Are heart rate monitors bogus?

TotallyNotBillNye

I have noticed people burning 1000+ calories doing 30 minutes of "cleaning house" or "walking up apartment stairs" and I am wondering, are the numbers supposed to be adjusted for the base caloric burn? Lets say in one hour you would have burned 75 calories just sitting there watching Spongebob Squarepants, should there be any adjustments to the numbers because of that? I feel as if the totals are too high and could hurt someone who eats their calories back like they're supposed to, especially when they track "mall shopping" as an exercise. Am I confused, does the body really burn that many "extra" calories doing everyday activities? Is my 45 minutes in the gym severely underestimated at 450 calories? Should it be more like 1300 according to a HRM??

majope

I think if people post a question like "Why am I not losing weight?" and open their diaries for advice, it's perfectly fine to point out to them that they may be overestimating their calorie burn.

If not, you really have no idea if what they're recording is working for them or not.

TotallyNotBillNye

That is true, but I am asking whether or not heart rate monitors are evil little fibbers.

NavyMommy

I have no idea, I haven't seen that, but I would guess someone who is estimating 1000 calories burned for cleaning house is way overestimating. I have a HRM and if I bust my tail I can get to about 300 calories in 30 minutes, and 600 calories in 60 minutes. That's intense cardio / interval training though. Weights don't raise my HR that much so I don't count them on calories, just watch my HRM to see what I'm doing. I would say your estimation of 450 calories for 45 minutes is probably pretty accurate.

TotallyNotBillNye

I think you have a sound theory, I also think people are "typing" their caloric burn in on my feed....or something.

dlcarroll13

I don't think heart rate monitors are inaccurate...I've been using mine for some time now and checked it's accuracy against heart rate monitors at work (I'm a Nurse Practitioner) and found that indeed it is very accurate.

Looking at the idea of overestimating your calorie burn however I think tends to be a bit of a problem on here. I believe that for the individual who is truly committed to losing weight only those calories burned TRULY working out should be tracked. For example...walking in the mall shopping...sure it burns calories but it's also a normal part of every day life. Unless you are breaking a sweat or breathing hard to shop you probably shouldn't be counting it or you are just going to cheat yourself and eat back far too many calories.

TotallyNotBillNye

I don't think heart rate monitors are inaccurate...I've been using mine for some time now and checked it's accuracy against heart rate monitors at work (I'm a Nurse Practitioner) and found that indeed it is very accurate.

Looking at the idea of overestimating your calorie burn however I think tends to be a bit of a problem on here. I believe that for the individual who is truly committed to losing weight only those calories burned TRULY working out should be tracked. For example...walking in the mall shopping...sure it burns calories but it's also a normal part of every day life. Unless you are breaking a sweat or breathing hard to shop you probably shouldn't be counting it or you are just going to cheat yourself and eat back far too many calories.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Aello11

HRM are fairly accurate --- But MFP I have found over estimates by quite a bit the same activity to the point that I have stopped using their values and either enter the value from the equipment, my HRM or an average from calorie burn sites.

Firekeeper66

I recently purchased a heart rate monitor and received a RUDE AWAKENING.

Now, I'm 100 pounds overweight doing these exercises so keep that in mind when I give you my counts.

1 hour on the bike - MFP tells me it's somewhere betweeen 900 and 1000 calories burned depending on my speed
1 hour on the bike - my bike tells me it's about 750 calories burned (my bike doesn't take into account weight or height)
1 hour on the bike - my heart rate monitor tells me it's about 350 calories burned

I always thought MFP counts were high so I always subtracked 2-300 hundred from what it gave me but wow, wasn't expecting this!

catsnap213

I have found that using my HRM has been way more accurate then estimating the calories burned using the MFP categories. When entering my calories burned on MFP I usually make the calories burned match not the minutes of activity. This gives me a better estimate of my available calories for the day.

CaffeinatedConfectionist

I agree with other posters - while HRMs are never 100% accurate (from what I understand, the Polars are estimated at around 75% accuracy, though this percentage increases if you have a higher model that takes V02 into account)* I think that the issue with the calorie burn in those incidences has more to do with user error than a HRM. I doubt most people logging massive burns for relatively day-to-day activities are using HRMs anyway, and it would be silly if they were, since HRMs are essentially only accurate for straight up cardio (for a good explanation of why, I love this blog post: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698).


* http://www.livestrong.com/article/490909-the-accuracy-of-calories-burned-in-polar-heart-rate-monitors/

bdur76

Ironically, mine works just fine. It's a polar ft40 with a chest strap. The numbers it provides are very consistent, and actually match up very well with the mfp estimates. I've found people who are over logging exercise in mfp, typically aren't being honest with themselves regarding how hard they are working out. The biggest difference to be mindful of is the impact of body weight on calories burned. Also the heart rate monitor doesn't factor in or remove the calories you would have burned at rest during that time that MFP already gives you credit for. I always subtracted those calories back out of the hrm results.

Like everything else with weight loss it is a tool, to help you get a better estimate. Using the hrm or not, logging and doing exercise has tons of benefits, and logging your food really makes you think more about what you're eating. So whether its an overestimate or not, most people will still benefit!

pamwhite712

From what I'm getting from your question, you're not really questioning an HRM's accuracy as much as people putting down every day things and showing a large amount of calories burned. Or, as the case of many of the friends on my feed, burning a large amount of calories for something and you just know that can't be right. I have a Polar FT4 and even with it I only use 75% of the calories burned.

When people put down cleaning or walking the mall, I just assume they're really hungry and want to justify to themselves for eating more.

Lupercalia

I think it depends on what sort of activity you're trying to track with them....not sure they'd be terribly helpful to me because I mostly strength train and do KB stuff.

MFP estimates are crazy high, so I don't trust those, either. Same goes for the cardio machines at the gym.

I've never really worried about how many calories I burn. I just burn 'em and eat a reasonable amount of food.

defragmenteur

The formula for calculating calories burning is an estimation and can vary from manufacturers. If the data in your profile is not good (max heart rate for example) it can alter the result. Based on my Garmin 500, I burn 600-800 calories on a 60 minutes of heavy interval training on my bicycle. No way you can burn 1000 cal during 60 minutes of shopping...

Yooperm35

...walking in the mall shopping...sure it burns calories but it's also a normal part of every day life. Unless you are breaking a sweat or breathing hard to shop you probably shouldn't be counting it or you are just going to cheat yourself and eat back far too many calories.

However, a BMR is based in your metabolic rate- if you were to just lay in bed and do absolutely NOTHING. The act if getting out of bed has just burned up a calorie, so walking the mall certainly would count towards calories burned above your BMR

dlcarroll13

From what I'm getting from your question, you're not really questioning an HRM's accuracy as much as people putting down every day things and showing a large amount of calories burned. Or, as the case of many of the friends on my feed, burning a large amount of calories for something and you just know that can't be right. I have a Polar FT4 and even with it I only use 75% of the calories burned.

When people put down cleaning or walking the mall, I just assume they're really hungry and want to justify to themselves for eating more.

THIS! Yes I agree absolutely...if you wanna eat more do yourself some good and go for a real walk...or don't be whining when the scale doesn't move right!

Mads1997

I don't think heart rate monitors are inaccurate...I've been using mine for some time now and checked it's accuracy against heart rate monitors at work (I'm a Nurse Practitioner) and found that indeed it is very accurate.

Looking at the idea of overestimating your calorie burn however I think tends to be a bit of a problem on here. I believe that for the individual who is truly committed to losing weight only those calories burned TRULY working out should be tracked. For example...walking in the mall shopping...sure it burns calories but it's also a normal part of every day life. Unless you are breaking a sweat or breathing hard to shop you probably shouldn't be counting it or you are just going to cheat yourself and eat back far too many calories.

Exactly this. But hey they are only cheating themselves.

TotallyNotBillNye

I think tracking everyday activities is counterproductive, even though it might make people feel good about what they are told they have accomplished. IMO, unless you have changed into something suitable for working out then the calories should not be counted and even when you do then the calories should be averaged...if you are going to count of course. Daily activities shouldn't have an impact on your weight loss goals IMHO, I mean we added on the pounds while doing these same exact things right? We did not, however, add these pounds while busting *kitten* in the gym, warehouse, trail or wherever it is that you prefer to train. Something to think about.

savithny

...walking in the mall shopping...sure it burns calories but it's also a normal part of every day life. Unless you are breaking a sweat or breathing hard to shop you probably shouldn't be counting it or you are just going to cheat yourself and eat back far too many calories.

However, a BMR is based in your metabolic rate- if you were to just lay in bed and do absolutely NOTHING. The act if getting out of bed has just burned up a calorie, so walking the mall certainly would count towards calories burned above your BMR

True -- but your calorie requirements on MFP are not based off your BMR. If they were, there would be no need to put in your activity level. Getting out of bed is part of "daily activities" which are included in the math.

So you shouldn't count anything that is a regular daily activity as "exercise you eat back." I don't count walking to the bus, cooking dinner, carrying laundry to the basement, any of that stuff. I have been counting my purposeful "Now I will go walk for 30 minutes straight" walks, as they are activity I've made an effort to *add* to my days. I've let myself get pretty sedentary, and I used "sedentary" as my MFP setting. But even if you're sedentary, if walking from Target to Old Navy is something you usually to, you shouldnt' count it as exercise.

