Gained weight with HRM calories

TXHunny84

Has anyones else used the calorie burn their HRM (higher number) instead of the calorie burn that MFP(lower number) says and then gained weight instead of lost weight? Could it be because I have a slow thyroid and so my HRM calorie burn is wrong and reading higher than it should?....

Any guesses?...

I have a Polar FT7

Saruman_w

Could be retained water. Have you done measurements as well?

omma_to_3

When I switched from MFP or what the machine said to my FT7, I was burning considerably more calories too (ie FT7 was higher). I have continued losing weight without issue eating that higher number back. I have PCOS and thyroid issues, so unless your HRM seems drastically off (it could be defective I suppose) then I would look for another source of the issue.

81Katz

It's not uncommon at all to gain weight after workouts. You could weight before working out and then weigh after and you could have gained. It's normal. Also any weight from one hour to the next or overnight is almost always just water weight. You have to eat like 3500 calories to gain a POUND. So unless you're eating back 3500 calories immediately after working out, try not to stress too much. (easier said than done sometimes, I know!)

PS, your HRM calorie burn will be far more accurate than the MFP calorie counter. Theirs is way off, my opinion. *edit, with the HRM is it 100% on the money accurate, no. But it's closer than counters on here or on machines. I was using MFP calorie counter when I first started here and sometimes the counter on my treadmill at home. I was surprised when I bought my HRM how off both were. So in the end, I trust my HRM more.

TXHunny84

No I am not doing measurements....not daily at least.

but I mean just walking.... on MFP walking 3mph for 60 minutes says I burn 240 calories,,,,and that seems pretty reasonable....but my HRM says walking 3 mph for 60 minutes burned 554 calories!!! I'm not pouring sweat.... I'm 5'6" 160lbs girl and roughly 28%BF.... so the numbers so seem really off to me. I mean that is a 300 calorie difference!!! Ya know!?...

81Katz

Did you personally enter in your stats into the HRM? It asks for s-x, height/weight/age. Whenever I have lost I always remember to change it, changes up the burns quite a bit if you don't remember to change the stats when necessary. Since hitting goal, though I am a bit below right now, my burns are never as high as they were when I was at my heaviest. I realllllly have to work for it now! LOL

bjfrezell

If you have a chest strap on your HRM, do you wet it before using it? Do you clean it? Also, check your batteries. 554 calories for 60 minutes of walking at 3mph seems a little high?

BabyLove1606

I read in other posts that the hrm is not accurate for low impact activities and that u have to stay in the zone for it to work.

erickirb

Are you just inputting the hrm # into MFP? If so you should back off maintenance cals for the duration. Say your maintenance is 1.5 cals/min in an hour that would be 90 cals that should ne removed as mfp already accounted for them in your daily intake.

shedoos

Are you just inputting the hrm # into MFP? If so you should back off maintenance cals for the duration. Say your maintenance is 1.5 cals/min in an hour that would be 90 cals that should ne removed as mfp already accounted for them in your daily intake.

Yup - this makes a big difference over the course of a week if you're walking every day!! I made up a custom "food" with the calorie count = my calories burned per hour. Makes it easy to just enter the minutes exercised and have it do the math rather than me trying to do it on the go.

omma_to_3

No I am not doing measurements....not daily at least.

but I mean just walking.... on MFP walking 3mph for 60 minutes says I burn 240 calories,,,,and that seems pretty reasonable....but my HRM says walking 3 mph for 60 minutes burned 554 calories!!! I'm not pouring sweat.... I'm 5'6" 160lbs girl and roughly 28%BF.... so the numbers so seem really off to me. I mean that is a 300 calorie difference!!! Ya know!?...

Something does seem off here. Did you enter your weight/height correctly in the HRM? I will burn 100 calories per 10 minutes when I'm REALLY working out. A 60 minute walk at 3 mph would probably only get me 300 to 350 calories and I'm quite a bit heavier than you (and shorter LOL). When I run, I would burn that much. What is your average heart rate for that kind of work out?

omma_to_3

Also, I personally don't subtract my BMR calories during a workout unless the workout is over an hour. And that is pretty rare. 45 to 50 minutes is usually my max workout time.

yarwell

Heart rate monitors can give significant errors if not calibrated for the individual. The errors found in a study http://www.ajcn.org/content/52/1/59.long would put me off buying one unless I could calibrate it with some other reference like O2 measurements. In two cases (women) the HRM was 8% lower than the radioisotope measurement of calories burned.

The average difference for men was 5.3 +/- 20.6% (over reading on average, but wide variability) and for women an average -4% +/- 11.5% (under reading of HRM on average, but again all over the place). The +/- figure is the standard deviation.

TXHunny84

The Polar FT7 is supposed to be a really good HRM and I update my weight if it changes....it lets me set my age, gender, height weight and MHR.... I tells me if I am "in the zone" because I can set it to and YES i clean it after each use...IDK what the deal is....I think the HRM itself is ok...? I guess it is just me....

jadesign19

I've posted this question many times. I still am unsure what is accurate. I notice my HRM calculates 300+\- cal more than MFP. I am now going by MFP when I log my exercise and note on a calander my HRM stats. Whichever one helps my weight loss is the one I use. (I secretly am pulling for the hrm so I can have a snack) . I'll have a better idea in a month or so. I'm hypothyroid so I lose ounces not pounds.