Can a heart rate monitor actually be accurate for everyone?

SuperSexyDork

I'm curious as to whether heart rate monitors actually calculate calories burned correctly for everyone.

I ask this because I have a few issues. My resting heart rate is abnormally low (falls below 30 when I sleep). I also have an irregular heart beat due to a heart rhythm disorder that causes my heart to by "ticklish" as the cardiologist says. Basically, it's hyper-reactive. It speeds up and slows down too quickly. Thus, it skips beats and pauses.

I am on no medication to correct it currently as the cardiologist said that the side effects would be much worse than my symptoms. However, it will probably worsen as I get older and I have been told I will most likely end up with a pace maker.

I just want to know, is it worth it for me to invest in a heart rate monitor for exercise or will it likely be inaccurate given my condition?

Capt_Apollo

I'm curious as to whether heart rate monitors actually calculate calories burned correctly for everyone.

I ask this because I have a few issues. My resting heart rate is abnormally low (falls below 30 when I sleep). I also have an irregular heart beat due to a heart rhythm disorder that causes my heart to by "ticklish" as the cardiologist says. Basically, it's hyper-reactive. It speeds up and slows down too quickly. Thus, it skips beats and pauses.

I am on no medication to correct it currently as the cardiologist said that the side effects would be much worse than my symptoms. However, it will probably worsen as I get older and I have been told I will most likely end up with a pace maker.

I just want to know, is it worth it for me to invest in a heart rate monitor for exercise or will it likely be inaccurate given my condition?

a HRM is probably the second most important thing you need to help you lose weight, right after a food scale.

i'd ask your cardiologist this kind of question.

when you sleep, your heart performs at minimum. while 30 sounds really low, as long as your doctor says its fine, you're fine.

marcoscu

I agree with the Captain - be advised by your cardiologist in this.

SuperSexyDork

I'm curious as to whether heart rate monitors actually calculate calories burned correctly for everyone.

I ask this because I have a few issues. My resting heart rate is abnormally low (falls below 30 when I sleep). I also have an irregular heart beat due to a heart rhythm disorder that causes my heart to by "ticklish" as the cardiologist says. Basically, it's hyper-reactive. It speeds up and slows down too quickly. Thus, it skips beats and pauses.

I am on no medication to correct it currently as the cardiologist said that the side effects would be much worse than my symptoms. However, it will probably worsen as I get older and I have been told I will most likely end up with a pace maker.

I just want to know, is it worth it for me to invest in a heart rate monitor for exercise or will it likely be inaccurate given my condition?

a HRM is probably the second most important thing you need to help you lose weight, right after a food scale.

i'd ask your cardiologist this kind of question.

when you sleep, your heart performs at minimum. while 30 sounds really low, as long as your doctor says its fine, you're fine.

You're right, I should probably ask a cardiologist, however I've moved since I saw him last and now live 13 hours away. I really don't have a desire to track down a cardiologist here. I'm not having any issues with my heart currently... No changes have occurred with my condition.

That's why I'm seeking my answer here rather than with him.

SuperSexyDork

Anyone with any answers wandering around MFP today?

Capt_Apollo

I'm curious as to whether heart rate monitors actually calculate calories burned correctly for everyone.

I ask this because I have a few issues. My resting heart rate is abnormally low (falls below 30 when I sleep). I also have an irregular heart beat due to a heart rhythm disorder that causes my heart to by "ticklish" as the cardiologist says. Basically, it's hyper-reactive. It speeds up and slows down too quickly. Thus, it skips beats and pauses.

I am on no medication to correct it currently as the cardiologist said that the side effects would be much worse than my symptoms. However, it will probably worsen as I get older and I have been told I will most likely end up with a pace maker.

I just want to know, is it worth it for me to invest in a heart rate monitor for exercise or will it likely be inaccurate given my condition?

a HRM is probably the second most important thing you need to help you lose weight, right after a food scale.

i'd ask your cardiologist this kind of question.

when you sleep, your heart performs at minimum. while 30 sounds really low, as long as your doctor says its fine, you're fine.

