HR Monitor Reality Check

T0nie2

I just got a HR monitor and boy was the treadmill off as far as accurate calories go! I usually run on the treadmill for 20 mins and it says I burn around 230 calories but when I used my HR monitor it said 95 calories!

That is SUCH a huge difference that I am wondering if both devices may be off...? The HR Monitor I bought was on the cheap end so could it possibly be way off? It is the watch kind, not the chest strap.

Any helpful tips would be greatly appreciated.

I just want to know how many cookies I can eat at the end of the day!! haha

strawberry1969

i have the watch device as well and have the same problem so would be interested to know what others think

Darlingir

running without stopping for 20 min? sounds like the HRM is incorrect IMO

breezymom81

That HRM is way off most likly- probably some where in between. Try getting an HRM with the strap- much more accurate! The strp is not uncomfortable at all(that was my worry). I have a Polar FT7 love it :smooched:

ladybug1620

They're both probably off. You need one with a chest strap for better accuracy.

kellybean14

HRMs can be inaccurate - what kind did you get? If you're running at a pretty solid pace (and can't easily hold a conversation at the same time), chances are you're burning close to 10 calories a minute. 90 calories for 20 minutes of running seems especially low.

mrsjenfrank

I have a Polar FT7 and love it. It has the chest strap, which I'd recommend anyone who is buying a HRM to make sure it has one. To me, they seem to be the most accurate.

hbrittingham

I don't know how fast you are running or your gender, age or weight, but when I run at 5.3 mph for 20 minutes, my HRM says I burn right around 200 calories. 95 calories sounds pretty low to me. I have a Polar FT7 with a chest strap. I am a female, 45 years old and weigh 158.

dad106

This is going to sound rude of me, but this is what you get for buying a cheap one without a chest strap.

Watch only HRM's take your heart rate only when you touch it.. so if you touch it once and get a heart rate of lets say 80, it will keep using that 80 for a calorie count until you touch it again.

If you can, return it and get a Polar.. You'll be much happier.

tbellamy1

Hmmmmm it sounds like your HRM maybe wrong....Does it have a chest strap? What kind do you have? I have a polar ft4 and I love it

Jennloella

the watch ones are about as useless as the pulse monitor on the treadmill handlebar...... get a good one!!

twisted88

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

Azdak has a wonderful blog about HRMs (listed above) if you want more details about the accuracy of them and picking one. I ended up getting a Polar FT40 because of his blog (eventually I will get a Garmin, but I don't need all the gizmos at the moment, nor do I have that sort of money at hand currently).

T0nie2

Thanks guys!

I talked to one of the gals at my gym this morning who uses one and she talked me through troubleshooting ideas. I think I didn't have my personal setting correct so I'm going to try once more tomorrow. If I still can't figure it out I think i'm going to return it and buy a more expensive one.

I am around 165 lbs, 5'6 26 year old female and I was running 15 mins straight with a 5 min walk for harm up in the beginning so I KNOW i was burning way more than it was reading.

Any good brands besides Polar? I want to look into options if I buy another one. I will check out that blog too!

rmk20togo

My running coach says to expect to burn 100-125 calories per mile running. I use a Garmin for running and a HRM for other exercise. I find the 100-125 per mile estimate very accurate when compared with the Garmin and HRM.