Could my hrm be right....

star31

I bought an hrm the other day and it says that my calorie burn is way higher than what Mfp tells me. It does have a chest band, and I input age, weight, height, and gender. I do a workout Dvd that incorporates walking, resistance band, intervals ect. It is 87 min. Long and I had been entering it as aerobics general. Mfp gave me 771 caps burned but my hrm said 1100 ish. I am 5'6 and 175 #s. Not sure if I should trust the hrm or Mfp. Any advice would be appreciated.

star31

Bump

kgb6days

Mine shows a good bit higher than MFP as well. I sort of average the two and realize that each of them are not absolutes, but a 'guesstamate".

BeantownSooner

Yes absolutely possible. 87 minutes is a long time so if it's at all strenuous activity then certainly could burn that much. It's pretty common to hear intense DVD programs such as P90X and Insanity to have that level of calorie burn. For example, I burned 609 today with an Insanity workout that was about 40 minutes long...and that was not even full throttle as I just started and cannot do the entire thing.

bsharrah

MFP's numbers are huge guesstimations, so much so I would never bother using them. That said, 1100 seems extremely high for the workout your described.

arc918

That sounds really high to me.

It would take you ~ 9 miles of running to burn 1,100 kcals.

auzziecawth66

I would say it seems a little high and maybe to do an average between the two if you're worried, but either way I agree with the other person who said in the end it's just a guesstimate and you can't really know 100% what the actual number a certain individual is burning...

star31

Thanks.

katamus

What brand did you buy? I have a Polar and have heard that there's certain lower end models that are wildly inaccurate.

Also, make sure the chest strap is on properly and that it's wet (not the whole thing, check the manual for instructions) and that it is washed frequently.

And if you've done all that, then it's probably right.

Moriarty_697

I find that, generally, MFP's values are close but not perfect. It's not really the fault of MFP, it's just that there numbers seem to be averages whereas real life is often about being above or below the average.

I tested this out on my cycle commute yesterday. Usually, I just use MFP's values for tracking my commute because I'm not worried about being terribly exact for anything but my actual workouts. Yesterday, for the first time in a long time, I strapped on the HRM for the rides. On the way to work, MFP guessed 323 while my HRM said 239. On the way home, however, MFP guessed 269 but the HRM said 473.

The reason for the gap is simple. My commute to work is pretty much all downhill so it's fast, if short. The high average speed tricks MFP into overestimating my effort. On the slow slog back up the hill, the opposite happens. My speed is slow but my effort is much more intense (big guy + bike + hill = lots of sweat and strain).

So it is possible that the difference is that much but you probably would have had to really push it. If you were just giving an average amount of effort, I'd say get the HRM checked out just in case.

TurningBackTheHandsOfTime

If it's calibrated correctly many people don't calibrate their HRM's before use and that can skew the results, most have input data that includes weight and height and some have age and other information if that is not calibrated correctly it can result in false readings...

TurningBackTheHandsOfTime

I burned 5225 calories today over a six hour period, that averages out to about 870 calories per hour.... so it's not out of the question that you can burn 1,000 an hour.

MelissaGraham7

As above suggestion, I would average the two figures and assume the best figure lies in the middle. I usually use 3 different sources and then average the 3, including my Garmin and this site: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

If I don't have a 3rd site, I use the MFP figure for my third input - take the average and its a number I can live with.

bsharrah

I burned 5225 calories today over a six hour period, that averages out to about 870 calories per hour.... so it's not out of the question that you can burn 1,000 an hour.

Assuming your calorie burn is accurate. What were you doing? Running a marathon?

DavPul

Everyone on MFP needs to have a LOT less trust in their HRMs. They aren't that accurate, and surely aren't as accurate as a lot of people on this site seem to believe.

Put it this way, if they did what people here think the do, the manufacturers would call them Calories Burned Monitors, not Heart Rate Monitors. There is a very, very good reason the legal dept at Polar or Fitbit or whoever don't call them CBMs.

I burned 5225 calories today over a six hour period, that averages out to about 870 calories per hour.... so it's not out of the question that you can burn 1,000 an hour.

Are you 330 pounds and were you being chased by grizzly bears for 6 hours? That's an insanely high burn to be sustained for that long of a period

Azdak

I bought an hrm the other day and it says that my calorie burn is way higher than what Mfp tells me. It does have a chest band, and I input age, weight, height, and gender. I do a workout Dvd that incorporates walking, resistance band, intervals ect. It is 87 min. Long and I had been entering it as aerobics general. Mfp gave me 771 caps burned but my hrm said 1100 ish. I am 5'6 and 175 #s. Not sure if I should trust the hrm or Mfp. Any advice would be appreciated.

It is difficult for any table or database to accurately estimate calories burned during a workout class (as opposed to a single, steady-state activity like walking). However, HRMs have lots of flaws themselves.

In this particular case, MFP is much closer than your HRM numbers, but that doesn't necessarily mean MFP is more accurate. It could be as much coincidence as anything else.

What I do know is that the HRM numbers are way off. Either you have a lesser-quality brand that is not programming with very accurate equations, the HRM is significantly overestimating your fitness level, your actual max HR is significantly higher than the number the HRM calculated for you, or a combination of all three.

