i question the validity of my HRM....

DatEpicChick

i have a fitbit, and have used that for over a year, but on certain exercises (insanity and such) i knew it was estimating calories burnt low... so i got a HRM last week... a good one. it was about 80$, and i like it, but it seems like its WAY high... at least compared to the fitbit... idk....

i did insanity this morning, it said it was 450 calories for the 45 minute workout....
then i did a little 10 minute HIIT about an hour later, it said about 125 cals burnt.

then i did my run/jog/walk at 10 am... right after the HIIT... and its about 3-4 miles, and i'm trying to make at least half of it RUNNING (i take a jogging stroller with my 2 year, and there are 2 hills on our route).... it said i burnt 640 calories... i manually put in for 500 on the fitbit site just in case, but it seems high? my heart rate was averaged at 140, with 180 my 'high'.... idk? anyone have any ideas?

my biggest thing is that i dont want to be putting in all these burnt calories if they are wrong, and then eating more to make up for it and then like ALL the hard work is for nothing, you know? i mean i was sweating my a*s off, and it felt soOOoOoo good to be able to do it, but idk, 600 in an hour?.... >.> i guess it was windy hahahaaha.

IntoTheSky

Mine does the same. I will go for a walk/jog (mostly walk) that lasts 45 minutes and it will say 500 calories. It freaks me out too, but, I go with it. If it says I burned 600, I will eat back 400, just to be safe and account for stuff that I may have underestimated calories on.

MommaRoseFitness

Those sound like accurate readings to me. You have to remember this is monitoring your heart rate, not steps or distances. Also, with running and walking you will burn more pushing a stroller. I thought mine was wrong too, but my trainer and doctor said it is all about the effort you are putting in. So it is more accurate than what fitbit would be.

ChristyRunStarr

Is it set up correctly? For the longest time I couldn't figure out why I'd get more calories with my Garmin HRM than my Polar HRM to only look at it this past weekend to update my weight and realized it was set for male instead of female :laugh: oops!

Which HRM did you get; does it have a chest strap?

NutellaAddict

Nothing will be 100% accurate, I have a Polar FT4, I trust it but I usually only eat back 70-80% of my workout calories. Sometimes I feel as if it is also reading a little high on calories burned. I also do HIIT on the treadmill and eliptical.

DatEpicChick

yes i have the chest strap, i like that alot, i actually got one without, then went and exchanged it for one that had one just to try it out, and i really enjoy it haha. i picked up the sport line cardio 680. the gals said it was a pretty popular one, and i like it more than the one i had before. just seems high, and i dont want to be going through all the trouble you know? and i checked the stats, they are all right, weight, gender, and everything. so hmm..

devil_in_a_blue_dress

I am sure people with a lot more knowledge than me will respond, but your numbers don't sound terribly high to me. I burn 225-300 doing 20-30 minutes of like 30ds or RI30 -- which are shorter and less intense than Insanity. I am 5'2 about 150 pounds and my bf is around 25-26%.

cmjanssen

This is how the HRm was explained to me:

The monitor logs what you would burn if you were static (because technically we burn calories continuously) plus the extra effort you put in. So you can sit on the couch and do nothing but breath and it will have "burned calories" . I would do this for an hour and keep that in mind and subtract it from your total so you get the "exercise only" burned calories....make sense?

akilahleemarie

No that sounds accurate...I have a heart rate monitor chest strap and one on my bike...and I usually average 160 bpm for 30 mins on the bike..and when i go online and use a heart rate calculator it says the same, about 300 calories. HIIT is amazing i love having a heart rate monitor because then you can really find out whats burning the most calories in the least amount of time

Hezzietiger1

I have a New Balance HRM and it seemed accurate. I lost the chest strap, so I bought another one I found on Groupon. It's scientific something or other lol. Anyway, it is ridiculous. It shows my standing hr at like 30 and then when I'm working sometimes it will show 230 and other times it will show like 110.

My standing hr is usually like 76 and when I'm in the peak of my exercise its like 170. So, yeh.. I wouldn't trust it if you are questioning it. I think I just need to buy a new chest strap for my New Balance hrm. I love that thing.

jsickman12

I have been using a heart rate monitor since I was a competitive runner in high school, your numbers seems accurate to me.

Mokey41

This is how the HRm was explained to me:

The monitor logs what you would burn if you were static (because technically we burn calories continuously) plus the extra effort you put in. So you can sit on the couch and do nothing but breath and it will have "burned calories" . I would do this for an hour and keep that in mind and subtract it from your total so you get the "exercise only" burned calories....make sense?

Doesn't work that way. A HRM is not accurate unless you at an elevated HR. Sitting with your HRM on will give you a greatly exaggerated number of calories burned for that time frame. If you want to do a deduction for time you need to take your BMR divided by 24 to get a better idea.

That said, a HRM doesn't deduct the calories you would have burned during the time you exercised if you had done nothing so to be more accurate you probably should deduct those.

abnerner

Id say they are about right.

Juliet_622

Your numbers sound very similar to what I get on mine when I go running or do Insanity. Depending on how dig I deep, I burn between 400-450 for the first month's workouts. I typically burn just over 100 during the warm-up alone! So for a 10 minute HIIT, your numbers seem right.

And just for comparison's sake, I use a Polar FT7, and I'm 5'4, 165lbs

tturley

Try this:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

You take your average from your HRM and use this calculator. It seems to be accurate to me except on lower intensity workouts.

determined136

If you have your stats in the settings and the chest strap monitor you should be as accurate as they can be. I know when I run for 30-45 minutes mine has a 500 - 800 cal burn. When I kick box it varies from 400 - 700 depending on the effort I put in. It is definitely possible to have a high calorie burn in an hour’s time. You know your body. If you are out of breath and sweating you are getting a great burn in!:bigsmile:

ANeWcRe8N

Numbers sound about right to me. I have a polar ft4 and my readings are usually about 10 cals per minute when really intense. Right now I'm doing insanity and if I do a 45 min workout for ex, my burn will be around 450 mark.. give or take. I also have a fitbit and it always has a lower reading than my hrm.. fitbit goes by steps though so I would say not as accurate as the hrm during a workout.

mbastuk

Actually, been thinking the same thing...I was using my FITBIT for most workouts and for P90X, I was using p90xcalories.com to estimate calories burned. I knew the FITBIT would be off for some of the workouts but in general, it seemed reasonable.

I got a Polar FT7 last week and I was shocked at how much higher it predicts for calorie burn vs Fitbit or even the MPF cardio exercises. I ran on the treadmill today for 50 min - MFP would predict 350 calories burned - the HRM was at 600!!

I also compared the HRM to three of the P90x workouts - in two cases, it was much higher than the P90xcalories website and the other time, it was within 5 calories.

Raynne413

Your numbers sound fairly accurate. I generally tend to burn around 100-125 calories every 10 minutes of cardio type exercise.

No_Finish_Line

i'd just log whatever estimate was most conservative.

Typically an HRM should be ideal for running or anything where your in a constant state of motion. With something like insanity where there are built in breaks it will be a little less accurate. I usually started my HRM logging after the stretching in insanity, so it wouldn't count cals during the stretching (when my HR was up but i really wasn't doing much).

So i'd trust the jogging numbers more then anything... IF its reading correctly. 180 is awefully high. The highest my HR ever got during insanity was maybe 176. 180 should feel like you just ran a 800 to save your life.

if thats not the kind of work your putting in during your run then i'd say theres something wrong. even tho you just got it, replacing the battery might improve accuracy.

bara_rei

That sounds pretty accurate to me.

As other people have mentioned, it does kind of double count your calories, since it also counts the calories you burn just for existing. But to give you an idea I'm 5'4" and 179 and I usually burn about 300 cals during a RI30 workout or 450-700 depending on the Turbo Fire workout.

Also, my heart rate does get up in the 180s during HIIT training, so that is entirely possible

The HRM is probably the most customized number you're going to get for your workouts. I'd just go with it.

rlmadrid

The numbers are fairly accurate in my opinion. The average person working at vigorous effort can burn about 10 calories a minute. It's about how hard you work, not necessarily how long or how far.

DatEpicChick

see i'm 128 pounds, and everyone at different weights seem to be burning the same amount as what i am doing.... kinda strange? idk?

i just bought the thing, so maybe i just need to give it more time? try and figure it out. thanks everyone for replying!! i feel better now, i will just keep track of the responses from the HRM and see what the trends are. =] especially since i do the same route for my run each day. =D

laurie41565

I just got a Polar FT60 for $135. I thought it read low. I was doing an hour of Les Mills Combat (lot of kicking, punching & jumping) and it said I only burned 280 cals and my previous was about 400 cals higher. I am going with this one though cuz it has a chest strap and it had really good ratings. My heart rate got to about 160 at times and I am drenched when done. I'm 154 lbs.

No_Finish_Line

That sounds pretty accurate to me.

As other people have mentioned, it does kind of double count your calories, since it also counts the calories you burn just for existing. But to give you an idea I'm 5'4" and 179 and I usually burn about 300 cals during a RI30 workout or 450-700 depending on the Turbo Fire workout.

Also, my heart rate does get up in the 180s during HIIT training, so that is entirely possible

The HRM is probably the most customized number you're going to get for your workouts. I'd just go with it.

its possible of course, but if your in your 30s (which it doesn't look like you are) thats very close to 100% of your max heart rate, and if your 40 plus its over it.

I wouldn't expect to see it while jogging at all, HIIT more likely.

If accuracey is a concern to the OP, consider testing the unit by getting your HR up high, then get out a stop watch and take your pulse for 1 min, see if you get the same BPM as the unit.

if the BPM is off then the calorie calc is going to be off as well.

Resa52

The calories on your fitbit are lower because your fitbit has no way of really measuring exertion, only steps. If I do a 30 Day Shred workout, it logs my 1500 steps or whatever and counts them as if I took 1500 steps in a short period of time - it has no clue how hard I was sweating, how hard my heart was beating, or how hard of a workout it was. I'd trust a HRM over the fitbit any day for calorie burn and I LOVE my fitbit.

dixiewhiskey

Major reason I went with a Polar over some of the other techy things out there like Fitbit is that I just want to know approximately how much I burn based on my HR and effort I put into my exercise. If I wanted to know info like steps, I would have stuck with a pedometer.

Francl27

Make sure you update your weight as you lose too, or it will overestimate your calories loss.

rew1469

bump