Who uses a HRM?

DebbieLyn63

I recently started using a Polar FT4 HRM for my workouts. Previously, when I ride my stationary bike 12-14 MPH, for 30 minutes, the bike computer would show around 300 calories burned. MFP would show around 350 cals burned for that time. My husband questioned these numbers because his HRM would show him burning around 300 calories on a 30 minute bike race, where he would be killing it at 20+MPH, up and down hills, with a heart rate between 140 and 180. I just thought it was because I still outweigh him by 40 pounds.

He suggested I get a HRM with a chest strap to get a more accurate number, so I did. My first 30 minute ride showed me 177 calories burned. WHAAAT?? No way, right? How could the number be HALF of what MFP was showing? But if I looked at how much weight I lost every week, MFP said I should be losing 3+ pounds per week but I am only barely losing 2 pounds per week. So that supported the lower numbers.
Then today, I see another lady around my age and size, that uses the Timex brand HRM with a chest strap, and hers is showing the higher numbers for the same HR and time as mine. Now I am confused. Is there that much difference between brands?

What brand/type of HRMs do you ladies use and what is your calorie burn rate for heart rates averaging 118-120 BPM?

karint74

Hi Debbie, I also use a Polar FT4 (started using it on Oct. 1). My weight's been in the 150s this month, and I'm used to working out a lot. I've been keeping track of HR stats for average and max HR. Here are some examples of what I burn in an hour:

Average HR Burned in 60 min.

101 250
107 300
130 420
145 535

For 118-120 BPM at 30 min, 177 calories sounds about right. The HRM doesn't take into account how hard it *feels,* but as you get fitter, 118-120 won't feel as difficult but you'll burn the same calories with less effort. So if you bump up the intensity so it's as hard as it feels right now, you'll actually be burning *more* because your average HR will be higher. That's something to look forward to!

loadsandloads

I use the Polar FT7 and love it. It was very disappointing to see the lower numbers when I first got the HRM but it seems to be working out to be more accurate. I used to love it on Saturdays when I had more time to work out that I could burn 1000 calories. That doesn't happen anymore :frown: but it's okay because I feel like these numbers are more accurate.

I also made my own cardio exercise "Sharon's workout" and just enter my total time working out for day and manually enter calories burned. I then comment after I post exercise in case any friends want to see what I've done since I like to mix it up.

Hope this helps.

:flowerforyou:

reneelee

Debbie,

I was in the same boat with you. MFP showed me burning a lot of calories while doing Zumba, but the scale and inches were not moving. My calorie burn was about half of what MFP thought it would be. I purchased a polar ft7 ans it was the best present I have given myself in a long time.
I keep a diary of the type of exercise, how many minutes, calorie burn, fat burn time, fit burn time, average and high heart rate.
In doing this I have realized that when lifting heavy weights for 30- 45 minutes I have a higher fit burn then usaul. After lifting heavy I do some kind of cario for 20-45 minutes and I'm having my best calorie burns ever! A lot of the calories are coming from fit.
I'm doing the New Rules Of Lifting For Women by; Lou Schuler and would highly recommend all the ladies by the book and lift twice a week. If you buy the book go on youtube to watch Lou do the exercises and join NROL4W support group.

kbauman09

I also use a Polar HRM. My nutritionist recommended it---I started using it when my weight loss started slowing down so that I could see EXACTLY how many calories I was burning. I "eat back" half of all of the calories I burn---it's worked so far. I have not hit a plateau and have seen steady loss since January. My nutritionist also told me how many carbs, fat, protein, sugar, etc, I should be having every day (and we put it in MFP). I found that to be very, very helpful! Good luck everyone!!!

DebbieLyn63

Thanks for the replies, it reassures me that my numbers are now correct. I am looking forward to when I can get my HR up higher. My max so far has only been 125, with an average of 118. My resting rate is around 90, so I really need to better my cardio health. My hubby has a resting rate in the 30s and has seen 200 on a couple of occasions during mountain bike races. He's a freak. lol.

Now that I know my actual numbers, it is motivating me to work harder to get the numbers back to where I was reporting before. It is kinda sad to see only 300 cals burned when I am used to seeing 600 for an hour bike ride. :-(

@renee- I wish I could do some heavy lifting to increase my burns and build more muscles, but unfortunately I have a spinal condition that puts me with a really light weight limit, so I can't do much strength training. So I stick with my recumbent bike and do what I can.

