Is my HRM lying?

whyflysouth

So I got this new HRM, the Timex T5H881 Zone Trainer Digital Heart Rate Monitor, set it up, put in the info, etc (It asks for your weight and max heart rate, never asks for your sex or height) and it calculates the calories burned.

Anyways, I'm on the elliptical for about 70 minutes, the elliptical says I burned 600 calories, the HRM says 1010. I then lift weights for about 40 minutes switching from machines, etc and the HRM says I burned 400 calories in that and I'm shocked by how many calories this thing is saying I'm burning. I'm keeping my heart rate high through allot of these exercises, like when lifting I'm at 114 bpm between sets, and 155 bpm while actually lifting, but it's just surprising.

I'm sitting here thinking I've got to eat over a thousand calories tonight and I'm wondering, is this thing really accurate? Should I be taking the readings from the elliptical instead?

SarahNicole317

Machines are inaccurate and it sounds like your HRM is overestimating. 70 minutes of running is more intense than the elliptical and you wouldn't burn 1000 calories doing that. Something like running burns about 10 calories/min and the elliptical would burn about 6-7 calories/minute. The lifting may be closer as I burn about 200-250 calories in 40 minutes and I am a 120 lb person. I find i strange that it didn't ask for you sex either.

happy_heather121

hmmmm.... that's tricky. My bike computer does the opposite. it says i burn very few when MFP will say that i'm burning a lot.

chicynth

Since I'm considering purchasing a device that tells me such info, I would like to see if there are some responders. I know that I do Zumba in an exercise class and was told that I am burning about 1500 in that hour. But its almost difficult to grasp that as the case when I don't see the scale really moving. On the other hand, if I'm not eating enough to compensate for such calories being burned, it could explain why I'm not losing much. Anyway, can't wait to read what others have to offer.

mromnek

Google "calories burned during exercise calculator" and check for yourself. Remember that your calories burned is going to be a function of your weight. I checked for myself on one calculator for 70 minutes on the elliptical, and it gave an estimate of 1500 plus calories.

jillybeanruns

Does your HRM have a chest strap? If so, it would be far more accurate than the machine...but if not, it's kind of a toss-up.

whyflysouth

Yeah, it does have a chest strap and its got good reviews on amazon, It's a unisex hrm so I'm wondering if maybe its calculating it for a woman (but then again I'm not sure if there's a difference between men and women w/ regards to this).

mromnek - according to this website http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculator.cgi seventy minutes on the elliptical gives an estimate of 963 calories so maybe the hrm is right...its surprising though.

I should test this thing by running 1 mile and seeing how many cals it tells me as opposed to the old adage, "one mile = 100 calories".

tjcnc

I know with my HRM Polar F7 that it is usually about 20 to 30% less then the Ellipitical depending on the program I run on the elliptical. However, my HRM does ask sex and weight and has me take a base heart rate every two weeks or so it will know how uch I am execrting. It is not so much time as it is how hard you work out. You could do 70 minutes on the ellipitical at a low setting and 40 minutes at a high setting and burn the same amount...

lilchino4af

I should test this thing by running 1 mile and seeing how many cals it tells me as opposed to the old adage, "one mile = 100 calories".

I ran a 1.5 in 14 mins and my HRM said I burned 169 calories. So roughly 1 mile would equal 100 calories, give or take depending on the person. Check your HRM settings and make sure it's set for Male and not Female. But either way, I would think your HRM would be more accurate than the machines. Maybe this is its way of telling you you're not quite into shape yet

whyflysouth

I go pretty intense with it - I'm usually at 75-90% of my max heart rate for the larger duration of the elliptical training, after the first 5 minutes warm up I really just push it. To give you an idea, I elliptic'd for 6.9 miles.

Maybe I can "test drive" a Polar F7 from somewhere and compare the results. I'll just wear both straps at the same time.

Azdak

I find i strange that it didn't ask for you sex either.

After you've been married for awhile, you'll find that is common. Especially if you have kids.

Azdak

Since I'm considering purchasing a device that tells me such info, I would like to see if there are some responders. I know that I do Zumba in an exercise class and was told that I am burning about 1500 in that hour. But its almost difficult to grasp that as the case when I don't see the scale really moving. On the other hand, if I'm not eating enough to compensate for such calories being burned, it could explain why I'm not losing much. Anyway, can't wait to read what others have to offer.

Unless you weigh over 400 pounds, or Zumba involves setting yourself on fire, you are not burning 1500 calories in "that" hour. I would be surprised if it was even half that.

Azdak

Google "calories burned during exercise calculator" and check for yourself. Remember that your calories burned is going to be a function of your weight. I checked for myself on one calculator for 70 minutes on the elliptical, and it gave an estimate of 1500 plus calories.

Usually, if one is heavy enough to burn that number of calories, they are not fit enough to work at the required intensity. However, that is not always the case. It is a little trickier monitoring intensity on an elliptical, because every machine has a different movement design and so you cannot use a general calculation or table reference with any accuracy.

If you weigh 260 pounds, for example, you would have to be able to run at about 6.1-6.2 mph (outdoors, or with a 1% incline on a treadmill) continuously for 70 min in order to burn 1500 Calories in 70 min. That's a good reference point to use when determining whether a number like that is accurate.

Azdak

As I have said many times, a HRM is only as accurate as the setup and the software behind it.

HRMs do NOT measure calories burned. They measure heart rate. Period.

They have to ESTIMATE calories burned based on the association between percentage of max HR and percentage of VO2max that exists during steady-state aerobic exercise.

There are a number of variables--esp HRrest, HRmax and VO2max--that must be inputted accurately in order to have any semblance of an accurate calorie burn number.