You're right, I should probably ask a cardiologist, however I've moved since I saw him last and now live 13 hours away. I really don't have a desire to track down a cardiologist here. I'm not having any issues with my heart currently... No changes have occurred with my condition.

That's why I'm seeking my answer here rather than with him.

you should try and find a cardiologist sooner, rather than later. i know you don't have problems at the moment, but you don't want to be scrambling for one during an emergency, right??

and i wouldn't take anyone's advice other that the MD's. no one here is a doctor, and even if they were, getting a diagnoses over the internet, well, thats just silly. getting general diet and exercise advice from us is one thing, but this is something entirely.

but a middle of the line HRM is only like, $60-80. get one.

SuperSexyDork

I'm curious as to whether heart rate monitors actually calculate calories burned correctly for everyone.

I ask this because I have a few issues. My resting heart rate is abnormally low (falls below 30 when I sleep). I also have an irregular heart beat due to a heart rhythm disorder that causes my heart to by "ticklish" as the cardiologist says. Basically, it's hyper-reactive. It speeds up and slows down too quickly. Thus, it skips beats and pauses.

I am on no medication to correct it currently as the cardiologist said that the side effects would be much worse than my symptoms. However, it will probably worsen as I get older and I have been told I will most likely end up with a pace maker.

I just want to know, is it worth it for me to invest in a heart rate monitor for exercise or will it likely be inaccurate given my condition?

a HRM is probably the second most important thing you need to help you lose weight, right after a food scale.

i'd ask your cardiologist this kind of question.

when you sleep, your heart performs at minimum. while 30 sounds really low, as long as your doctor says its fine, you're fine.

You're right, I should probably ask a cardiologist, however I've moved since I saw him last and now live 13 hours away. I really don't have a desire to track down a cardiologist here. I'm not having any issues with my heart currently... No changes have occurred with my condition.

That's why I'm seeking my answer here rather than with him.

you should try and find a cardiologist sooner, rather than later. i know you don't have problems at the moment, but you don't want to be scrambling for one during an emergency, right??

and i wouldn't take anyone's advice other that the MD's. no one here is a doctor, and even if they were, getting a diagnoses over the internet, well, thats just silly. getting general diet and exercise advice from us is one thing, but this is something entirely.

but a middle of the line HRM is only like, $60-80. get one.

I'm not asking to be diagnosed and treated... I just wanted to know if a HRM is accurate for everyone... I thought it was a legitimate question...

CoderGal

Absolutely not. First off hrms only calculate cardio burns period. If you are running up a steep hill, it gets less accurate. It is not good with resistance/strength training or resting calorie burns

There are different equations that should be used for women and men.

Some of the polar and probably other hrms can be...i cant remember the exact number....somewhere in the 20s or 30 percent range inaccurate for calculating female calorie burns (I believe polar is trying or has already fixed this in their newer models). Cant remeber the males number at all but it was a lot less which is good.

Some watches would be better then others for you due to your heart problems (my is unusually high). Try googling and reading about vo2max and you should get lots of hrm cal informatuon. You want a watch where it knows your resting and max heart rates.

omma_to_3

I would suspect an HRM would be less accurate for you, but they're not perfectly accurate for anyone. It's probably still accurate enough for you, and would still likely be better than online estimates.

If I were you, I might invest in one that does a fitness test, rather than a base model. It might help give you more accuracy.

omma_to_3

If you are running up a steep hill, it gets less accurate.

Curious why you say this. Running uphill really taxes your cardiovascular system so not sure why that would make an HRM less accurate.

CoderGal

If you are running up a steep hill, it gets less accurate.

Curious why you say this. Running uphill really taxes your cardiovascular system so not sure why that would make an HRM less accurate.