I actually think a lot of people here are overestimating their activity levels. I've seen people say "Oh, no one who ever stands up and walks to the bathroom is truly sedentary," but the studies I've read on BMR calculations suggest that most americans who have sit-down jobs and don't walk for pleasure or play sports are ridiculously sedentary. So sedentary, in fact, that even doing a 30 minute exercise class a couple times a week isn't enough to raise them to "lightly active" if they drive to the class and then drive home and watch tv for the rest of the night.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

thisisme13

As another poster pointed out, a lot of people use regular HRM wrong. I have a Polar FT7. I can't wear mine all day and expect it to be correct. Regular HRM are made to measure HR and calorie burns when your HR is elevated.

Personally, I don't understand why people put cleaning, food prep, and the other normal life tasks as exercise. I will very rarely put cleaning as exercise in my day. This is only when I do a really big cleaning where it takes me hours to clean the whole house... even than I put in maybe 1/4 of the time I spent cleaning. For normal cleanings I don't log. It's part of my daily activity.

Also, some HRM may overestimate calorie burns depending on the model. I had a watch only HRM at one point and with those they only take your most recent HR instead of the constant HR one with a chest strap takes. When I had the watch only one and would check my HR when I was working out hard, sometimes I forgot to recheck it and therefore my calorie burns would be far too high.

Also, keep in mind when on someones feed it normally only mentions the most recent activity logged. So say they ran for 2 hours than added cleaning... it may say "... burned 1300 calories including 30 minutes of light cleaning" .. It groups all the exercise together.

jonnythan

I think they really are. An HRM has to make a massive assumption about VO2max, which is going to be nowhere near reality. They also cannot hope to account for the hormones and drugs that affect heart rate, like adrenaline and caffeine.

They're better than absolutely nothing, but I think devices that directly measure energy expenditure like the Fitbit are much more accurate.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

newmangrrl

I don't understand why people log everyday activities like cleaning, food prep, folding laundry etc... These are normal activities that we all usually do. While doing them we still gained weight!! So how is logging them going to help?

I prefer my HRM calorie burn count over what MPF says and what the machine (treadmill, elliptical, etc) says. It may not be entirely accurate but I think it is more accurate than MPF's inflated estimates.

itsmyvwbeetle

My heart rate monitor (Polar FT7) measures my calorie burns at less than what myfitnesspal does. When running I tend to see what MFP gives me, my Nike + app, and then my HRM. My HRM is always less than MFP (even if only a few calories) and pretty close to Nike +.

You are supposed to take BMR out of your results though. So, if your BMR is 75 calories an hour and you wear it 2 hours then yes you take 150 calories off your burn.

jonnythan

I think they really are. An HRM has to make a massive assumption about VO2max, which is going to be nowhere near reality. They also cannot hope to account for the hormones and drugs that affect heart rate, like adrenaline and caffeine.

They're better than absolutely nothing, but I think devices that directly measure energy expenditure like the Fitbit are much more accurate.

How does the fitbit measure energy expenditure?

Measuring the acceleration of your body as you move.

I'm not sure how the algorithms work, but here's how I think I would do it:

1) Measure the acceleration of the torso in 3 dimensions constantly
2) Filter out acceleration that doesn't seem to be exerted by the body itself (cars, elevators, etc)
3) Calculate the energy required to move the body mass according to that acceleration profile
4) Profit

I'm not sure exactly what it does. I know that it can determine my actual speed while running, jogging, walking, playing tennis, etc. because it shows my speed on a per-minute basis on the dashboard. I know that it tracks extra calories burned while jumping, doing the elliptical, climbing stairs, etc. because it shows increased calorie burns during those activities. So it's definitely doing something much more sophisticated than tracking steps.

TheWinman

Many good responses on here so I will not repeat them. General rule of thumb in playing it safe is to subtract 10% from your HRM calorie burn when logging it.

lilynblue

I bought one last week, and I think it accurately checks my heartrate. However, I have tachycardia, not sure what it is caused by, so I don't think I can trust the calories it says I burned. For example I walked for 45 minutes at approximately 2.75 mph and it estimated I burned 413 calories. I think I probably burned closer to 250 calories. Basically while they may be accurate at tracking heartrate, they are not necessarily accurate at tracking calories burned.

cindiva65

I just got a Polar HR monitor and really enjoying it. It actually is pretty close to the same calories as what the gym treadmill was giving me. I like how I can see where I am with my heart rate and where I can amp it up next time. I only use it when Im working out at the gym (doing real exercise). I dont count my daily activities like cleaning or shopping (although the way I shop could be considered an sporting event...LOL).

sijomial

I had a quiet hour at work so entered all my calories eaten and burned (measured by HRM) into a spreadsheet to see how accurate this whole food logging & exercise burn counting thing was.....
Since Jan 2nd by my numbers I "should" have lost 6.5lbs - in fact I've lost 5lbs.

So yes I would say that a HRM used properly is pretty accurate, certainly useful.

But as others have stated I wish more people would use them as a training aid instead of a calorie counter!!