Again, the accuracy of the calorie count is totally dependent on the sophistication of the software and sensing abilities built into the HRM. That's why knowledgeable people recommend brands like Polar (F6 and above) or Suunto. These companies have done extensive research on the relationship between HR and caloric expenditure and use proprietary algorithms with their products. (And even these models have significant shortcomings when it comes to estimating calories).

Any other brand is a crapshoot--at best. I looked at the manual that came with your device. There is no way to input VO2 max, which means that the calorie burn numbers for your HRM are no more valid than one of those carnival games where you used to squeeze a lever to determine your "passion" level. In other words, the number is "for amusement purposes only", and is not valid.

mromnek

As I have said many times, a HRM is only as accurate as the setup and the software behind it.

HRMs do NOT measure calories burned. They measure heart rate. Period.

They have to ESTIMATE calories burned based on the association between percentage of max HR and percentage of VO2max that exists during steady-state aerobic exercise.

There are a number of variables--esp HRrest, HRmax and VO2max--that must be inputted accurately in order to have any semblance of an accurate calorie burn number.

Again, the accuracy of the calorie count is totally dependent on the sophistication of the software and sensing abilities built into the HRM. That's why knowledgeable people recommend brands like Polar (F6 and above) or Suunto. These companies have done extensive research on the relationship between HR and caloric expenditure and use proprietary algorithms with their products. (And even these models have significant shortcomings when it comes to estimating calories).

Any other brand is a crapshoot--at best. I looked at the manual that came with your device. There is no way to input VO2 max, which means that the calorie burn numbers for your HRM are no more valid than one of those carnival games where you used to squeeze a lever to determine your "passion" level. In other words, the number is "for amusement purposes only", and is not valid.

Sheez... you really know how to hurt a person's feelings!!!!

I have found that weight loss and fitness is the muddiest topic I have ever delved into. It is also one of the most difficult topics to get 'full disclosure' since almost every source is a biased source (almost as bad as learning about financial matters). So, I started looking at HRMs and reading reviews, recommendations, etc. The topic of VO2max I had seen a couple times on the periphery of conversations. I understood that any HRM would guess at calories burned using data input into it. I didn't realize that VO2 was important in this regard.

I even went to a few HRM websites trying to learn more about the product... and that wasn't very helpful. So, I went armed with a bit of information and set out to "invest" in my health. The salesman I dealt with (alas at a big box store) actually did more to talk me away from a Polar than he did to confirm my initial thought towards a Polar.

New rule... if I were King, only qualified experts would be allowed to sell 'specialty' items. Guess I need to throw away my overpriced Love Meter. :grumble: :laugh:

Azdak

As I have said many times, a HRM is only as accurate as the setup and the software behind it.

HRMs do NOT measure calories burned. They measure heart rate. Period.

They have to ESTIMATE calories burned based on the association between percentage of max HR and percentage of VO2max that exists during steady-state aerobic exercise.

There are a number of variables--esp HRrest, HRmax and VO2max--that must be inputted accurately in order to have any semblance of an accurate calorie burn number.

Again, the accuracy of the calorie count is totally dependent on the sophistication of the software and sensing abilities built into the HRM. That's why knowledgeable people recommend brands like Polar (F6 and above) or Suunto. These companies have done extensive research on the relationship between HR and caloric expenditure and use proprietary algorithms with their products. (And even these models have significant shortcomings when it comes to estimating calories).

Any other brand is a crapshoot--at best. I looked at the manual that came with your device. There is no way to input VO2 max, which means that the calorie burn numbers for your HRM are no more valid than one of those carnival games where you used to squeeze a lever to determine your "passion" level. In other words, the number is "for amusement purposes only", and is not valid.

Sheez... you really know how to hurt a person's feelings!!!!

I have found that weight loss and fitness is the muddiest topic I have ever delved into. It is also one of the most difficult topics to get 'full disclosure' since almost every source is a biased source (almost as bad as learning about financial matters). So, I started looking at HRMs and reading reviews, recommendations, etc. The topic of VO2max I had seen a couple times on the periphery of conversations. I understood that any HRM would guess at calories burned using data input into it. I didn't realize that VO2 was important in this regard.

I even went to a few HRM websites trying to learn more about the product... and that wasn't very helpful. So, I went armed with a bit of information and set out to "invest" in my health. The salesman I dealt with (alas at a big box store) actually did more to talk me away from a Polar than he did to confirm my initial thought towards a Polar.

New rule... if I were King, only qualified experts would be allowed to sell 'specialty' items. Guess I need to throw away my overpriced Love Meter. :grumble: :laugh:

It's still a good heart rate monitor and, knowing Timex, probably a much better stopwatch/lap counter than any Polar products. Polars suck as timepieces (maybe the newer models are better, but my F11 is pretty useless as a serious training timepiece. I haven't had to deal with that problem since it has been 10 yrs or more since I have been able to do any serious running performance training, but back in the day, I had to wear another stopwatch -- a timex ironman--in addition to my Polar).

You may now understand why I get so frustrated sometimes and occasionally use some strong language to describe a lot of "trainers" and self-appointed "fitness experts" who spew out an almost unmeasurable volume of misinformation on a constant basis.

If this helps, let me say that it is very difficult to do objective research on HRMs. For obvious reasons, Polar is not overly revealing about the science and methodology behind their products. Suunto is more open, but, like Polar, they are headquartered in Finland, so even when you get an answer from them in English, it can be difficult to understand --I have tried.

Other than Polar and Suunto, other companies are just trying to include a feature (calorie count) they know is an important selling point. They can't duplicate the Polar technology and do not have the interest or the resources to do their own research, so they do a quickie method, program it in, and send it out the door, assuming that the average exerciser either won't know the difference or won't stick with a program long enough for it to be significant.

Cynical and dishonest? you betcha.

But without cynicism and dishonesty, you wouldn't have a fitness industry.