Ahhh Heart Rate Monitor Vs Cardio Machine Calories Burned
antdogs
Posts: 191 Member
ahhh i finally got a heart rate monitor and all the time i was logging the calories burned from the cardio machine i used such as arc trainer elliptical treadmill etc.. and machine was off from what the heart rate monitor shows. so those who doesn't have one i suggest to get one! its awesome!
but which should i monitor the machine or the hear rate monitor?
but which should i monitor the machine or the hear rate monitor?
0
Replies
-
Did the machine calculate you where burning more calories than what you really where?0
-
True story! Haha! I've gone through two HRM already! I love them. Some machines calculate very closely to actual burn, others....WAY off. Like today treadmill was nearly 50 calories off...I had burned more
What kind/type did you get? 0 -
I recently started using a heart rate monitor and have found that I was actually burning quite a lot more calories than what my treadmill was crediting me for.0
-
How far off was the Arc Trainer?? As I use that quite often for my cardio .....0
-
Why do you assume the HRM is more accurate? It doesn't know what you're doing which is a HUGE disadvantage.
.0 -
Did the machine calculate you where burning more calories than what you really where?
yeah it was burning more than what the Heart rate monitor was showing so i was logging stuff that wasnt accurate i guess?0 -
Why do you assume the HRM is more accurate? It doesn't know what you're doing which is a HUGE disadvantage.
.
so then you should assume the machine rather than the heart rate monitor on your chest? which should you calculate then?0 -
True story! Haha! I've gone through two HRM already! I love them. Some machines calculate very closely to actual burn, others....WAY off. Like today treadmill was nearly 50 calories off...I had burned more What kind/type did you get?
First... seriously? Really? You're worrying about 50 cals?
Second... how do you know the HRM was more accurate? In most cases, a treadmill will give the most accurate burn you can get (assuming you can enter your weight before starting).0 -
How far off was the Arc Trainer?? As I use that quite often for my cardio .....
it was off about 80 calories than what the Heart Rate Monitor showed0 -
Why do you assume the HRM is more accurate? It doesn't know what you're doing which is a HUGE disadvantage.
.
so then you should assume the machine rather than the heart rate monitor on your chest? which should you calculate then?
In many cases yes, the machine will likely be more accurate. Or at the very least not any less accurate.
I don't understand your second question.0 -
True story! Haha! I've gone through two HRM already! I love them. Some machines calculate very closely to actual burn, others....WAY off. Like today treadmill was nearly 50 calories off...I had burned more What kind/type did you get?
First... seriously? Really? You're worrying about 50 cals?
Second... how do you know the HRM was more accurate? In most cases, a treadmill will give the most accurate burn you can get (assuming you can enter your weight before starting).
well i mean in general which do you think i should assume in logging for calories the machine or heart rate monitor?0 -
True story! Haha! I've gone through two HRM already! I love them. Some machines calculate very closely to actual burn, others....WAY off. Like today treadmill was nearly 50 calories off...I had burned more What kind/type did you get?
First... seriously? Really? You're worrying about 50 cals?
Second... how do you know the HRM was more accurate? In most cases, a treadmill will give the most accurate burn you can get (assuming you can enter your weight before starting).
well i mean in general which do you think i should assume in logging for calories the machine or heart rate monitor?
Basic machines like treadmills and bikes will be pretty accurate... as accurate as you're going to get from any calculation. Personally, I'd go with which ever gives you the smaller number. I'd rather under estimate than over estimate personally.
That said, the number you log doesn't really matter as long as it balances out well with how you log cals eaten. If you over estimate cals burned during exercise (log 500 when actually burning 400), then it's not an issue if you also over estimate cals eaten (log 500 but actually eat 400).0 -
True story! Haha! I've gone through two HRM already! I love them. Some machines calculate very closely to actual burn, others....WAY off. Like today treadmill was nearly 50 calories off...I had burned more What kind/type did you get?
First... seriously? Really? You're worrying about 50 cals?
Second... how do you know the HRM was more accurate? In most cases, a treadmill will give the most accurate burn you can get (assuming you can enter your weight before starting).
well i mean in general which do you think i should assume in logging for calories the machine or heart rate monitor?
Basic machines like treadmills and bikes will be pretty accurate... as accurate as you're going to get from any calculation. Personally, I'd go with which ever gives you the smaller number. I'd rather under estimate than over estimate personally.
