Which is more accurate? HRM or treadmill?
WanabeHotMama
Posts: 102 Member
I am still new with using a HRM. I bought a lower end HRM just to get started and didn't want to spend a lot of money ((budget is TIGHT!)) I have the sportline duo1010 if that matters?
Today on the treadmill I noticed that it picks up my HR from my monitor and calculated calories burned that way but there was a huge discrepancy between my HRM and the treadmill by about 100 calories. Treadmill said I burned around 250, HRM 363. Now I did not enter height, weight, age, etc. on the treadmill whereas I of course did on my HRM. My initial thought is to go off of the HRM but I don't want to overestimate even if I don't plan on eating all of those calories back I still want to get as close to accurate as possible- the whole reason I purchased the HRM in the first place aside keeping within my target HR. So which would you use? Thanks!
Today on the treadmill I noticed that it picks up my HR from my monitor and calculated calories burned that way but there was a huge discrepancy between my HRM and the treadmill by about 100 calories. Treadmill said I burned around 250, HRM 363. Now I did not enter height, weight, age, etc. on the treadmill whereas I of course did on my HRM. My initial thought is to go off of the HRM but I don't want to overestimate even if I don't plan on eating all of those calories back I still want to get as close to accurate as possible- the whole reason I purchased the HRM in the first place aside keeping within my target HR. So which would you use? Thanks!
0
Replies
-
You are more than likely going to get a lot of "Heart Rate Monitor" responses however my answer would be to take something in between the two.
I don't have a HRM that "calculates" calorie burn because I honestly don't trust them to be as accurate as people here lead you to believe.0 -
The HRM is going to be more accurate, but you are still going to have to put in your weight at least to get a some what accurate reading.0
-
You are more than likely going to get a lot of "Heart Rate Monitor" responses however my answer would be to take something in between the two.
I don't have a HRM that "calculates" calorie burn because I honestly don't trust them to be as accurate as people here lead you to believe.
That was my other thought too. Thanks! :-)0 -
bump, good info. thx.0
-
Your HRM will be the most accurate if it asks you for sex, height and weight. If it doesn't then it's probably using calculations for a man.0
-
Your HRM will be the most accurate if it asks you for sex, height and weight. If it doesn't then it's probably using calculations for a man.
And this is where I have issues with the HRM. Isn't that pretty much the same as when a machine asks you for your sex, age, and weight? I get that it's take in your BPM and "calculating" your calorie burn but there is no way that a HRM can be 100% accurate. I"ll be honest and I want to buy one just to see what it would say for me and then for my husband.0 -
We tend to burn on average about 100 calories per mile traveled. So if you run or walk quickly, you'll burn it faster. That may give you some insight into which of those devices is more accurate.0
-
Treadmill said I burned around 250, HRM 363. Now I did not enter height, weight, age, etc. on the treadmill whereas I of course did on my HRM.
Treadmill is wrong. Can't you tell? No weight, age or sex? Guesstimation.0 -
Your HRM will be the most accurate if it asks you for sex, height and weight. If it doesn't then it's probably using calculations for a man.
And this is where I have issues with the HRM. Isn't that pretty much the same as when a machine asks you for your sex, age, and weight? I get that it's take in your BPM and "calculating" your calorie burn but there is no way that a HRM can be 100% accurate. I"ll be honest and I want to buy one just to see what it would say for me and then for my husband.
Nothing you do at home will ever be 100% accurate but a good HRM will be as close as the average person is going to get.0 -
Your HRM will be the most accurate if it asks you for sex, height and weight. If it doesn't then it's probably using calculations for a man.
And this is where I have issues with the HRM. Isn't that pretty much the same as when a machine asks you for your sex, age, and weight? I get that it's take in your BPM and "calculating" your calorie burn but there is no way that a HRM can be 100% accurate. I"ll be honest and I want to buy one just to see what it would say for me and then for my husband.
Nothing you do at home will ever be 100% accurate but a good HRM will be as close as the average person is going to get.