Damn I was hoping nobody would ask lol. Im on a cell phone right now. When I can get next to a computer sometine I will take the time to find a link or two on it. You are absolutely right that it is more taxing though. Basically it boils down to the environment the equations these watches are based on is cardio. They do not know if you are moving all your limbs, if it is warm, if you are resting, ifyou are lifting, if you are doing resistance, etc. It assumes your running or cycling (apparently this is a similar activity). I've had long rants with a few engineers about it. Not that engineers are relevent in this case but one was a mechanical really into math person who was a long distance runner and cycler and always did graphs on his power output based on his hrm who knew all about the equations it used before he got it. I consider him full of common sense as well. There are also some people I have talked to on here and infornation online

BrianSharpe

HRMs (non-gps) calculate your calories based on the data you enter and heart rate / time. The calculations are based on statistical models. Statistical models are based on samples and are/should be valid (at least close) when applied to populations but not necessarily individuals.

GPS HRMs will tend to be more accurate when running / cycling are involved as they measure your velocity too.

jayliospecky

As others have said, none of these gadgets are 100% accurate. For some people, and with certain models, they can be more accurate than others. In your case I would think they would be less accurate than for the aIverage person. However, if you did get a model that allowed you to input more data, like your max and min heart rates, that would make it more accurate. And if you did use it for awhile you would be able to see the changes.

Plus, even if the calorie burn wasn't accurate, it is still helpful to track improvement in your cardiovascular system. If you do the same exercise for the same length of time at the same intensity level, you should see an improvement in your heart rate over time, (both the heart rate during exercise and the amount of time for it to go back to normal following the activity.) Personally I've really been enjoying that side of using my HRM, as I can actually SEE evidence that my heart is getting stronger and healthier.

For the record, I would still keep in touch with a cardiologist if I were you, or at least your regular doctor, if you are changing your exercise habits. It doesn't hurt to be extra cautious. :flowerforyou:

BerryH

If, with your cardiologists say-so, you decide to use an HRM for tracking exercise calories, make sure it's a sufficiently sophisticated one that takes your resting and maximum heart rates into consideration. The burn is calculated on where your exercise HR fall in the range between these, as well as your sex, age and weight.

They work better during steady cardio than, say, HIIT, won't transmit accurately in water, and give an inaccurate reading for weight training due to HR spikes.

If you want to read more I recommend Heart Rate Training for the Compleat Idiot. Yes, spelled like that.

therealangd

I'm hyperthyroid and have heart beat issues as well.

Obviously this is just anecdotal, but I have found that HRM's don't work well for me. HRM's always tell me that I've burned ridiculous amounts of calories, that I know just isn't possible. I've tried three different ones.

patchesgizmo

I'm curious as to whether heart rate monitors actually calculate calories burned correctly for everyone.

I ask this because I have a few issues. My resting heart rate is abnormally low (falls below 30 when I sleep). I also have an irregular heart beat due to a heart rhythm disorder that causes my heart to by "ticklish" as the cardiologist says. Basically, it's hyper-reactive. It speeds up and slows down too quickly. Thus, it skips beats and pauses.

I am on no medication to correct it currently as the cardiologist said that the side effects would be much worse than my symptoms. However, it will probably worsen as I get older and I have been told I will most likely end up with a pace maker.

I just want to know, is it worth it for me to invest in a heart rate monitor for exercise or will it likely be inaccurate given my condition?

I am glad you are being monitored by a cardiologist. Losing weight will help your help. I know myself that I am taking a medication that slows my heart rate down and the monitor I have records my calories burned much much lower then what is listed on MFP. When using my monitor for a slow walk mfp says I should burn 159 calories my monitor says I burn about 60 for the same 20 minutes or so.

neverstray

HRMs provide estimates. Calories eaten are estimates. Your scale is an estimate. It's all just general estimates. Nothing is really very accurate at all. That's why it cracks me up when people get on a scale and it's a few lbs different then their scale at home. Lol. Your HRM is close enough for your needs and will give you an estimate. If you use the same one all the time, the readings will be relative and therefore perfectly accurate for you.

