higher the whole time. Was the workout more intense? (of course not)

What about when the belt is a little loose but the HRM isn’t warning you about erratic or dropped measurements?

The calorie number from a HRM is good only as a general “intensity score” and should always be taken with a grain of salt.

HRMs use HR to estimate intensity, the more intense the more oxygen uptake the more cals burned. But like you said if your HR is elevated due to other reason or you have a higher max HR then the HRM thinks you do the more likely it would be to over estimate your burn.

In general they are still the best tool available to most people to estimate caloric burn.

Jillk1023

bump..

clintbritt3

9I have a New Balance HRM and I love it, I was totally underestimating my calories burned because of what other log in on MFP. As and example when I go the the gym and do 30 mins of the elliptical and then a round of weights I will burn almost 500 calories, then when I go home and make dinner, clean up, and get ids into bed (usually a 2+hour routine) by the end of the night my calories are up to like over 800 or 900.... so don't rely on machines or what other people say they burn.... your body is going to burn very differently. This is a device taking YOUR ACTUAL heart rate, I would say that's going to be most accurate.

mommyb923

Both machines and MFP drastically underestimate your burn - I know I was alarmed by how much higher my burn was when I got my HRM, but it is the most accurate reading. Just enjoy feeling like a beast when you're done with your workout and see how much you actually burned vs. an estimate that's based on only a few pieces of information!

Most people find it the exact opposite (HRM and machines typically overestimate 10-50%) This also depends on the HRM Polar and Garmin tend to be the more accurate models.

I agree. I use the average HR given by my HRM and use the following to calculate my calories burned:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/78365-estimate-calories-burned-heart-rate/

(I see someone else posted this as well.) By keepting track of this I know that my HRM overestimates my calorie burn by ~30%. But at least I know that going in! So I would do some research before you believe everything your HRM tells you. I love mine to keep an eye on my HR and get into my target zone, time my workouts and my time "In Zone", and my average HR.

BellydanceBliss

i got a sportline duo with chest strap i love it and i feel it is accurate. I must be doing something right because I keep losing lol

TinkrBelz

My HRM requires:

Age
Weight
VO2Max
Max HR (it sets this on its own since I add in my age)

I have had a hard time finding my correct VO2Max. Since I have little kids, I can not just go the the track and run a mile. I did one step test and it came up with a VO2Max of 51. I am in good shape, but that did seem high.

So, I found another step test, it required double steps (44 instead of 22) and then that calculated 40. I think this is more accurate.

Does your HRM require you to enter a VO2Max?

Gt3ch

HRMs simply aren’t accurate for counting calorie expenditure. A HRM has absolutely no idea the work your muscles are doing (energy is defined as the ability to do work). It guestimates that based on your pulse and factors like your size and profiles of “average” users or users with similar fitness levels. I don’t know why HRMs tend to be generous with calories expenditure- they just do. It’s probably to make people like the HRM’s more.

let’s say last month I go on an elliptical or exercise bike for 30 mins at a specific rpm and resistance. Now today I do the exact same workout but I’m more acclimated to it so I’m not breathing as heavy and my pulse is less. Did I burn less calories? (Of course not)

Lets say tomorrow I have a few shots of espresso before working out so the pulse runs higher the whole time. Was the workout more intense? (of course not)

What about when the belt is a little loose but the HRM isn’t warning you about erratic or dropped measurements?

The calorie number from a HRM is good only as a general “intensity score” and should always be taken with a grain of salt.

HRMs use HR to estimate intensity, the more intense the more oxygen uptake the more cals burned. But like you said if your HR is elevated due to other reason or you have a higher max HR then the HRM thinks you do the more likely it would be to over estimate your burn.

In general they are still the best tool available to most people to estimate caloric burn.

Actually it's guestimating oxygen uptake as well. In the first exercise bike example The amount of calories it takes to turn the wheel is trivial to calculate on the machine. That's the real energy output of the muscles (more or less). Are you metabolically more complex- perhaps. But think about the idea of acclimatization. The pulse could be less one month later because I have more red blood cells so the whole cardiovascular system is more efficient. The heart needs to pump less and I need to breathe less to deliver the same amount of oxygen to the muscles. The HRM has no idea of these changes that are happening to my body. This phenomena is even more obvious/exaggerated if I was doing high altitude training and then I came back to sea level.