Heart rate monitors - how accurate are they?

lauren3101

I do the same walk every day to and from work, which is very nearly exactly a mile. I used to log it on MFP as 'walking 3.0 miles an hour' for 20 minutes and it would calculate it as 126 calories burnt.

I always thought that was pretty high so I bought myself a heart rate monitor and used it for the first time today. Got to work and it told me I had burnt 166 calories during my 17 and a half minute walk.

I eat back my exercise calories so I want to be sure. I always thought they were meant to be more accurate than MPF but now I have my doubts?

julieb47

that's odd! I have a Polar FT4 and I find it correlates well with fitbit but that mfp always estimates far more calories burned than the hrm. One reason I don't eat back my exercise calories! Try having another few goes with it and see what happens. Is there a manufacturer's website for more information?

Josh2040

Trust the heart rate monitor MFP is more ov an average for most people. In reality very few people are going to be at what MFP says but it gets you close enough. If you have a heart rate monitor that has the chest strap those tend to be very accurate, I use mine every time I work out. I have lost 30lbs total now from when I started 8 months ago and know what you burn is very important(I think).

Jester522

Curious for answers

hulalipop

Bump. I just bought a HRM (with the chest strap) mainly for its calorie calculations, and it'd be a shame if it was for nothing

lulabellewoowoo

For me, I use the HRM. BUT....when I was eating back my exercise calories (now I'm on a different program), I would subtract my BRM calories. For example. if I run for 60 minutes, and my HRM says I burn 700 calories, I count 600, because normally when I am not running and just sitting around or doing household stuff, I burn the normal 100 calories anyway and that is figured in with my calories. So as a base rule, I deduct 25 calories for every 15 minutes of exercise to give me a little wiggle room. Not sure if this makes sense.

coffeeQ2hrs

bumpbumpbump

redfroggie

I have a Polar FT4 and use it's numbers as it is set to my age, height and weight. I've heard that MFP is based on an average of 150 lbs person. If you are heavier than that then yes you could burn more, if you are fitter then you would burn less. Use your HRM and only eat back 50-80% of your cals and give it 2 weeks and see how it is working for you.

nphect

if your overweight or obese, you burn calories more easily. So a 300 pound person walking 17 minutes will burn way more calories than a 120 pound person walking 17 minutes.

NeverGivesUp

Honestly, I used to be really concerned about all the numbers till they made me crazy in the head. Now I eat well but only a few hours out of every day so as not to overeat, and I exercise as much as I can. I don't worry about counting. Counting made me nuts especially when it wasn't corresponding with the weight I should have been losing with the amount of work I was doing. I have even left the scale behind except for once a month. Each person has to decide what is right for them. I am not convinced by all the numbers but I know others who live and breathe them. I have never been good at math and am taking a more creative approach to this process. You have to determine what works for you, including deciding whether or not to exercise calories back. It has to be something you can live with forever. Happy weight loss and exercising !!

lauren3101

It is only a cheap monitor with no chest strap, one of the ones that you touch a sensor when you have finished and it takes your heart rate there and then and calculates it from that rather than monitoring the whole way through. That isn't really a problem for me as I walk at a steady pace the whole time.

phonypony

I wouldn't stress about it honestly. It's never going to be accurate but it's all good estimation. The HR monitor is probably more accurate than MFP because it's based on your individual weight and heart beat. Calorie counting is not accurate in itself either so you can't get obsessive about the numbers just think of them as a good guide to follow.

Witchmoo

I would only trust a HRM with a chest strap.....I ditched my 'sensor touch' one after one use....it was rubbish. I would suggest getting a decent one the Polar FT4 isn't too expensive and is easy to use.

geebusuk

I have a motoactv which I use for calorie calculations now.

I believe it does include BMR calories in it's calculations (haven't properly looked in to it.)
So if you entered the figure I got in to MFP you'd be doubling up on the BMW calories in the background.

It gives me a total figure at the end of the day which I find useful - I subtract 2350 from that figure and add it in to MFP in one lump (1350 base + 1000 deficit.)
So the figure in MFP should represent the calories I've eaten minus a thousand deficit.

So say at 11pm it showed 3000 calories burned in the day.
I go for an hour long dog walk which shows up as 300 calories.
The total figure for the day at midnight would be 3300.

While if I entered that in to MFP it would presume that I burnt 300 calories on top of the 75 calories or so that my body burnt in the background to keep it's self alive.

NeverGivesUp

HRM without chest straps are inaccurate.

kmuree

Agreed, HRM's with no chest strap are useless.
I have the Polar FT40 and I am in love with it. I absolutely feel that it is accurate and even so, I try not to eat my exercise calories back unless I'm doing so with nutritionally sound items. :bigsmile:

lauren3101

Yes I've been looking at the Polars this morning. Think I may have to buy one.