That said, the number you log doesn't really matter as long as it balances out well with how you log cals eaten. If you over estimate cals burned during exercise (log 500 when actually burning 400), then it's not an issue if you also over estimate cals eaten (log 500 but actually eat 400).
ahh i see alright thanks alot jack i appreciate it! thanks for the help and assistance!0 -
Whoa, wait a minute. No I'm not worried about 50 calories. I was just stating that yes there is an inaccuracy for sure, and that was an example I had just his morning. That was for the first 20 min... had I stayed on longer it could have had a bigger deficit. And i would trust the heart rate monitor because I'm able to enter my weight, height, age, and sex. More than I can do on my treadmill. Treadmill doesn't know if I'm a tall man or short woman....0
-
Whoa, wait a minute. No I'm not worried about 50 calories. I was just stating that yes there is an inaccuracy for sure, and that was an example I had just his morning. That was for the first 20 min... had I stayed on longer it could have had a bigger deficit. And i would trust the heart rate monitor because I'm able to enter my weight, height, age, and sex. More than I can do on my treadmill. Treadmill doesn't know if I'm a tall man or short woman....
Doesn't matter if you're a tall man or a short woman... that has no bearing on calorie burn.
a calorie is a measure of energy, energy is based on the activity being done and is not impacted by the age, fitness level etc. of the person doing it (only by their weight).0 -
Whoa, wait a minute. No I'm not worried about 50 calories. I was just stating that yes there is an inaccuracy for sure, and that was an example I had just his morning. That was for the first 20 min... had I stayed on longer it could have had a bigger deficit. And i would trust the heart rate monitor because I'm able to enter my weight, height, age, and sex. More than I can do on my treadmill. Treadmill doesn't know if I'm a tall man or short woman....
Doesn't matter if you're a tall man or a short woman... that has no bearing on calorie burn.
a calorie is a measure of energy, energy is based on the activity being done and is not impacted by the age, fitness level etc. of the person doing it (only by their weight).
I'm not sure I agree with that.... I think someone who weighs the same as me, but taller or shorter is going to burn calories at a different rate than me. Everyone burns calories and processes them differently. That's why what works for some doesn't for others. I will research what you are saying.... but based on what I've read I believe that age and fitness level does affect the end caloric burn. I understand the "unit" is the same, but the amount you burn per hour/min/activity is going to be different.1 -
Whoa, wait a minute. No I'm not worried about 50 calories. I was just stating that yes there is an inaccuracy for sure, and that was an example I had just his morning. That was for the first 20 min... had I stayed on longer it could have had a bigger deficit. And i would trust the heart rate monitor because I'm able to enter my weight, height, age, and sex. More than I can do on my treadmill. Treadmill doesn't know if I'm a tall man or short woman....
Im with you though, if you think about it, 50 a day, and if you work out 5 days. Thats 250 calories that you THOUGHT you burned but didnt. Its important to me at least. I use my HRM for calories.
The way I see it, it doesnt matter WHAT im doing on the machine, it matters what my heart rate is. And my HRM is way more accurate than the machine.0 -
Whoa, wait a minute. No I'm not worried about 50 calories. I was just stating that yes there is an inaccuracy for sure, and that was an example I had just his morning. That was for the first 20 min... had I stayed on longer it could have had a bigger deficit. And i would trust the heart rate monitor because I'm able to enter my weight, height, age, and sex. More than I can do on my treadmill. Treadmill doesn't know if I'm a tall man or short woman....
Im with you though, if you think about it, 50 a day, and if you work out 5 days. Thats 250 calories that you THOUGHT you burned but didnt. Its important to me at least. I use my HRM for calories.
The way I see it, it doesnt matter WHAT im doing on the machine, it matters what my heart rate is. And my HRM is way more accurate than the machine.
You do realize that HR is only loosely tied to calorie burns, right? It's not the determining factor like so many people think it is. HR is more an indication of how hard you are working relative to your fitness level, not actual work being done.0 -
If the heart rate monitor has a chest strap go with what that says. These are pretty accurate because you can log in all your personal info such as: sex, age, height, weight. Also it calculates according to your heart rate while you are exercising and I don't believe any machines do that. At least from everything I have read. Good luck to you!0
-
@ Jack - So how do you calculate calories burned?0
-
If the heart rate monitor has a chest strap go with what that says. These are pretty accurate because you can log in all your personal info such as: sex, age, height, weight. Also it calculates according to your heart rate while you are exercising and I don't believe any machines do that. At least from everything I have read. Good luck to you!