Azdak

Everyone on MFP needs to have a LOT less trust in their HRMs. They aren't that accurate, and surely aren't as accurate as a lot of people on this site seem to believe.

Put it this way, if they did what people here think the do, the manufacturers would call them Calories Burned Monitors, not Heart Rate Monitors. There is a very, very good reason the legal dept at Polar or Fitbit or whoever don't call them CBMs.

Well put. And another thing: if you read the manuals that come with the Polar products, there is only the briefest mention that they even HAVE a calorie counting feature.

bsharrah

Everyone on MFP needs to have a LOT less trust in their HRMs. They aren't that accurate, and surely aren't as accurate as a lot of people on this site seem to believe.

Not what people want to hear, but what they need to hear. Great point DavPul. These things can accurately read your heart rate, which isn't that technologically difficult. Everything else is based on mathematical calculations which only provide a guess since everyone's body is different. If you enter your age, weight, resting heat rate, etc., it will provide a "better" guess, but it is still a guess.

......and I agree you can burn 1,000 calories in an hour, but you would need to be doing something very intensive such as continuous running (not a mild jog) for that hour. A DVD program that involves walking and stretch bands isn't likely to burn anywhere near that.

neverstray

Everyone on MFP needs to have a LOT less trust in their HRMs. They aren't that accurate, and surely aren't as accurate as a lot of people on this site seem to believe.

Put it this way, if they did what people here think the do, the manufacturers would call them Calories Burned Monitors, not Heart Rate Monitors. There is a very, very good reason the legal dept at Polar or Fitbit or whoever don't call them CBMs.

I burned 5225 calories today over a six hour period, that averages out to about 870 calories per hour.... so it's not out of the question that you can burn 1,000 an hour.

Are you 330 pounds and were you being chased by grizzly bears for 6 hours? That's an insanely high burn to be sustained for that long of a period

I think the OP was using the HRM for resistance training, which could explain the wild calories burned. HRMs are not designed fr resistance training, only aerobic activity, such as running, not weight lifting. Weight lifting or ny start and stop activity will give false readings.

DavPul

Everyone on MFP needs to have a LOT less trust in their HRMs. They aren't that accurate, and surely aren't as accurate as a lot of people on this site seem to believe.

Put it this way, if they did what people here think the do, the manufacturers would call them Calories Burned Monitors, not Heart Rate Monitors. There is a very, very good reason the legal dept at Polar or Fitbit or whoever don't call them CBMs.

Well put. And another thing: if you read the manuals that come with the Polar products, there is only the briefest mention that they even HAVE a calorie counting feature.

Wow! Terrific point! I never looked at a manual before so I just downloaded the Polar S210. It's 91 pages, and there are only 4 pages that even mention calorie counting. And not 4 pages in a row. 4 pages in 4 different sections. We're talking about a few paragraphs total. They would devote as much space on how to use the thing as a paperweight.

http://education.polarusa.com/manuals/s210.pdf

mcarter99

For a non-obese person, we can't generally burn more than about 10 calories/minute at 'full bore cardio'. So for the OP, 1100 calories for 87 minutes for a walking/strength video sounds too high.

tryinghard71

HRM is more accurate but you need to minus from it what you would normally burn if you were doing nothing. Someone on here once told me to minus 15 or 20% and enter that as my calorie burn. That would give you around 880 calorie burn. Which is probably more realistic than the MFP. I don't get anti HRM comments either. I researched and researched before I spent the money on one. They are going to be more accurate than any online calculator. Good Luck!!

TurningBackTheHandsOfTime

I burned 5225 calories today over a six hour period, that averages out to about 870 calories per hour.... so it's not out of the question that you can burn 1,000 an hour.

Assuming your calorie burn is accurate. What were you doing? Running a marathon?

TurningBackTheHandsOfTime

I was actually covering a local event on foot in 90 degree heat and had quite a bit of gear, as far as I know my HRM is accurate and I have calibrated it, you have to remember that this is over an extended period of time so if you break it down into hour long chunks it's a more reasonable a number.... I do P90X and I can burn over 1,000 calories in one session which is usually an hour. I think the added element of heat and stress can increase these numbers. I have had similar results when doing things like manual labor around the yard that required both strength and stamina, I think the lesson is it's not just traditional exercise that can burn calories but also just being active can help you reach your goals.... the next time you have yard work to do, strap on the HRM and see for yourself!

bsharrah

As was stated above, they are designed to be used during strenuous cardio activity, and when done so, can give a general idea of your calorie burn, but don't rely too heavily on it. If you wear it over the course of the day, over long periods of time, during strength training routines, or doing yard work, they become extremely inaccurate. Many things can increase your heart rate other than physical activity but that does not mean you are burning additional calories as a result of the high heart rate. For this reason, they need to be used during short, controlled, periods or the readings are worthless.

bsharrah

Another way to think about it is this, your heart rate increases when you are stressed, but being stressed doesn't cause you to burn more calories, but it will cause your hrm readings to suggest you are. Increased heart rate doesn't necessarily mean increased calories burned.