HRM - completely confused now!

AnnieeR

So tonight was my first work out wearing my new HRM. I'm now officially confused.

1. I normally set the machine(s) - generally a treadmill - to a calorie goal of 400. That way regardless of how I'm feeling, I reach the calorie burn even if I go a bit slower. But it usually takes me 45 minutes. Today, after roughly that amount of time it was showing a calorie burn of about 25% more, which is pretty substantial! Could it possibly be that far out from the machine? From what I've read here, most people experience the opposite - a disappointingly low calorie burn compared to the machine (I always put my age and weight into the machine, incidentally).

2. I've got a bad ankle and back at the moment so I'm not pushing as hard as usual and I'm spending more time on the recumbent bike which I feel doesn't give me a very hard work out but which is the only thing that doesn't hurt in some way. I stayed right in the middle of my target weight loss heart rate and I did sweat, but I didn't feel like I was working all that hard and at the end I didn't feel like I'd had as hard a work out as usual, and yet it registered the higher calorie burn. When I'm not injured I normally run/walk and seriously sweat and feel like I'm working. And I've been losing weight and yet clearly that's been beyond my target heart rate for weight loss!

I'm so confused!!

Lorimichewicz

Are you able to set your treadmill to your height, weight, gender and age? If not, your TM is probably set for a generic person, that might by why there is such a difference between the two computers. Maybe???????

fiendiish

I've found that I burn a great deal more according to my HRM...which is what I'm more inclined to believe as "accurate" (to an extent). After all, it IS measuring YOUR heart rate. The TM isn't so good at that. LOL. From what I understand...the HRMs overshoot a LITTLE BIT...but within the margin of error so none to worry. Go with the HRM.

vineas

My HRM is the same - it reads much higher than the machine (2-3X as much). I always assumed that the HRM was closer to being correct than the machine, so I just go with that number. My results over the last several weeks seem to fit with that as well.

Edestiny7

Yes, your HRM is what is accurate. The HRMs on the machines are not nearly as accurate. Trust your HRM.

odessa_raven

I have no relevant information on your question, I just had to mention how jealous I am that you're capable of a 400 calorie workout. A 200 calorie workout is a pretty good day for me!

LoriLou67

Yes, your HRM will be the most accurate as it has your particular information in it (height, weight, age, etc.) AND if you have the kind with a chest strap, it is the most accurate monitor! Don't forget to change your weight (and age I guess) settings as you progress.

kiffypooh

My HRM always says I burn more then the machines or MFP. Although I don't program the machines at the gym to my weight and hight, etc. My SIL borrowed my HRM last week and was shocked at how many more calories she burns according to the HRM vs the machines and she does program the machine.
One another note, when I do 30 Day Shred I am falling over sweating, out of breath, etc (GREAT work out) and I burn 100 cals every 10 min. If I walk on the treadmil at 4 MPH, which is normal for me, I am not out of breath, I am sweating after about 30 min but nothing like 30DS and I can carry on with my day when I'm done doing that for an hour and my HRM says I've burned 100 cals every 10 min of that work out. So I'm not sure about those things, although I like it better then a shot in the dark. I've also noticed I burn more calories if I drink a cup of coffee shortly before (I don't normally drink caffeine so my heart rate starts moving) and if the strap is tighter.
Those are my stories and my two cents for you :laugh: Thanks for the post, I'm interested in seeing what others say.

lvfunandfit

I just use a HRM monitor to gauge my intensity. I subtract about 25% from my over all cals burned because it doesn't account for what my body would normally burn at rest during that time.The calories burned are figured by an algorithm based on your HR, age, height and weight that you program into the computer. It's not completely accurate. Just know that you are burning calories and losing weight! That's what counts ! Use your HRM to judge how intense your workouts are.

kiffypooh

I just use a HRM monitor to gauge my intensity. I subtract about 25% from my over all cals burned because it doesn't account for what my body would normally burn at rest during that time.The calories burned are figured by an algorithm based on your HR, age, height and weight that you program into the computer. It's not completely accurate. Just know that you are burning calories and losing weight! That's what counts ! Use your HRM to judge how intense your workouts are.

Very well put and thank you for making a few points I hadn't thought about. Thank you :flowerforyou:

Azdak

HRM is only as accurate as the setup data. HRMs do not measure calories. HRMs only measure heart rate. Based on heart rate, they ESTIMATE calories. Heart rate has NO direct effect on calorie expenditure. HR is only useful when it MATCHES a known % of VO2 max.

Saying that "HRM is always the most accurate" is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Oh, and did I say it was WRONG?

If you have a higher HRmax than the age-calculated HRmax the HRM does for you, the HRM will overestimate your calories (unless your manually enter your TRUE HRmax in the setup).

If you have a high VO2max number entered into your setup, the HRM will overestimate your calories. (and if you can't manually enter your VO2max into the setup, you don't have a very accurate HRM to begin with).

If you mistakenly set the units to metric, yet enter english weight numbers, the HRM will overestimate your calories.

If you don't have an HRM with a chest strap, then the calorie number is not very useful.

If you are getting wacky numbers from your HRM, don't assume that, because it is an HRM, it is automatically the accurate number. In many, if not most cases like this, there is a problem w/the HRM setup.

fiendiish

HRM is only as accurate as the setup data. HRMs do not measure calories. HRMs only measure heart rate. Based on heart rate, they ESTIMATE calories. Heart rate has NO direct effect on calorie expenditure. HR is only useful when it MATCHES a known % of VO2 max.

Saying that "HRM is always the most accurate" is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Oh, and did I say it was WRONG?

If you have a higher HRmax than the age-calculated HRmax the HRM does for you, the HRM will overestimate your calories (unless your manually enter your TRUE HRmax in the setup).

If you have a high VO2max number entered into your setup, the HRM will overestimate your calories. (and if you can't manually enter your VO2max into the setup, you don't have a very accurate HRM to begin with).

If you mistakenly set the units to metric, yet enter english weight numbers, the HRM will overestimate your calories.

If you don't have an HRM with a chest strap, then the calorie number is not very useful.

If you are getting wacky numbers from your HRM, don't assume that, because it is an HRM, it is automatically the accurate number. In many, if not most cases like this, there is a problem w/the HRM setup.

TONS of people on this site are going with the calorie burn their HRMs display. It is working for them...myself included. I think most of us are intelligent enough to realize that it's an estimate. But really...who cares if it's an estimate or exact as long as it's working?

Azdak

HRM is only as accurate as the setup data. HRMs do not measure calories. HRMs only measure heart rate. Based on heart rate, they ESTIMATE calories. Heart rate has NO direct effect on calorie expenditure. HR is only useful when it MATCHES a known % of VO2 max.

Saying that "HRM is always the most accurate" is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Oh, and did I say it was WRONG?

If you have a higher HRmax than the age-calculated HRmax the HRM does for you, the HRM will overestimate your calories (unless your manually enter your TRUE HRmax in the setup).

If you have a high VO2max number entered into your setup, the HRM will overestimate your calories. (and if you can't manually enter your VO2max into the setup, you don't have a very accurate HRM to begin with).

If you mistakenly set the units to metric, yet enter english weight numbers, the HRM will overestimate your calories.

If you don't have an HRM with a chest strap, then the calorie number is not very useful.

If you are getting wacky numbers from your HRM, don't assume that, because it is an HRM, it is automatically the accurate number. In many, if not most cases like this, there is a problem w/the HRM setup.

TONS of people on this site are going with the calorie burn their HRMs display. It is working for them...myself included. I think most of us are intelligent enough to realize that it's an estimate. But really...who cares if it's an estimate or exact as long as it's working?

We must have different definitions of the phrase "working for you". Original poster said she was "officially confused". Another poster said they were getting reading "2x-3x higher" than from other sources.

Other statements that you have made such as "the HRM is more accurate because it is measuring YOUR heart rate" are just flat out wrong.

Someone who has just spent $$ on an HRM in hopes of getting more insight into their workouts deserves at the very least to have accurate information about how they work so that they can use their HRMs as effective tools.

The fact that "TONS of people" are using the calorie feature of their HRMs is not evidence of their effectiveness. There on plenty of posts on this site every day--heck there are quite a few on this topic--that show that a lot of people do not clearly understand how HRMs work.

fiendiish

HRM is only as accurate as the setup data. HRMs do not measure calories. HRMs only measure heart rate. Based on heart rate, they ESTIMATE calories. Heart rate has NO direct effect on calorie expenditure. HR is only useful when it MATCHES a known % of VO2 max.

Saying that "HRM is always the most accurate" is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Oh, and did I say it was WRONG?

If you have a higher HRmax than the age-calculated HRmax the HRM does for you, the HRM will overestimate your calories (unless your manually enter your TRUE HRmax in the setup).

If you have a high VO2max number entered into your setup, the HRM will overestimate your calories. (and if you can't manually enter your VO2max into the setup, you don't have a very accurate HRM to begin with).

If you mistakenly set the units to metric, yet enter english weight numbers, the HRM will overestimate your calories.

If you don't have an HRM with a chest strap, then the calorie number is not very useful.

If you are getting wacky numbers from your HRM, don't assume that, because it is an HRM, it is automatically the accurate number. In many, if not most cases like this, there is a problem w/the HRM setup.

TONS of people on this site are going with the calorie burn their HRMs display. It is working for them...myself included. I think most of us are intelligent enough to realize that it's an estimate. But really...who cares if it's an estimate or exact as long as it's working?