SuperSexyDork

I'm curious as to whether heart rate monitors actually calculate calories burned correctly for everyone.

I ask this because I have a few issues. My resting heart rate is abnormally low (falls below 30 when I sleep). I also have an irregular heart beat due to a heart rhythm disorder that causes my heart to by "ticklish" as the cardiologist says. Basically, it's hyper-reactive. It speeds up and slows down too quickly. Thus, it skips beats and pauses.

I am on no medication to correct it currently as the cardiologist said that the side effects would be much worse than my symptoms. However, it will probably worsen as I get older and I have been told I will most likely end up with a pace maker.

I just want to know, is it worth it for me to invest in a heart rate monitor for exercise or will it likely be inaccurate given my condition?

I am glad you are being monitored by a cardiologist. Losing weight will help your help. I know myself that I am taking a medication that slows my heart rate down and the monitor I have records my calories burned much much lower then what is listed on MFP. When using my monitor for a slow walk mfp says I should burn 159 calories my monitor says I burn about 60 for the same 20 minutes or so.

Losing weight will not actually help. He says that my heart is in excellent condition otherwise and that it's really an athlete's heart.

omma_to_3

If you are running up a steep hill, it gets less accurate.

Curious why you say this. Running uphill really taxes your cardiovascular system so not sure why that would make an HRM less accurate.

Damn I was hoping nobody would ask lol. Im on a cell phone right now. When I can get next to a computer sometine I will take the time to find a link or two on it. You are absolutely right that it is more taxing though. Basically it boils down to the environment the equations these watches are based on is cardio. They do not know if you are moving all your limbs, if it is warm, if you are resting, ifyou are lifting, if you are doing resistance, etc. It assumes your running or cycling (apparently this is a similar activity). I've had long rants with a few engineers about it. Not that engineers are relevent in this case but one was a mechanical really into math person who was a long distance runner and cycler and always did graphs on his power output based on his hrm who knew all about the equations it used before he got it. I consider him full of common sense as well. There are also some people I have talked to on here and infornation online

But how is running uphill not cardio?

jillica

I know nothing about your unique situations, but..

A HRM would be more accurate than any website or calorie counter on a machine.

CoderGal

If you are running up a steep hill, it gets less accurate.

Curious why you say this. Running uphill really taxes your cardiovascular system so not sure why that would make an HRM less accurate.

Damn I was hoping nobody would ask lol. Im on a cell phone right now. When I can get next to a computer sometine I will take the time to find a link or two on it. You are absolutely right that it is more taxing though. Basically it boils down to the environment the equations these watches are based on is cardio. They do not know if you are moving all your limbs, if it is warm, if you are resting, ifyou are lifting, if you are doing resistance, etc. It assumes your running or cycling (apparently this is a similar activity). I've had long rants with a few engineers about it. Not that engineers are relevent in this case but one was a mechanical really into math person who was a long distance runner and cycler and always did graphs on his power output based on his hrm who knew all about the equations it used before he got it. I consider him full of common sense as well. There are also some people I have talked to on here and infornation online

But how is running uphill not cardio?

I didn't say it was not cardio? But it's also some other things. You can run down a field while lifting weights and eating sausages too. Just because you're running doesn't make it accurate. That's another thing, down slopes are going to affect things just like up slopes would. I'm not sure how large the inaccuracy is, maybe minimal, but it exists.

ronadams52

Some of this has already been covered but I thought I would add this info anyway.

They are usually more accurate than a machines method but still not 100% correct (most have a 5 - 6% deviation). Why you may ask, because the most common formula encountered, with no indication of standard deviation, is: HRmax = 220 – age. The formula has been attributed to various sources, but is widely thought to have been devised in 1970 by Dr. William Haskell and Dr. Samuel Fox.

Inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations. It gained widespread use through being used by Polar Electro in its heart rate monitors, which Dr. Haskell has "laughed about", as it "was never supposed to be an absolute guide to rule people's training."