Except that, aside from weight, none of that has any direct impact on calorie burns.0 -
@ Jack - So how do you calculate calories burned?
You can't, all you can do is estimate. My point is 2 fold:
1) in many cases, cardio machines will estimate more accurately than HRMs.
2) HRMs are not some miracle device that so many people think they are.0 -
My machines at the gym pretty much matched up to my HRM. The machine allowed me to enter my gender, height, and weight.
MFP however was grossly over estimating.
0 -
My machines at the gym pretty much matched up to my HRM. The machine allowed me to enter my gender, height, and weight.
MFP however was grossly over estimating.
yeah my machine doesn't on elliptical says weight and time0 -
I just had this same issue...you all provided some really great info but I'm going to do some research on my own. The machines always project more calories burned than the HRM. I am leaning more toward my HRM being more accurate since it is set to my weight, age, height, DOB, etc.
But we'll see...0 -
Use the one that knows you better, pretty simple. I used to run on a treadmill that did not ask anything and was usually 50-100 cals higher than what my HRM said. I think the more personal info input to the equation, the better the resulting info. JMHO though!0
-
I find that my HRM & the machines usually show the same burn, fortunately0
-
There is no set answer. Exercise machines are programmed with different algorithms. Some, like treadmills, are well established and accurate, some are not.
You cannot make a blanket statement about "machines" vs "HRMs", because within each category, there are variations. Another variable is the accuracy of the setup information one programs into an HRM (in the vast majority of people, the setup information is only a rough approximation). And lastly, you have different, non-exercise variables -- thermal stress, illness, cardiovascular drift, type of muscle movement to name a few -- that can affect heart rate and distort the HR/VO2 relationship upon which HRM calorie estimates are based.
In short, most people don't really know.
The OP is showing a picture of a Life Fitness Integrity cross trainer. That model is the newest iteration of the LF9500HRR, the first Life Fitness rear-drive cross trainer which was first sold in 2000. While there have been a number of upgrades since that time, the software and the algorithms used to estimate calories are older and have always overestimated. Other models have been introduced since that time, but this one is the most reliable, is extremely durable, and has a great price-point. Therefore, it is still the preferred model for most health clubs.
Life Fitness produced another model, the 95X cross trainer, 2004. That used a version of the old software as well. It was not well-received nor well-executed. A number of people lost their jobs over it, and they finally discontinued the model in 2008 (although it is still manufactured and sold in Europe). In trying to make the design work, they modified the movement and also upgraded the software. This time the calorie algorithms were derived from research they did in their own biomechanical lab, and were specific to the machine and the movement. I forget the software revision number, but if you find one of those, your calorie readings will be very accurate--as accurate as I have seen on any exercise machine. They are about 25%-30% less than comparable readings with the older software (on the Integrity model).
One of the biggest fallacies in fitness is the idea that an HRM is more accurate "because is knows you". People mistakenly think that HRMs are more individualized and accurate because they ask you to input more variables.
Wrong.
HRMs have to ask for more variables to try to make up for the inherent shortcomings of their methodology. They need more data inputs to attempt to improve the "fit" of the equations to the wide scatter of data received during their validation studies.
They need to play mathematical games because they do not measure anything but heart rate, and trying to fit heart rate into a calorie prediction model is like trying to stuff an agitated python into a burlap sack.
If you:
1). Have a quality-brand HRM with years of original research supporting its calorie-estimating algorithms (which knocks out most HRM brands right off the bat)
2) Have input the HRM with your ACTUAL maximum heart rate (not calculated) and your ACTUAL VO2 max, and ACTUAL resting HR, along with the other data.
3) Are performing relatively simple, steady-state aerobic exercise, and are not using ANY handrail or other support
4) Are performing relatively simple, steady-state aerobic exercise that does not involve a lot of upper-body movement or isometric movement, or higher resistance
5) Are not affected by caffeine or other stimulants, fatigue, or illness
6) Are exercising in a thermally-neutral environment with optimum temperature and humidity
7) Do not experience significant cardiovascular drift during your workout
THEN
Your HRM calorie estimate should be reasonably close--maybe within 10 or 15% of the actual number. And that also assumes that as ANY of your parameters change--weight, resting HR, VO2 max -- you update the settings on the HRM.
If any of those conditions are not met, then your HRM will be off -- maybe by a little, maybe by more than 50%-70%.
So use them for whatever value they provide, but be realistic about the numbers you are getting. And drop the idea that your HRM is somehow inherently more accurate that the machine, just because the HRM numbers are different. The HRM manufacturers want you to believe that, but they are blowing smoke up your wazoo.