We must have different definitions of the phrase "working for you". Original poster said she was "officially confused". Another poster said they were getting reading "2x-3x higher" than from other sources.

Other statements that you have made such as "the HRM is more accurate because it is measuring YOUR heart rate" are just flat out wrong.

Someone who has just spent $$ on an HRM in hopes of getting more insight into their workouts deserves at the very least to have accurate information about how they work so that they can use their HRMs as effective tools.

The fact that "TONS of people" are using the calorie feature of their HRMs is not evidence of their effectiveness. There on plenty of posts on this site every day--heck there are quite a few on this topic--that show that a lot of people do not clearly understand how HRMs work.

Actually, what I said was I was "more inclined to go with the my HRM"... considering the treadmill at the gym has absolutely no idea how hard I am or am not working, has no idea what my V02max is, and has no idea about my personal measurements (most of the time, some do, I'm sure)...and with that said, my logic tells me that my HRM is probably going to be more correct than that piece of equipment set up to estimate the caloric burn of someone 80lbs lighter than me. I do believe I also said that I'm understanding that HRMs have a tendency to overshoot a bit...but within the margin of error. This is my understanding...from several reliable sources. (Of course this varies greatly by brand and setup)

I don't believe one time I said anything about the HRM being completely on point with calorie burn. I did however say that if people are using it...and it's working for them...who cares? I mean, maybe I'm wrong (and feel free to correct me if I am)...but I haven't yet seen anyone complain that they are not losing weight because they believed their HRM's calorie burn. My saying tons of people use the calorie count feature wasn't to boost it's accuracy...it was to say "hey...it's working for people (notice the general use of the word "people") so it can't be completely useless."

Regardless, I did read your blog post on HRMs. Very informative and I'm glad you took the time to write that out. It seems you are very passionate about this HRM thing.

etarre

Quick question for Azdak-- you mention that HRMs can give an inaccurate reading if your HR max is higher than the average calculated by the HRM. But what if your HR max is lower? Does that mean that the HRM is underestimating your calories?

My max heart rate seems to be about 172, based on my HRM reading when I'm maxed out in spin class. That's way off the 'average' calculated max when you use the basic formula of subtracting your age from 220, etc. so I'm just curious how that changes things...

Thanks!

Azdak

Quick question for Azdak-- you mention that HRMs can give an inaccurate reading if your HR max is higher than the average calculated by the HRM. But what if your HR max is lower? Does that mean that the HRM is underestimating your calories?

My max heart rate seems to be about 172, based on my HRM reading when I'm maxed out in spin class. That's way off the 'average' calculated max when you use the basic formula of subtracting your age from 220, etc. so I'm just curious how that changes things...

Thanks!

If your HRmax is truly significantly below the age-calculated value, then, yes, the reverse would be true and it would be equally important to manually input your HRmax. I would exercise a little caution in using a spin class HR as evidence, however. I am not going to go into details, but HRmax in a little lower in cycling that other activities. Plus, even though you think you are "maxing out" in a spin class, I doubt you are truly going to 100%. It's a *lot* easier to detect a higher-than-average HR than a lower one.

Azdak

I did however say that if people are using it...and it's working for them...who cares? I mean, maybe I'm wrong (and feel free to correct me if I am)...but I haven't yet seen anyone complain that they are not losing weight because they believed their HRM's calorie burn. My saying tons of people use the calorie count feature wasn't to boost it's accuracy...it was to say "hey...it's working for people (notice the general use of the word "people") so it can't be completely useless."

That's a legitimate question and one that I think about often. Certainly when I work with individuals, I am always aware of the "ideal vs real" issue and try to work with people's individual preferences. There is always a question of: at one point is it more important that people do *something* than that they do it exactly "by the book". It's easier to walk that line when working with individuals.

It's also something that I consider when posting on these forums. On the one hand, you have people being successful in many different ways. There are some people who post regularly here that I think are following a lot of misinformation, but what they are doing is working for them so I don't comment--IMO, it's more important in the long that they stay motivated, and if that's what does it, that's the best thing. I think sometimes I have confused people by providing too much detail and nuance. OTOH, sometimes ignoring people's mistakes because it is "working for them" does them a disservice as well. For one thing, the "results", while present, might not be as good as they could be, for another, sometimes what they are doing is coincidental, not causal and the "success" will only be temporary.

And I also feel I have an obligation as someone with education and experience to present facts and science so that people can make better informed decisions. And, in doing that, I am going to have to occasionally upset some people's comfort zones.

Sometimes, it gets frustrating to see people repeating exercise myths that have been debunked since the 1980s or that have been explained a dozen times in the last couple of months or so. And it's frustrating to see so many self-appointed "fitness experts" and "personal trainers" spew out volumes of crap on a daily basis equal in size to the gulf oil spill.