Despite the widespread publication of this formula, research spanning two decades reveals its large inherent error (which does not allow for deviations). Consequently, the estimation calculated by HRmax = 220 − age has neither the accuracy nor the scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields.

A 2002 study of 43 different formulae for HRmax (including the one above) concluded the following:
1. No "acceptable" formula currently existed, (they used the term "acceptable" to mean acceptable for both prediction of VO2, and prescription of exercise training HR ranges)
2. The formula deemed least objectionable was:
HRmax = 205.8 − (0.685 × age)

This was found to have a standard deviation that, although large (6.4 bpm), was still considered to be acceptable for the use of prescribing exercise training HR ranges.

The 2010 research conducted at Northwestern University revised the maximum heart rate formula for women. According to Martha Gulati, et al., it is:
HRmax = 206 − (0.88 × age)

I have also seen quite a few comments about the different types of HRM's and their potential limitations. Perhaps this overveiw of Polaris models may help for your considerations.

Polar AXN Series

For extreme sports in rough or mountainous terrain look at the Polar AXN 300, AXN 500 and AXN 700 models which have specialized features well beyond calculating average heart rate. Depending on the model, the AXN Polar heart rate monitor watches include features like an altimeter, barometer, compass and vertical speed measurement.

Polar S Series

The Polar S series (model numbers S725X, S720i and S625X) is designed with performance cyclists and runners in mind though there is also a specialist range just for runners too with the RS running computer series and for cyclists with the CS cycling computer series.

And then there is also the S150 designed for triathletes and the S120 for recreational runners.

Polar Innovation

Polar really is something special in the heart rate monitor field largely due to continuous innovation. They add new features to their product range faster than any other manufacturer forcing the others to follow suit if they want to maintain any kind of market share.

You can download software from the Polar website which works with your Polar monitor to help you build up your fitness and keep track of progress. They have manuals online for all their products too

Polar Heart Monitors for Women?

Apart from the Polar F4 heart rate monitor (and recently the F6F) specifically designed with the smaller feminine wrist in mind all of the Polar hrm range is designed for both men and women. You will find that women are catered for with more feminine colors and designs in the more popular models - for example even the standard F6 model comes in coral pink and ice blue as well as the more masculine black colorway.

Polar have however brought out a “heart bra” which is a comfortable sports bra designed especially to wear with a Polar heart rate monitor strap. So even here they are innovative.

Polar Strapless Heart Rate Monitors

Despite the appeal of strapless Heart Rate Monitors, there are currently no such heart rate monitors in the Polar range. This is probably due to the fact that strapless models are simply not effective for the kinds of sophisticated functionality Polar is looking to offer. (To use a strapless heart rate monitor you need to stop exercising and place you fingers on the the wrist monitor - this means continuous heart rate monitoring is not possible).

CoderGal

Alright I'm kinda to lazy to do this but look at it this way? Why do they include accelerometers with some heart rate monitors now? It's to improve accuracy. I'm not saying it's completely and utterly inaccurate, I'm saying it's less accurate. But probably more accurate then the other alternatives still.

Notice if you read the below it goes on how they include accellerometers and inclinometers to capture things that can account for 85% of nonexercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). It also goes on to say why the polar watch doesn't estimate female calorie burns well for those interested in why I said some of the other things I mentioned.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfje/5700/PolarWatch-study-MSSE.pdf

Plus, ever walk up a steep hill slowly? I can walk up a steep hill at a crawl pace and my heart rate can go to max. I severely doubt I'm burning as much as me running full out.

DavPul

[
But how is running uphill not cardio?

I don't think she was saying running uphill wasn't cardio. She was saying that HRM's don't provide accurate numbers when hill climbs are in the mix. Without getting too technical, the basic deal is that HRM's don't calculate well when the load changes. So running uphill or downhill will throw it off. Way off. For basically the same reasons that HRMs don't calculate strength training sessions well. There's also a difference if you sitting on a bike or supporting your own weight while running.