Thanks again!

DebbieLyn63

Hi Debbie, I also use a Polar FT4 (started using it on Oct. 1). My weight's been in the 150s this month, and I'm used to working out a lot. I've been keeping track of HR stats for average and max HR. Here are some examples of what I burn in an hour:

Average HR Burned in 60 min.

101 250
107 300
130 420
145 535

For 118-120 BPM at 30 min, 177 calories sounds about right. The HRM doesn't take into account how hard it *feels,* but as you get fitter, 118-120 won't feel as difficult but you'll burn the same calories with less effort. So if you bump up the intensity so it's as hard as it feels right now, you'll actually be burning *more* because your average HR will be higher. That's something to look forward to!

Thanks for this great data. It REALLY helps to see this!

seehe

An exercise physiologist at Canyon Ranch (an internationally famous health resort here in Tucson) recommended the Polar HRM for me. I then take my average heart rate from my exercise period and calculate calories burned using the information from this site which takes your age weight and gender into consideration:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

In my opinion, MFP is too high.

Gohomebay

I don't have an hrm, I know I should get one, but with our boat breaking down, new furnace, buying some new clothes....ya i know excuses excuses....but tough time here and if and when i buy one i want to get the right one.
Depending on the exercise I usually cut the mfp estimate in half.

fishbarn

I use a Timex Aquatic HRM, because I swim almost every day.

ladyluch99

I, too, have a Polar FT7 HRM and like most of you, I thought the burns were low. I couldn't believe it when I did Zumba for the first time with it on and only showed a burn of like 550 or something like that. I didn't think it was accurate because almost everyone I knew who did Zumba were saying they burned like 800-900 calories each 1 hour session and some of these same people weighed less than I did.

Ultimately, I learned to rely on my HRM as the most accurate burn and not go by what MFP or others said. Besides, it's way better to underestimate calorie burns than to overestimate them. SN: When I do a Zumba class and wear both my HRM and my Fitbit, they always give me just about the same number of calories burned (give or take a few).

reneelee

I, too, have a Polar FT7 HRM and like most of you, I thought the burns were low. I couldn't believe it when I did Zumba for the first time with it on and only showed a burn of like 550 or something like that. I didn't think it was accurate because almost everyone I knew who did Zumba were saying they burned like 800-900 calories each 1 hour session and some of these same people weighed less than I did.

Ultimately, I learned to rely on my HRM as the most accurate burn and not go by what MFP or others said. Besides, it's way better to underestimate calorie burns than to overestimate them. SN: When I do a Zumba class and wear both my HRM and my Fitbit, they always give me just about the same number of calories burned (give or take a few).

I should be so lucky to burn 550 my burn is 250-350 no higher!

TXtstorm

I also have a Polar FT4. It reports a similar number of calories for walking as MFP gave me for 3.5mph. However, the number for strength circuit training calculated by MFP tended to be WAY high unless I was doing a LOT of kettlebell swings. I think the HRM is pretty close based on my results. It is a little disappointing, but I'm seeing some folks that are reporting HUGE burns from fairly limited amounts of exercise and then eating all of that back. Their losses seem slow or they complain about lack of progress and I find myself wondering if they are being tripped up by inflated calorie burns. You'll get used to it and appreciate the fact that your HRM doesn't lead you astray.

spud_chick

Thanks for this good information...

I use Noom's CardioTrainer app on my Android phone to track my walks, which gives me a more accurate reading (I feel) than the general estimator on MFP because it knows how many hills I'm taking and how quickly, and counts speed bursts in. The calories burned seem to match up with how hard I *feel* like I walked, and the hilliness of my course. Then I enter one of the MFP workouts so that it matches my CT calories.

CardioTrainer is made to work with Polar Wearlink+ heart rate monitors, so after hearing what you ladies have said I may have to get one. I've been using the general category "calisthenics, heavy effort" on MFP to track my non-walking workouts with hand weights, so this should give me a much better idea of how much I'm really burning. Unfortunately the reviews on using the Wearlink+ with CardioTrainer don't look very consistent.

Anyone using their HRM integrated with a phone app?