And, in the overall scheme of things, a 50-100 calorie discrepancy is meaningless. It's a flicker, a blip, random chance, whatever you want to call it, but it is not significant.0 -
There is no set answer. Exercise machines are programmed with different algorithms. Some, like treadmills, are well established and accurate, some are not.
You cannot make a blanket statement about "machines" vs "HRMs", because within each category, there are variations. Another variable is the accuracy of the setup information one programs into an HRM (in the vast majority of people, the setup information is only a rough approximation). And lastly, you have different, non-exercise variables -- thermal stress, illness, cardiovascular drift, type of muscle movement to name a few -- that can affect heart rate and distort the HR/VO2 relationship upon which HRM calorie estimates are based.
In short, most people don't really know.
The OP is showing a picture of a Life Fitness Integrity cross trainer. That model is the newest iteration of the LF9500HRR, the first Life Fitness rear-drive cross trainer which was first sold in 2000. While there have been a number of upgrades since that time, the software and the algorithms used to estimate calories are older and have always overestimated. Other models have been introduced since that time, but this one is the most reliable, is extremely durable, and has a great price-point. Therefore, it is still the preferred model for most health clubs.
Life Fitness produced another model, the 95X cross trainer, 2004. That used a version of the old software as well. It was not well-received nor well-executed. A number of people lost their jobs over it, and they finally discontinued the model in 2008 (although it is still manufactured and sold in Europe). In trying to make the design work, they modified the movement and also upgraded the software. This time the calorie algorithms were derived from research they did in their own biomechanical lab, and were specific to the machine and the movement. I forget the software revision number, but if you find one of those, your calorie readings will be very accurate--as accurate as I have seen on any exercise machine. They are about 25%-30% less than comparable readings with the older software (on the Integrity model).
One of the biggest fallacies in fitness is the idea that an HRM is more accurate "because is knows you". People mistakenly think that HRMs are more individualized and accurate because they ask you to input more variables.
Wrong.
HRMs have to ask for more variables to try to make up for the inherent shortcomings of their methodology. They need more data inputs to attempt to improve the "fit" of the equations to the wide scatter of data received during their validation studies.
They need to play mathematical games because they do not measure anything but heart rate, and trying to fit heart rate into a calorie prediction model is like trying to stuff an agitated python into a burlap sack.
If you:
1). Have a quality-brand HRM with years of original research supporting its calorie-estimating algorithms (which knocks out most HRM brands right off the bat)
2) Have input the HRM with your ACTUAL maximum heart rate (not calculated) and your ACTUAL VO2 max, and ACTUAL resting HR, along with the other data.
3) Are performing relatively simple, steady-state aerobic exercise, and are not using ANY handrail or other support
4) Are performing relatively simple, steady-state aerobic exercise that does not involve a lot of upper-body movement or isometric movement, or higher resistance
5) Are not affected by caffeine or other stimulants, fatigue, or illness
6) Are exercising in a thermally-neutral environment with optimum temperature and humidity
7) Do not experience significant cardiovascular drift during your workout
THEN
Your HRM calorie estimate should be reasonably close--maybe within 10 or 15% of the actual number. And that also assumes that as ANY of your parameters change--weight, resting HR, VO2 max -- you update the settings on the HRM.
If any of those conditions are not met, then your HRM will be off -- maybe by a little, maybe by more than 50%-70%.
So use them for whatever value they provide, but be realistic about the numbers you are getting. And drop the idea that your HRM is somehow inherently more accurate that the machine, just because the HRM numbers are different. The HRM manufacturers want you to believe that, but they are blowing smoke up your wazoo.
And, in the overall scheme of things, a 50-100 calorie discrepancy is meaningless. It's a flicker, a blip, random chance, whatever you want to call it, but it is not significant.
ahhh thank you!0 -
adzaz, antdogs, & jacksonpt,
Thank you VERY much! Your description of the limitations of the HRM were very helpful. From many other posts on MFP, it was almost as if the HRM was the 'gold-standard' in trying to determine what calories have been burned. I know MFP over-estimates calories burned, I do not need to spend $100-300 for another piece of technology that also over-estimates.
You have just saved me some money! Especially you, adzaz! Great explaination!
That said, do any of you know if there is a way to more accurately estimate how many calories are burned? I do not work out on a treadmill; I do strength training, cardio, interval training -- all in instructor led classes.
Thanks again! 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions