Are heart rate monitors bogus?

Mokey41

A HRM is as accurate as you're likely to get without being hooked to a sophisticated machine in a lab. People who log 1,000 calories for mall walking or cleaning likely aren't using a HRM to start with and if they are they're using it incorrectly anyway. Why worry about what others do? If they want to cheat themselves, fine.

cookiealbright

I don't know anything about heart rate monitors. Maybe i'm not just all about excercising. But I do know I put on these extra pounds by eating too much, I've always been kind of active. I think myfitnesspal calories burned is too high as are the machines at the gym. That's why I don't eat back my calories. But I do count everyday activies like "cleaning the house" and "Playing with little kids" because I usually only do those things once a week. I work at a desk all week and long hours 8 to 10 per day. And when I clean my house I'm going up & down stairs carrying stuff so I think that counts. When my grandkids come over I'm flying a kite, playing tag, baseball, dancing, jumping or running. Maybe the neighbors think it odd that a 57 yr. old grandma is doing these activities, but I don't care. All activitity counts - even if it's fun! :flowerforyou:

KelBelz22

I use a HRM and I noticed instantly the huge difference between MFP and the HRM. I always though that MFP was wayy to high anyway and I was adjusting it every time I logged something. I've been super pleased with the results since I've started with a HRM.

And as far as logging every day activities. I don't. I wear a pedometer just because I like to see how many steps and miles I go everyday. But I don't log that as walking. The only "everyday" activity that I log it when I'm outside and I'm shoveling heavy crappy snow for 30-60 minutes. I live in New England and for people that live in my area know, that crap can give you a upper body workout. But I will wear my HRM when I do it so it's still an accurate number.

Lulzaroonie

I don't have a HRM yet, but I am getting on in June for my birthday. I have noticed that often, values differ greatly between machines and MFP, and values even differ between calorie sites.
At the moment, I am using a site which calculates average calorie burn by heart rate, weight and time. It seems more reliable to me, but it's not always possible to accurately take my own heart rate as I often miscount haha.

Andrew_peter

My Polar FT4 is accurate with the built in HRM on my elliptical, and as long as I work out at near max intensity I find the values on the MFP website are not too far off the polar.

I think the problem is that people "run" for 30 min and enter it into MFP using the database entry, when really what they are doing is a brisk walk if anything. Beyond being able to more accuratly gauge calories burned, my HRM has been a great tool to learn to pace myself during workouts.

Edit: Also just remember to subtract your BMR for the time worked out from any HRM calories burn calcualtion if you want to be as accurate as possible.

Mommybug2

My Polar FT4 and the Precor machines at the gym (which also have HRMs) tally close to the same amount. Generally on an ellipical - cross country training interval I can average 400-450 calories/40 minute workout (which includes the warmup and cool down). If I come into MFP and log that same 35 minutes it will tell me I burned closer to 450 (ETA I rechecked and MFP tells me 501). I always go with the HRM and generally subtract about 50 calories to be on the safe side of "eating back my calories".

I also only log true deep and dirty cleaning. When I am scrubbing, sweeping and sweating. It generally takes me 5-6 hours to do the whole house with a couple of small breaks thrown in but even then I will only add in 1-2 hours of cleaning on MFP. I think it all comes down to being honest about your exertion. For instance MFP tells me that Swimming "Leisurely" burns 500 calories - but how many people are actually doing Leisurely laps while swimming? If you are playing in the pool with your toddler chances are good that you did not put out 500 calories worth of effort in that hour.

I say if you aren't out of breath, sweaty, and feeling the burn don't log it as cardio. If you are here to lose weight those little extra "burns" that you don't log will help boost your weight loss or at least make up for the fact that calorie estimates aren't 100% accurate.

timpicks

Heart rate monitors are excellent at measuring heart rate. In my experience, less so in calculating calories burned. It is interesting that some here think it overestimates and others the opposite.

I have a Timex HRM that is pretty bad overall, and calculates calorie burn more than 60% higher than machines or even MFP typically does. I top out my HR in the mid-160's and do intervals between that and around 140, usually averaging a HR in the high 140's. My CW is 166 lbs. but I've generally been around 180-190 for most of the past 10 years (yay MFP!).

There is no way that I am burning at a rate of about 1,000 cals per hour, but that's what my Timex says. I would greatly appreciate it if one of the many MFP people who know more than I do about this could give me some feedback--am I right in assuming my HRM calorie numbers are garbage? Many thanks.

Andrew_peter

Heart rate monitors are excellent at measuring heart rate. In my experience, less so in calculating calories burned. It is interesting that some here think it overestimates and others the opposite.

I have a Timex HRM that is pretty bad overall, and calculates calorie burn more than 60% higher than machines or even MFP typically does. I top out my HR in the mid-160's and do intervals between that and around 140, usually averaging a HR in the high 140's. My CW is 166 lbs. but I've generally been around 180-190 for most of the past 10 years (yay MFP!).