I understand this but my issue is that people say that the HRM word is gospel.
That and who knows what they're using for the calculations. Take the skin fold caliper test for BF percentage. That is based solely on the age bracket you fall in to. I was getting it done to just keep track of my gains and I watched them gather the information, go to their handy dandy sheet and lo and behold the exact same measurements given to someone a year or two younger than me had lower BF%.
I can understand using the HRM and all the other tools out there as guidelines but I wouldn't rely on them as being the absolute rock solid truth.0 -
I understand this but my issue is that people say that the HRM word is gospel.
That and who knows what they're using for the calculations. Take the skin fold caliper test for BF percentage. That is based solely on the age bracket you fall in to. I was getting it done to just keep track of my gains and I watched them gather the information, go to their handy dandy sheet and lo and behold the exact same measurements given to someone a year or two younger than me had lower BF%.
I can understand using the HRM and all the other tools out there as guidelines but I wouldn't rely on them as being the absolute rock solid truth.
You'd make a good scientist.
There is no absolute rock solid truth. Everything is an estimation.
A reputable HRM has been calibrated and is the silver standard or you can get a VO2max profile which will give you a much more accurate value.
skin fold tables can also be based on weight and sex...0 -
HRMs tend to be more accurate because they have more data and more data = more accurate info. Sure it's not 100% accurate but it's sure as heck a lot closer to the guesstimates you get on MFP or cardio machines.
Theres are some very important variables though. You must use an HRM that has a chest strap (and it sounds like the OP did) so that it has a constant read of your heart rate and you must have an HRM that takes your height, weight, age and gender. If you get a cheapy HRM with just a watch that you have to touch, there is still going to be a lot of guessing involved. If you enter an exercise into MFP, it may know your height, weight and gender but it has no idea how hard you worked out unless it's something specific like running 6mph. Things like "elliptical" or "strength training" are too general - there's no way for MFP to know exactly how hard you worked out so it's pure guesstimate and the calories tend to be overestimated.
By the way, that body fat percentage thing is one of many ways of doing it. The only really accurate ways to measure body fat (that I'm aware of) are to either do water disbursement or one of those bodpod machines. But they allow for more body fat as you age (both men and women) because it's a natural process. As the body ages, you're likely to have less LBM (due to muscle and bone loss) and more body fat. Link: http://www.shapeup.org/bfl/life1.html0 -
I can't be bothered with the hrm on the Tmill at the gym, but I know my HRM is setup more toward a guy than a girl so I take the HR information and go to this website and plug in the values:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm
Typically, the HRM comes in a bit higher than the calculator so I go with the values I got from the webpage instead of the HRM. I've double checked the HR and it's tracking that correctly, it's just the calorie calculation that's off. I'm okay with that since I only paid about $25 for my HRM at the outlets.0 -
If the HRM allows you to enter your own VO2max (which, ideally, you'd get measured with a fancy oxygen mask at a lab-like place) then it's going to be pretty darn accurate. There's no way it would ever get 100.00% accurate, but the way I see it, it's close enough to not matter.
Some HRMs will have a feature that measures/ estimates your VO2max, but I don't have much trust in that. Better than nothing, though.0 -
Treadmill.
It literally takes so much energy to move so much mass so fast a pace. Gender or age doesn't matter.
Your HR for expending such energy though may very well vary, and just shows how fit you are, and are you mostly carb burning or fat burning for the energy source.
Now, flat walking 2-4 mph is most accurate, then incline, then running flat, then running incline.
Because as you add incline, and/or running, your own personal efficiency starts entering the equation.
But walking, unless you have a club foot, has matching efficiency of great accuracy across populations.
MFP uses the same accurate calcs if flat and the exact speed they describe. Add incline and forget it for MFP, machine most accurate.
Here's a better calc for entering in your own speed and incline, and comparing to a machine.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
Here's the study of many that shows just how accurate the walking treadmill test is, which is way more accurate than HRM estimates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150
For those saying HRM and how inflated the other stuff is - they have HRM's that don't have a VO2max stat available in them, and their HRM is more inaccurate as they get fitter.
Their VO2max goes up, they supply more oxygen required for energy burn with each heart beat, and therefore heart can beat less to burn the same amount of energy.
But sadly their HRM doesn't know why the HR is lower, so it estimates less calorie burn. Wrong.0 -
If the HRM allows you to enter your own VO2max (which, ideally, you'd get measured with a fancy oxygen mask at a lab-like place) then it's going to be pretty darn accurate. There's no way it would ever get 100.00% accurate, but the way I see it, it's close enough to not matter.
Some HRMs will have a feature that measures/ estimates your VO2max, but I don't have much trust in that. Better than nothing, though.
as you mentioned, lab test most accurate.
But interestingly, there are several studies that show the formula's using restingHR, and user selected level of normal activity, and couple physical stats, is more accurate than submaximal VO2max tests, so pretty good unless at real high levels of VO2max.
And that is what the Polar's with that self-test do. Get your restingHR (they should say to do it in the morning, not just sitting for a couple minutes), and self selected athlete level.
But the level doesn't go up that much, so you get into the same situation potentially as you could get very aerobically fit without weight going down much, and now your estimates are all off by a bit.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168867
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22872670 -
I can't be bothered with the hrm on the Tmill at the gym, but I know my HRM is setup more toward a guy than a girl so I take the HR information and go to this website and plug in the values:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm
Typically, the HRM comes in a bit higher than the calculator so I go with the values I got from the webpage instead of the HRM. I've double checked the HR and it's tracking that correctly, it's just the calorie calculation that's off. I'm okay with that since I only paid about $25 for my HRM at the outlets.
Did you get an estimate of VO2max to help that site?
Want one that uses your better estimated HRmax stat too?
I was doing the exact same thing for years, but this is easier now.
Spreadsheet linked in this topic, the HRM tab. Fill in your HRM stats, do the VO2max test, estimate your HRmax or self-test, enter those values, and your personal calorie burn chart based on that exact same Polar funded study formula is at the bottom of that tab.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/750920-spreadsheet-for-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones0 -
Your HRM will be the most accurate if it asks you for sex, height and weight. If it doesn't then it's probably using calculations for a man.
And this is where I have issues with the HRM. Isn't that pretty much the same as when a machine asks you for your sex, age, and weight? I get that it's take in your BPM and "calculating" your calorie burn but there is no way that a HRM can be 100% accurate. I"ll be honest and I want to buy one just to see what it would say for me and then for my husband.
My hubby and I hike together and use the same type of HRM...a Polar Bluetooth. The program has input for sex, age and weight. His calorie burn is ALWAYS higher than mine, probably because he has about 8 inches and 80 pounds on me.0 -
We tend to burn on average about 100 calories per mile traveled. So if you run or walk quickly, you'll burn it faster. That may give you some insight into which of those devices is more accurate.
That's a myth that came from looking at calories burned based on physics where work=distance/time. The reality is you burn 40-50% more calories per mile if you are running or jogging (140-150 avg.) vs. walking (100 avg.) because while running, your center of gravity is being moved up and down (bouncing) which takes a lot more calories to accomplish than walking.
Nerdy, but true.0 -
I am still new with using a HRM. I bought a lower end HRM just to get started and didn't want to spend a lot of money ((budget is TIGHT!)) I have the sportline duo1010 if that matters?
Today on the treadmill I noticed that it picks up my HR from my monitor and calculated calories burned that way but there was a huge discrepancy between my HRM and the treadmill by about 100 calories. Treadmill said I burned around 250, HRM 363. Now I did not enter height, weight, age, etc. on the treadmill whereas I of course did on my HRM. My initial thought is to go off of the HRM but I don't want to overestimate even if I don't plan on eating all of those calories back I still want to get as close to accurate as possible- the whole reason I purchased the HRM in the first place aside keeping within my target HR. So which would you use? Thanks!
HRM always as it has (or should have) one's personal details, ie weight, age etc, logged into it, whereas the treadmill is only going by a standard weight of a person, regardless as to how much they really weigh etc.
I am the other way around, my treadmill will say I have burned 800, my HRM logs as more in the region of 600-650.
If the treadmill does not ask for your age, weight, height, gender etc, then it will base its calorie burns on a 180lb male.0 -
If the treadmill does not ask for your age, weight, height, gender etc, then it will base its calorie burns on a 180lb male.
Weight is the only factor that matters on moving mass around, not gender or age.
But most treadmills let you adjust weight.0 -
answer - HRM0
-
That's a myth that came from looking at calories burned based on physics where work=distance/time. The reality is you burn 40-50% more calories per mile if you are running or jogging (140-150 avg.) vs. walking (100 avg.) because while running, your center of gravity is being moved up and down (bouncing) which takes a lot more calories to accomplish than walking.
Nerdy, but true.
Depending on speed comparisons, perhaps not that much more all the time, but for sure more, especially compared to the sweet efficiency spot of walking 3.5 mph, that'll get you more than 50% more jogging it.
http://www.exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp.html0 -
Thanks all! To answer a few questions about my HRM:
-it is a HRM specifically for women. It does still ask for gender when setting it up.
-it has a chest strap that I wear every workout except swimming of course.
-along with gender I entered height, weight, & age.
Sounds like HRM will be much closer! I realize its not 100% accurate, just wanting to make sure I'm going with what is MOST accurate.
Slightly new question: How many of you eat all I yor exercise calories back on a regular basis? I'm still on the fence about this.0 -
Sounds like HRM will be much closer! I realize its not 100% accurate, just wanting to make sure I'm going with what is MOST accurate.
Then read the studies I posted above to see the most accurate will be the treadmill.
Most of those commenting about HRM being better probably thought it was more accurate when they first got it, not because of some comparison to lab test, but merely for the fact it was different than what anything else reported.
How being different could possibly mean more accurate I have no idea, but by that logic anything you hear that is different than what you've heard before must be more correct, and that's just vacuous logic.
Read the study, obviously don't go by my word. Educate yourself if that interested in MOST accurate.0 -
If the treadmill does not ask for your age, weight, height, gender etc, then it will base its calorie burns on a 180lb male.
Weight is the only factor that matters on moving mass around, not gender or age.
But most treadmills let you adjust weight.
I dunno, I beg to differ on that. Every treadmill I have ever seen in the gyms I have been to in the past have no facility for inputting one's details, these are commercial ones I am on about in gyms such as Virgin and Fitness First. I have no idea about gyms in the US etc, perhaps they are different there.0 -
I dunno, I beg to differ on that. Every treadmill I have ever seen in the gyms I have been to in the past have no facility for inputting one's details, these are commercial ones I am on about in gyms such as Virgin and Fitness First. I have no idea about gyms in the US etc, perhaps they are different there.
Really, wow. Every one I've seen here in the states allows weight to be changed. And current gym has 20 treadmills from 25 yrs old to couple years old.
Now, they all have the means to skip that and just start the treadmill and set the incline, like elliptical machines. Or enter right past the default weight that is there as you mentioned without correcting it.
But they all have the ability I've seen.0 -
I dunno, I beg to differ on that. Every treadmill I have ever seen in the gyms I have been to in the past have no facility for inputting one's details, these are commercial ones I am on about in gyms such as Virgin and Fitness First. I have no idea about gyms in the US etc, perhaps they are different there.
Really, wow. Every one I've seen here in the states allows weight to be changed. And current gym has 20 treadmills from 25 yrs old to couple years old.
Now, they all have the means to skip that and just start the treadmill and set the incline, like elliptical machines. Or enter right past the default weight that is there as you mentioned without correcting it.
But they all have the ability I've seen.
Wish they did that here lol0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions