How to test HRM for how accurate calorie burn is

callieboom

bump for later

samcat2000

I can't wait to try this with my new Polar ft-40.

I'm new to commuting on my road bike to work - 39 miles R/T. Going to work the other day, my HRM said I burned 924 cal at the end of the ride. It was a tough ride. Forgot my asthma inhaler, slight head wind, etc. and I just had to overall work my butt off. Then that evening, rode same route home. Legs were so tired but lungs were not and well thankfully I had the most AMAZING tail wind or I might not have made it home. HRM said I burned 595 cal. Pretty big difference but I suppose that the huge tail wind could have helped me that much??? I hope my new HRM doesn't suck!

heybales

I can't wait to try this with my new Polar ft-40.

I'm new to commuting on my road bike to work - 39 miles R/T. Going to work the other day, my HRM said I burned 924 cal at the end of the ride. It was a tough ride. Forgot my asthma inhaler, slight head wind, etc. and I just had to overall work my butt off. Then that evening, rode same route home. Legs were so tired but lungs were not and well thankfully I had the most AMAZING tail wind or I might not have made it home. HRM said I burned 595 cal. Pretty big difference but I suppose that the huge tail wind could have helped me that much??? I hope my new HRM doesn't suck!

You just hit a situation as to WHY a HRM can be thrown off trying to associate HR with a calorie burn.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn

You were also taking in less air with asthma, so you had to breath more, blood had to bump more, to get the required oxygen out of what you were breathing.

That higher HR was seen by HRM as harder effort - which it was for your body getting oxygen, but not necessarily in the ride.

More important than those figures of calories, what did the HRM say for what it actually does, monitoring the heart rate, between the 2 rides?

ladyraiah

bump for later.

jessicapk

bump! this is the most intelligent forum post I believe I've run across on this site and it's information that I'm really looking forward to reading when I'm home and relaxed with a nice steady heartbeat

__Di__

Ive just ordered my Polar FT4 HRM and so just to clarify, we are suppose to add our weight that we get when we weigh fully clothed instead of what we would way Naked ?

Ok so are the HRM accurate then or not ?

Not.

Narrow range that has a chance.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

And that is for one of the more expensive Polars that self tests, and allows correcting the important stats.
Yours has no such stats available to change. It assumes worse BMI, worse fitness level - which is bad assumption.

Men aren't off the hook either.

http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/JEPonlineOctober2011Esco.pdf

And yes to weight doing the exercise.

SO what are you trying to say ? That my Polar Ft4 HRM is crap ? I chose that one because of all the reviews ive seen here on MFP and its one that I can afford which was still higher then I wanted to pay.

No, the Polar FT4 is not crap.

It measures HR, it gives the calorie burn, it tells you your max HR and average HR during a cardio workout, it will tell you how long you were in the zone for (which contrary to what many will say, does have a time and place during certain training regimes) and it will also act as a stopwatch.

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less how many calories it displays, it gives me a rough idea and that is good enough for me. I have found it extraordinarily useful, however, when keeping my eye on my HR during my runs, especially if I am on a particular training session that requires I keep my HR below a certain level or if I am doing interval training (to ensure my HR has gone back down to 120bpm before starting the next rep for instance).

Enjoy your FT4, I have found it excellent. I do, however, refuse to get bogged down in stats and whether something is 100%, who cares, it is your training which counts, not a piece of equipment. The HRM should be used as a guide, not the be all and end all.

endoftheside

Tested today with my PolarFT60 (weight and fit test up to date in the HRM).

After 10 minute warmup, did 20 minutes at 3.8mph and 2.0 incline.

HRM = 123, Calculator = 119, so only about 3% off. Not bad!

Mav3rick54

bump to try later

My_Own_Worst_Enemy

Well, have fun testing.

Thanks, but I am having way too much fun using TDEE. No need for this BS. Thanks though! :drinker:

42hockeymom

Interesting.


Bump

heybales

Well, have fun testing.

Thanks, but I am having way too much fun using TDEE. No need for this BS. Thanks though! :drinker:

Is a tool you don't happen to use or need BS?

Is a tool that others do want to use BS, or the method to use that tool better?

Very true, TDEE method doesn't need it, except in some cases of big calorie burns where you really need to make up some of what you did, and waiting a month to find out how the TDEE and weight loss came out is a tad too long for performance if you under ate too great.

But I'm sure it'll be nice for someone to have your opinion, and I guess your desire to bump and keep up with this topic since that puts it at top of recent posts too.

mtrautwe

bump for reference

SephiraRose

so much info thanks

heybales

so much info thanks

And it's a great test to run every 1 month, because as you get more fit, the speed and incline increase to hit the same HR as last test can be very impressive.

MissJay75

bump

amusedmonkey

It really differs from person to person, but my cheap polar seems to be pretty accurate in MY case. MFP values are almost 35% lower than what my HRM suggests. I even use the gross values as eat-back and the weight has been coming off in exact values. Maybe things will be different as I itch my way closer to my target weight or as I become more fit, who knows. Do you think trying for a more accurate approach would yield significantly better results? Or should I stick to what's been working for me, albeit too simple? Is there a chance MFP is underestimating my TDEE?

heybales

It really differs from person to person, but my cheap polar seems to be pretty accurate in MY case. MFP values are almost 35% lower than what my HRM suggests. I even use the gross values as eat-back and the weight has been coming off in exact values. Maybe things will be different as I itch my way closer to my target weight or as I become more fit, who knows. Do you think trying for a more accurate approach would yield significantly better results? Or should I stick to what's been working for me, albeit too simple? Is there a chance MFP is underestimating my TDEE?

So if the loss is as the numbers would indicate, you do know that MFP's maintenance estimate (not TDEE because they include no exercise) and your HRM's calorie burn estimate added together really do seem to be your TDEE.

Since indeed the HRM is giving gross not net burn, meaning you are eating more than was burned extra compared to what would have been burned anyway, that means MFP's estimate of maintenance is lower than reality.

So indeed, that should cause some differences eventually, on both of those estimates.

Depending on HRM, you getting fit may not be correctly reflected in calorie burn estimate, and it's inflated burn.

I'd suggest that if MFP values are that below your HRM, your activity level for non-exercise is probably higher than what you have selected.
Your inflated calorie burns are just making up the slack.

At this point, you can go with results.
If you ate this much in total average daily over 4 weeks, and you lost this much over same 4 weeks, then you can do the math to figure out your real TDEE.
Then adjust accordingly.
You'll want to watch your weight loss goal too, less to lose should be slower loss - or your body will force it on you anyway.

Tanya949

Bump

amusedmonkey

Necro for safe-keeping.

Lunaaa_88

did you try it with your polar? was it accurate? curious to know.. I have a polar too.