There is no way that I am burning at a rate of about 1,000 cals per hour, but that's what my Timex says. I would greatly appreciate it if one of the many MFP people who know more than I do about this could give me some feedback--am I right in assuming my HRM calorie numbers are garbage? Many thanks.

Several online calculators that use age, HR, & weight indicatewith your details 935 cal burned at an avg HR of 150 over an hour, so maybe not too far off.

enigmaneo

I post thousands of calories burned and usually it's correct.

Zomoniac

I trust it to give me an accurate heart rate, but I strongly suspect it way overestimates by burn levels. Any kind of sustained intense cardio and it's giving me numbers of around a thousand per hour. Consequently I use the number it gives me, but set my net goal a bit lower than I otherwise would.

Zomoniac

Incidentally, my theoretical MHR is between 186 and 192 depending on which formula you take. During Insanity sessions I spend most of it in the 184-190 region (average for this morning's 40 minute session, including a warm up and 10 minute's worth of stretches, was 176, peaking at 190). Which is mildly scary, but there you go.

Cyclink

So here's the magic question: how do you know if your heart rate monitor is telling you an accurate number of calories?

You can check the heart rate number. Just hold your finger on your artery and count. The calories, unless you have access to some serious lab equipment, you really don't know if the number is correct or if it's off by 40%.

If you put the same numbers into 10 different online calculators for the same activity, you will get 10 different numbers over a range of 10 to 20%. Which one of them is right?

Just because one monitor asks for body weight, fat %, VO2 max (like you spent the money on that test), height, and gender does not mean it's more accurate. It is just trying to fill in a few wild guesses with rough assumptions. They can still be wildly off.

You want your heart rate monitor to know whether you are sitting walking, cross country skiing, or just nervous about a big date and give you an accurate calorie burn based on that? It's not going to happen.

Heart rate monitors are great for telling you your heart rate. GPS units are great for telling you speed and distance. Neither is great for calculating calories burned.

mfpcopine

I use them to see how fast my heart is beating; it's accurate for that. I ignore the calorie burn estimates. When I see people recording enormous calorie burns for routine activities I know that their primary exercise is self-deception.

Zomoniac

When I see people recording enormous calorie burns for routine activities I know that their primary exercise is self-deception.

Beautifully poetic.

mfpcopine

So here's the magic question: how do you know if your heart rate monitor is telling you an accurate number of calories?

You can check the heart rate number. Just hold your finger on your artery and count. The calories, unless you have access to some serious lab equipment, you really don't know if the number is correct or if it's off by 40%.

If you put the same numbers into 10 different online calculators for the same activity, you will get 10 different numbers over a range of 10 to 20%. Which one of them is right?

Just because one monitor asks for body weight, fat %, VO2 max (like you spent the money on that test), height, and gender does not mean it's more accurate. It is just trying to fill in a few wild guesses with rough assumptions. They can still be wildly off.

You want your heart rate monitor to know whether you are sitting walking, cross country skiing, or just nervous about a big date and give you an accurate calorie burn based on that? It's not going to happen.

Heart rate monitors are great for telling you your heart rate. GPS units are great for telling you speed and distance. Neither is great for calculating calories burned.

I don't know why so many people don't get this most simple of points. These are not magical gadgets, although they can be very helpful. What's more, most of us don't need complex tools. We need education, we need to comply with our plans, and we need to monitor our progress. No one tool does everything.

jcmartin0313

I use a combination of HRM and online calculators and adjust my time when I enter a workout into MFP to reflect an approximation. I used to always go with MFP but quickly determined it was bogus very often. That is why I tend to look at calories in/ calories out on a weekly basis rather than daily.

mfpcopine

When I see people recording enormous calorie burns for routine activities I know that their primary exercise is self-deception.

Beautifully poetic.

:flowerforyou:

cwolfman13

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

It's all estimation, but HRMs are far more accurate than data bases and cardio machines. I usually just knock off 20% or so to account for BMR (what I would have burned watching spongebob) and estimation error. I think people get far too wrapped up in exact burns, etc.

I also think people cheat themselves when they log activity that should just be included in their daily NEAT or TDEE. Even if I go out and spend half a day doing yard work that is outside of the ordinary, I don't log it...I might have an extra beer or two, but I don't log my 4 hours of yard work as exercise.

tryinghard71

I used MFP calorie burn when I started then bought a HRM. I was burning much less than I thought or MFP said during exercise.
I will say that when I was heavier and more out of shape I burned a lot more than I do today. One year ago doing an exercise for an hour gave me a 600 plus burn. Now I am only burning around 430. So the more in shape you are the less you burn. Maybe that is why people are burning higher numbers? I don't know. . But I did hear that you should minus 10-15% from your burn for logging.

jonnythan

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

It's all estimation, but HRMs are far more accurate than data bases and cardio machines. I usually just knock off 20% or so to account for BMR (what I would have burned watching spongebob) and estimation error. I think people get far too wrapped up in exact burns, etc.

