Ahhh Heart Rate Monitor Vs Cardio Machine Calories Burned

Options
antdogs
antdogs Posts: 191 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
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?

wX7lrNo.jpg
«1

Replies

  • Bwneyegirl
    Bwneyegirl Posts: 28
    Options
    Did the machine calculate you where burning more calories than what you really where?
  • TammiAcker
    TammiAcker Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    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?
  • MarieKG77
    MarieKG77 Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    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.
  • drefaw
    drefaw Posts: 739
    Options
    How far off was the Arc Trainer?? As I use that quite often for my cardio .....
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Why do you assume the HRM is more accurate? It doesn't know what you're doing which is a HUGE disadvantage.

    .
  • antdogs
    antdogs Posts: 191 Member
    Options
    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?
  • antdogs
    antdogs Posts: 191 Member
    Options
    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?
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    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).
  • antdogs
    antdogs Posts: 191 Member
    Options
    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 showed
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    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.
  • antdogs
    antdogs Posts: 191 Member
    Options
    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?
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    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).
  • antdogs
    antdogs Posts: 191 Member
    Options
    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!
  • TammiAcker
    TammiAcker Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    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....
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    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).
  • TammiAcker
    TammiAcker Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Seraphemz
    Seraphemz Posts: 84 Member
    Options
    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.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    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.
  • laurie41565
    laurie41565 Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    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!
  • Seraphemz
    Seraphemz Posts: 84 Member
    Options
    @ Jack - So how do you calculate calories burned?

Categories