New HRM - Wake Up Call, Grumble & Lessons Learned

surlydave

Well, after hearing so much on here about the benefits of a heart rate monitor an reading many posts about the different kinds, I went out today and bought a Polar FT7. Very easy to set up. I got one to mainly to more accurately track calories, because as others have pointed out, using what the machine told you or what was in the MFP database as calories burned, and then emphasizing eating your workout calories, could lead to consuming too many calories. I went to the gym this afternoon and man did I get a wake up call! I worked out for 15 minutes each on three pieces of equipment that I use frequently there, each with the same perceived amount of exertion by yours truly. All allow for entry of your height, weight and age, and have heart rate sensors. Here is what I "learned":

1. Cybex Arc Trainer - its built in heart rate sensors looked like they were picking up my polar transmitter, but the number shown was off (high). More to the point, the calories the machine said I burned were more than double what my HRM showed. And the calories burned the machine showed was consistent with what you can find in the MFP exercise database under "elliptical trainer" (there is no database entry for arc trainer).

2. Precor EFX Elliptical - Picked up my HRM transmitter nicely but overstimated my calories by about 30% (See above about the MFP exercise database)

3. LifeFitness Treadmill - Also picked up my HRM transmitter and overstimated my calories by about 25%. The MFP database is pretty close on calories here, close enough I would say to be accurate for our purposes.

So, what MFP and the machines say would burn about 735 clories, my HRM says only burned about 375-400! Oh, and in case you're wondering, all three burned about the same amount of calories, with a slight edge perhaps to the elliptical.

Good luck everyone, I just had to share!

arewethereyet

may be a dumb question but did you program the HRM correctly and did you put in height and weight in the machines??


the machines at my gym doesnt ask for my height. so it gets weight 135, age 49 and my HR and tells me I burn xyz.....but I could be 4 ft tall (dont laugh, a good friend is 1 foot shorter than me! LOL) or 6 ft tall and be skinny as all git out.

My HRM was set up wrong and once I fixed it, it was pretty darn close to MFP each and every time.

Good luck! At least you wont be over eating!!

squoozyq

Well that totally sucks. No wonder I gained two pounds.

surlydave

As far as I know I did. I mean I followed the directions. The only thing I did not attempt to do was estimate my max HR, instead going with the default Polar would use for my weight, height and age. And I suppose you are right, only the elliptical had height as well as weight and age.

I've heard others say they have had this problem. Really, the big "culprit" is the arc trainer as well as what MFP has in the database under elliptical. But I welcome others input.

arewethereyet

I know! I was PISSED when I found out I burned 259 NOT 459 on my first go round with the HRM!

What I like about it is...........it motivates me. I do 259 and want 300! Or Saturday I have 900 cals burned for the week and want 1000 so I go for a walk on Sunday.

Plus my HR seems to run higher than others my age,. I like to see I am in the fat burning zone with my interval spikes I throw in.

dj_stevie_c

I always find that most of the equipment will lose your HR especially towards the end of the workout.

Must get myself a HRM. It's frustrating when you can't see it

rjadams

Most machines that show you your heart rate don't use that in the calories burned calculation. It just is a benefit to see your heartrate. I tested this on my Precor doing 10 minutes at a flat 3.0 really pushing with my arms and such I got my heart rate way up then I did 10 minutes just walking and my heart rate was much lower. same calorie burn in the machine for each 10 minutes. very different calorie burn for each 10 minutes on the HRM. Just sharing info

waguchan

I have the same issue. The machines at the gym report the same heart rate as my Polar FT4. But the calorie count is much lower on my HRM. Only the HRM knows my exact birthday, gender, height, and weight. The elliptal and treadmills only know my weight and age, if that. But I believe, no matter how sad it is, the HRM is more accurate when I compare it to online tools such as http://heartcalories.com/, and get my VO2 max from the charts on this page: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/vo2max.htm#vo2, my HRM comes very close to those calculations.

My husband's HRM is a Timex, and it was recording that he burned over 900 calories doing the exact same Insanity DVD as me, when I was burning only about 269. So I used the same online tools to calculate his calories burned and realized that his HRM is probably pretty close. He probably burned at least 800 calories. Men burn more calories with the same average heart rate and duration as women. It really sucks rotten eggs!

bobspdx

I got a HRM this weekend and am so happy I did. I workout with a trainer who does a Crossfit style workout and I was very curious how many calories I was actually burning. There seems to be about 100 calories burned difference between what I was logging and my HRM. Now there is no guessing!

Enjoy!

kenlc

I also found my HRM indicated I burned much fewer calories than what the machines were saying. Now I only go by what the heart rate monitor says....

Azdak

Most machines that show you your heart rate don't use that in the calories burned calculation. It just is a benefit to see your heartrate. I tested this on my Precor doing 10 minutes at a flat 3.0 really pushing with my arms and such I got my heart rate way up then I did 10 minutes just walking and my heart rate was much lower. same calorie burn in the machine for each 10 minutes. very different calorie burn for each 10 minutes on the HRM. Just sharing info

There is no reason for machines to use your heart rate. The machines are calculating the calories expended based on the ACTUAL workload being produced by the machine. Machines make a more direct measurement than HRMs. HRMs can only estimate actual aerobic intensity based on an assumed relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake.

The fact that many (most?) machines use inaccurate models or don't update their equations doesn't change the fact that machines actually use a more consistent method than HRMs. If you get on a cardio machine, put the workload at a 65%-70% effort and leave the resistance unchanged for 45 minutes, chances are your heart rate will increase by 10-25 beats/min between minute 5 and minute 45. The intensity of the work has not changed, yet your HRM will be inconsistent in the way it estimates calories throughout the workout.

I am not trying to say that the machine readings are more accurate--sometimes they are, mostly they aren't and it is very difficult for the average person to tell the difference. I am just saying, as I often do, that there is a lot more "error" in HRM calorie readings that most people think (based on the comments I read on MFP).

Azdak

I have the same issue. The machines at the gym report the same heart rate as my Polar FT4. But the calorie count is much lower on my HRM. Only the HRM knows my exact birthday, gender, height, and weight. The elliptal and treadmills only know my weight and age, if that. But I believe, no matter how sad it is, the HRM is more accurate when I compare it to online tools such as http://heartcalories.com/, and get my VO2 max from the charts on this page: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/vo2max.htm#vo2, my HRM comes very close to those calculations.

My husband's HRM is a Timex, and it was recording that he burned over 900 calories doing the exact same Insanity DVD as me, when I was burning only about 269. So I used the same online tools to calculate his calories burned and realized that his HRM is probably pretty close. He probably burned at least 800 calories. Men burn more calories with the same average heart rate and duration as women. It really sucks rotten eggs!

Only if they are heavier or if they are working at a higher intensity (and have a higher VO2max).

waguchan

I'm sure my husband has a higher VO2 Max. He's a lot more fit than I am, even though I don't do so bad for a 42 year old. We weigh about the same now. I'm only about 1 pound heavier, but he's about 3 inches taller than me, and 10 months younger. But he definitely has the ability to work out more intensely than me. His heart rate sky rockets, but mine averages at around 125 BPM doing the exact same routine.

But I was basing my comment off the online calorie calculator I was using. After entering all the data, I changed the gender setting from male to female. And without changing any of the other data, it calculated almost an additional 100 calories burned. I don't know if I should believe the online calculator, but it calculated my calories burned at about the same as what my HRM reported based on the same average heart rate, etc.