I also think people cheat themselves when they log activity that should just be included in their daily NEAT or TDEE. Even if I go out and spend half a day doing yard work that is outside of the ordinary, I don't log it...I might have an extra beer or two, but I don't log my 4 hours of yard work as exercise.

You "might" have an extra 400 calories of alcohol and sugar if you do a lot of yard work, but you don't log it? Maybe you should log it if you're going to be consuming extra calories to cover it

seanezekiel

I have found many peoples calorie burn to be way to high but I think that it MFPs fault. I see people burning 1k plus calories doing the same thing my sports tracker tells me I am burning 300 from. I believe my 300.

seanezekiel

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!!

Do you lift weights at all. You may have lost more but gained some better weight in its place. Explain the 1.5 difference.

Brittany3914

In my opinion.....

No, heart rate monitors are not bogus. With that said, I do not wear it while I'm cleaning the house, walking around the mall, or lolly-gagging through my day. I'm sure you could strap it on while you're walking at the mall, but I usually don't walk at the mall. I browse. I stop. I meander. I digress....

I only wear my HRM when I'm doing specific physical activity. Running. Spinning. Kickboxing. You get the idea.

SO, to answer your question, HRMs themselves are not bogus. The options of cardiovascular exercise on MFP are bogus. No one really burns 1,000 calories from cooking/preparing food (unless you're doing cartwheels and lunges).

enigmaneo

Sounds like some people are jealous I weigh 220 pounds and when I run for an hour I burn 1000 calories. If I dance for 5 hours I burn 2500 calories. If you want to burn like that gain weight.

enigmaneo

I think my heart rate monitor is off If I"m not running, or elliptical, jogging biking etc..., numbers come off high.

dixiech1ck

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!

And this is why a lot of people are still hanging onto excess lbs. Because they think the readings on MFP are Gospel. Invest in a heart rate monitor, use it. It does work. I'm living proof. 87 lbs doing zumba, running and eating within my means. All in a year.

dixiech1ck

Sounds like some people are jealous I weigh 220 pounds and when I run for an hour I burn 1000 calories. If I dance for 5 hours I burn 2500 calories. If you want to burn like that gain weight.

Yes, but you have to understand, everybody's heart rate, body make-up, etc. is DIFFERENT.

A 220 lb person running for 1 hour may equal 1000 calories burned. And this could very well be true.

A 120 lb person running for 1 hour may equal 500 calories burned. Both persons make-up's are different, they are carrying different weight, going different speeds, exerting different amounts of energy. The 220 lb person may have a heart rate of 170, while the 120 lb person may have a heart rate of 145. It all depends on the physical make-up of the body.

When I run outside in the cold, I burn far more calories than if I run the same amount of time/distance on a treadmill. Conditions are different, I'm working harder because a treadmill is going to carry my run rather than me having to push off and carry my pace (tread does that for me). Plus, the cold means my body needs to justify for heat, which makes my heart rate go up automatically.

This is why it burns me when I see people ask "What's your caloric intake at XX heigh and XX weight?" Everyone is DIFFERENT. You can't compare someone else to you. You both aren't doing the same job, same eating habits, same burn as the next person just because you are the same height. It's like comparing apples to apple pie. TOTALLY different. Though you have a common factor, you are not the same.

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!!

Do you lift weights at all. You may have lost more but gained some better weight in its place. Explain the 1.5 difference.

I do lift weights (normally 3 cardio and 3 separate strength sessions a week). Strength and definition certainly improved but muscle mass - hmmm, not so sure. Don't really qualify for "newbie muscle gains during a calorie deficit" as I've been training for about 37 years now!!
More likely the difference is forgetting to log those exra few glasses of Sauvignon Blanc. :drinker:

looopyloops

Depending on where you get the info some are correct, and some are not, things that effect the calories burned are your weight, a 300 lb person burns a lot more calories then 150 lb person doing the exact same activity. there are sites you can find that will help you figure out your burn as well , they are not 100 % but pretty good, I always err on the lower side, when I run I burn about 400 calories per hr, I have noticed some of the exercises listed in the data base that you can use give you a lot more calories per hr then that, you have to be careful where you get the info from. here are some sites to check out http://calorielab.com/burned/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/295151-calories-burned-from-jogging-four-miles-per-hour/ http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc

NutellaAddict

In 30 mins I usually only burn about 400-440 calories (according to my Polar FT4)...and that's doing HIIT..if they are burning 1000 calories in 30 mins doing cleaning, sign me up for that program.