Bottom line, they may accurately reflect your heart rate, but they can easily be 25% on actual calories burned. Even on the same person, they will be more accurate for some activities than others. There's a reason they don't call them CBMs (Calories Burned Monitors)

But....it's probably close enough. Just like the numbers MFP, or the machines, or some other online site are close enough. Like the poster with the hilarious "I thought they said rum" avatar said, these are all estimates, but you're more than close enough to get the benefits that you're seeking. None of us needs to be accurate to the last .005 of a calorie to lose weight.

CoderGal

[
But how is running uphill not cardio?

I don't think she was saying running uphill wasn't cardio. She was saying that HRM's don't provide accurate numbers when hill climbs are in the mix. Without getting too technical, the basic deal is that HRM's don't calculate well when the load changes. So running uphill or downhill will throw it off. Way off. For basically the same reasons that HRMs don't calculate strength training sessions well. There's also a difference if you sitting on a bike or supporting your own weight while running.

Bottom line, they may accurately reflect your heart rate, but they can easily be 25% on actual calories burned. Even on the same person, they will be more accurate for some activities than others. There's a reason they don't call them CBMs (Calories Burned Monitors)

But....it's probably close enough. Just like the numbers MFP, or the machines, or some other online site are close enough. Like the poster with the hilarious "I thought they said rum" avatar said, these are all estimates, but you're more than close enough to get the benefits that you're seeking. None of us needs to be accurate to the last .005 of a calorie to lose weight.

Exactly this.

ronadams52

Well said. I think we all know that even our nutrition is just an estimate of what we are actually eating. Not many people I know of actually measure out every item for every serving in the day. I bought chicken breasts the other day and out of curiosity measured them. While the package said they average 3 ounces they ranged from that to almost 5 ounces. I normally would have just entered 3 ounces for all of them as they were consumed. So as mentioned all of this is nothing more than a close estimate to what we are really doing. If we find we are not getting the results we want than perhaps we need to recalculate what we are eating or how effective our exercising actually is.

Fit4lifestlouisbethpennington

Correct, a heart rate monitor can not be completely accurate for everyone. However, if you get a Metabolic Assessment, then you can utilize the heart rate monitor to make it accurate to YOU. You can find a testing location near you by visiting www.newleaffitness.com

mcarter99

HRMs provide estimates. Calories eaten are estimates. Your scale is an estimate. It's all just general estimates. Nothing is really very accurate at all. That's why it cracks me up when people get on a scale and it's a few lbs different then their scale at home. Lol. Your HRM is close enough for your needs and will give you an estimate. If you use the same one all the time, the readings will be relative and therefore perfectly accurate for you.

I agree. As long as your device is internally consistent (it always over/underestimates your burn by roughly the same % off), it gives you all you need to know. And it should be internally consistent. If you track everything mercilessly for a month and find you're not losing/gaining what you predict, you can back into an estimate of how much your HRM is 'off' for you, and react accordingly.

You can also tweak your inputs to it to get it to change your BMR assumptions. If it has you burning too high, tell it you're older and smaller than you are. They use the same formulas this site and other BMR estimators do. Then they take your observed HR and multiply it by a factor to estimate your calorie burn during activities.

Azdak

I love how you can get 30 or 40 answers and maybe only one or two addresses your actual question.....makes me wonder if they even read your post.

Anyhow, I suspect an HRM will not be all that effective for estimating calories. It might be interesting to monitor your HR and collect data that might be useful for whatever medical practitioner you end up working with.

As others have stated, HRM calorie estimating equations are based on specfic assumptions about what type of activity you are performing at the time, and they also depend on a relatively "normal" HR response to exercise. If your heart rate is as labile as you describe, or if you experience frequent arrhythmias, that will affect the calorie estimates -- which are only average to begin with. If calorie estimates are what you want, I wouldn't recommend spending the money on an HRM, but, like I said, you might find it useful to monitor your HR response.