Is my HRM OVER-estimating my calories?

antonia_yes

Hi guys,

I've been going to the gym for about a year and a half now as part of losing weight. The machines there have calorie trackers on there, but as I read threads on here I established that those aren't necessarily accurate.

Anyway I got a Polar FT4 (a PINK one ) for Christmas and started using it and the calorie burn seems very high.
For example, from 20 mins on the stationary bike, the bike's readings estimated 120 calories burnt, while my HRM said 200!
I was in the HRM's suggested 'fat burning zone' for heart rate, but this seems like a huge difference.

I obviously would PREFER if the higher rates are right, but I don't feel comfortable eating back my 'exercise calories' that I may not have actually burnt off.

Any thoughts?

bgro77

I feel like my FT7 is doing the same thing. I played 2 hours of basketball adn the thing said i burned 1450 calories!! I thouht it was extremely high but i talked to my buddy who's a trainer and he said that's about right. And also the MFP app said around the same for calories. I'd say it's close to accurtate.

sweetlilgiggles

I think that with HRM's, they're more accurate than a machine. Mostly because: With a HRM, it's more...can't think of the word...intimate? It's tailored for you. Most of them, you can enter in your weight and height, and well, they're attached to you. A machine, yes, you can also enter in your height and weight, but it only measures your heart rate when you touch the little sensors, and really, that's not accurate.

jzammetti

Hi guys,

I've been going to the gym for about a year and a half now as part of losing weight. The machines there have calorie trackers on there, but as I read threads on here I established that those aren't necessarily accurate.

Anyway I got a Polar FT4 (a PINK one ) for Christmas and started using it and the calorie burn seems very high.
For example, from 20 mins on the stationary bike, the bike's readings estimated 120 calories burnt, while my HRM said 200!
I was in the HRM's suggested 'fat burning zone' for heart rate, but this seems like a huge difference.

I obviously would PREFER if the higher rates are right, but I don't feel comfortable eating back my 'exercise calories' that I may not have actually burnt off.

Any thoughts?

I don't know if this is true or not, but I think it may play a part: Your body would burn calories even if you weren't working out (BMR calories). My HRM seems to be high as well, but if I deduct the calories I would have burned anyway, it seems much closer. So, my HRM says 400 calories for a workout. I know from 3 days of tracking that my TDEE averages 2155 for 24 hours (89.7 calories per hour). If I deduct the 89.7 I would have burned anyway, I get 310.3 calories burned fro the exercise.

Does that make sense?

As a side note, I use the TDEE method and do not eat back calories unless I drop to 100 below my BMR net for the day.

shellyenglersnyder

I feel like mine may be overestimating as well. Yesterday I did 30 day shred and for 27 minutes said I burned 249 cal. That's quite a bit more than what MFP says for General Circuit. Since I'm worried that my HRM may be overestimating, I'm afraid to eat back my exercise calories.

tararocks

I have the same one, and mine has done both, it tells me i burned more than the stationary bike, and it tells me i burned less than the elliptical, I used to go off the machiens and would just bank a few extra calories in case it was off, i still use this method, the machine or hrm may be off, or i may be off on a particular serving of food so it gives a little wiggle room, however i feel like i have spent a lot of time on machines, and online trying to figure out how much i burn doing this or that, how much i burn walking at this speed for that long, etc. and my HRM usually is pretty close to those as well so id say its pretty close, nothing is perfect, its all estimates, but its not that far off, i have recently been using it to do 30DS, it tells me i burn about 220 calories, the elliptical for the same amount of time tells me about 330, i feel like i work much harder at 30ds, so i assume calories are pretty close.

antonia_yes

Interesting that other people have wondered the same thing!
If I take my normal calories for that hour into account, the estimates are more similar, so maybe that's the difference!
I'll try to go for a middle range I think...