Question about heart/calorie monitor vs. machine info

viccigb
viccigb Posts: 93 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I got my Polar heart monitor today. I used it when I got on my elliptical where I typically burn 374 cal in 33 minutes. It took me 42 mins to burn 339 on my Polar monitor. That's over 100 calories off from my elliptical and 200 calories off of what mfp says I burn. I am assuming the heart monitor is going to be the most accurate, but I didn't think it would be that off. Is this typical?

Replies

  • BeautifulBetsy
    BeautifulBetsy Posts: 60 Member
    I don't have a heart monitor, and I've been going by what the machines I use say. This is quite discouraging.
  • Weebs628
    Weebs628 Posts: 574 Member
    Yep. The machines are horribly inaccurate. At least at my gym.
  • dragonfly_em
    dragonfly_em Posts: 122 Member
    i go with HRM which is always considerably less than machine readings and almost half of what MFP suggests. I figure i'd rather be underestimating, tho i feel the HRM must be most representative
  • CincinnatiDEIFan
    CincinnatiDEIFan Posts: 188 Member
    I have come to the conclusion that the HRM would be best, the machines are second, and MFP is last as far as estimates.

    So for now I use the machine numbers since I do not have a HRM, but kind of know I'd be better off not eating back ALL of them..maybe only half...unless Im starving.

    :-)

Categories