Using a HRM

Options
OopsieDaisy2003
OopsieDaisy2003 Posts: 8
in Fitness and Exercise
So....I bought a HRM and used it for the 1st time last night. The treadmill I used has a HRM, which calculated a 330 cal burn. MFP estimated me at a 265 cal burn. My HRM says I had a 512 cal burn. Does anyone know why such a big variance??

Replies

  • 4schrocks
    4schrocks Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    :smile: bump.
  • Shayztar
    Shayztar Posts: 415 Member
    Options
    Simplistic answer? The machine likely doesn't have your personal data to give an accurate number. MFP is an average based on your personal data, but it doesn't know your intensity. Your HMR has all of your personal data, and it knows your intensity. Go with HRM. Even a HRM is an estimate tho, so keep that in mind if you are being as exact as possible.
  • DaBossLady24
    DaBossLady24 Posts: 556 Member
    Options
    I'd go with your HRM.

    MFP overestimates (or underestimates) depending on the person, as it is just a basic guide to how much you could be burning in one workout session. The treadmill most likely didn't have you input your age, weight, AND gender, which your HRM already accounts for when you put in your User Data.

    Hope this helps!
  • Lmezz11
    Lmezz11 Posts: 619 Member
    Options
    MFP calculates based on gender, age, and weight. The machines calculate based on age and weight. The HRM (if you have a good one) bases it on gender, age, weight, and HR through a fancy calculation. The HRM should be the most accurate.
  • kaubin97
    kaubin97 Posts: 56 Member
    Options
    I'd like to hear about this too. Just started with a HRM this morning :wink:
  • likemeinvisible
    likemeinvisible Posts: 309
    Options
    So....I bought a HRM and used it for the 1st time last night. The treadmill I used has a HRM, which calculated a 330 cal burn. MFP estimated me at a 265 cal burn. My HRM says I had a 512 cal burn. Does anyone know why such a big variance??

    Did you enter weight, height and age into either device ? You can't calculate burn just by HR.
  • toulieb
    toulieb Posts: 8
    Options
    Does your HRM allow you to add your height and weight? That is the only way you will get an accurate measure. Which HRM do you have?
  • mogletdeluxe
    mogletdeluxe Posts: 623 Member
    Options
    In my experience (I emphasise that point!), MFP tends to be economic with my burns, and my HRM tends to be much higher.

    I trust my HRM more when it comes to things like running, rather than zumba, as my heart rate is more constant than the more interval-style training of my zumba classes. For example, I can burn 800 calories in a very energetic zumba class in a hot room, but MFP will still say 608.

    However, I still log the MFP estimate as I'd rather have a bit of wiggle room. Perhaps somewhere in the middle is the best bet!

    ETA - My HRM is a PT4, which takes my age, height, gender and weight into consideration.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    They are all just estimates.

    The cardio machine has some sort of basic formula built in to calculate cals burned. Most factor in your age and weight as well. MFP, I think, just uses an average for that type of exercise. Generally speaking (since you didn't say what HRM you are using), HRMs still use a formula to calculate cals burned, but most also take into consideration your age, gender, resting and max HR, as well as your fitness level. There are conflicting arguments about how relevant that data is, but generally speaking, good HRMs are considered the most accurate of all the estimations.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    Because you are less fit than MFP and the treadmill assume. Go with the HRM, but subtract the calories for your BMR from it. If your BMR is 1500, divide that by 24 hours to get the number of calories you burn per hour. Then subtract the appropriate amount from your HRM value.

    For me, I burn about 70 calories per hour just existing. Yesterday I ran for about 35 minutes. I took the calories my HRM gave me, and subtracted 40 and recorded that amount.
  • knk1553
    knk1553 Posts: 438 Member
    Options
    What type of HRM? Is it a wrist unit or do you have a chest strap? I've read some of the cheaper brands of HRM severely overestimating calories for individuals. Also do you have all your stats entered in your HRM? Having your stats entered will give you a more accurate read, and then also having a chest strap is a more accurate read than a wrist unit as well.
  • 4schrocks
    4schrocks Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    Because you are less fit than MFP and the treadmill assume. Go with the HRM, but subtract the calories for your BMR from it. If your BMR is 1500, divide that by 24 hours to get the number of calories you burn per hour. Then subtract the appropriate amount from your HRM value.

    For me, I burn about 70 calories per hour just existing. Yesterday I ran for about 35 minutes. I took the calories my HRM gave me, and subtracted 40 and recorded that amount.

    That's interesting. I like your advise.
  • halhix
    halhix Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    I go with my HRM when calculating calorie burn. At first my numbers were way off when I was much heavier but as I have lost weight, I have seen a convergence of equipment, HRM, and MFP. I don't know which one you are using, but make sure to track anything at fat burn or higher. If you aren't getting your heart rate up for a long period of time like 20 minutes or so, I wouldn't bother tracking the calories. I'm at a happy point when I burn at least 400 kcal doing 30-50 minutes of constant exercise in a single session. That may not work for everyone, but it has definitely helped me.
  • OopsieDaisy2003
    OopsieDaisy2003 Posts: 8
    Options
    I have a Sportline 1010 Women's Duo (with chest strap). My hubby set it up for me; but it took a bunch of stats like height, weight, gender, age.
  • carlsoda
    carlsoda Posts: 3,420 Member
    Options
    I have a polar HRM and have used it for years. LOVE it to death! My little trick is when I entered my weight (and keep it updated!) I input 5 lbs less then my actual weight. That way I feel I'm more accurate with my numbers - not cheating myself. Yeah it shows I burn less calories but I don't want any surprise weight gain at the end of the week!
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Because you are less fit than MFP and the treadmill assume. Go with the HRM, but subtract the calories for your BMR from it. If your BMR is 1500, divide that by 24 hours to get the number of calories you burn per hour. Then subtract the appropriate amount from your HRM value.

    For me, I burn about 70 calories per hour just existing. Yesterday I ran for about 35 minutes. I took the calories my HRM gave me, and subtracted 40 and recorded that amount.

    While I see your point and applaud your effort to be precise, IMO that's way more work than is necessary for the average MFPer. To worry about 30-60 cals over the course of a workout is nonsense considering how many estimations and guestimates we make about calorie burns and consumption over the course of the day. The calorie burn calculated by teh HRM is an estimate in and of itself. How many of us weight every oz, measure every cup, and double check all serving sizes for everything we eat?

    IMO, if you're only off by 50 cals at the end of the day, that's pretty damn good.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    Because you are less fit than MFP and the treadmill assume. Go with the HRM, but subtract the calories for your BMR from it. If your BMR is 1500, divide that by 24 hours to get the number of calories you burn per hour. Then subtract the appropriate amount from your HRM value.

    For me, I burn about 70 calories per hour just existing. Yesterday I ran for about 35 minutes. I took the calories my HRM gave me, and subtracted 40 and recorded that amount.

    While I see your point and applaud your effort to be precise, IMO that's way more work than is necessary for the average MFPer. To worry about 30-60 cals over the course of a workout is nonsense considering how many estimations and guestimates we make about calorie burns and consumption over the course of the day. The calorie burn calculated by teh HRM is an estimate in and of itself. How many of us weight every oz, measure every cup, and double check all serving sizes for everything we eat?

    IMO, if you're only off by 50 cals at the end of the day, that's pretty damn good.
    The idea of substracting can make a lot of sense for longer distance/time activity - what I do with 6+ hour bike rides (4000+ kcals) is to subtract about 10% - so subtracting 70 to 80 per hour might make as much sense to my tracking.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Because you are less fit than MFP and the treadmill assume. Go with the HRM, but subtract the calories for your BMR from it. If your BMR is 1500, divide that by 24 hours to get the number of calories you burn per hour. Then subtract the appropriate amount from your HRM value.

    For me, I burn about 70 calories per hour just existing. Yesterday I ran for about 35 minutes. I took the calories my HRM gave me, and subtracted 40 and recorded that amount.

    While I see your point and applaud your effort to be precise, IMO that's way more work than is necessary for the average MFPer. To worry about 30-60 cals over the course of a workout is nonsense considering how many estimations and guestimates we make about calorie burns and consumption over the course of the day. The calorie burn calculated by teh HRM is an estimate in and of itself. How many of us weight every oz, measure every cup, and double check all serving sizes for everything we eat?

    IMO, if you're only off by 50 cals at the end of the day, that's pretty damn good.
    The idea of substracting can make a lot of sense for longer distance/time activity - what I do with 6+ hour bike rides (4000+ kcals) is to subtract about 10% - so subtracting 70 to 80 per hour might make as much sense to my tracking.

    Sure, but how many people on this site are doing 6+ hour workouts? And secondly, a 6 hour workout, even based on an HRM... how accurate do you think the calculated calorie burn is?

    Again, I'm not saying specifically don't do it, I'm just saying it's not necessary for the average MFPer.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    Because you are less fit than MFP and the treadmill assume. Go with the HRM, but subtract the calories for your BMR from it. If your BMR is 1500, divide that by 24 hours to get the number of calories you burn per hour. Then subtract the appropriate amount from your HRM value.

    For me, I burn about 70 calories per hour just existing. Yesterday I ran for about 35 minutes. I took the calories my HRM gave me, and subtracted 40 and recorded that amount.

    While I see your point and applaud your effort to be precise, IMO that's way more work than is necessary for the average MFPer. To worry about 30-60 cals over the course of a workout is nonsense considering how many estimations and guestimates we make about calorie burns and consumption over the course of the day. The calorie burn calculated by teh HRM is an estimate in and of itself. How many of us weight every oz, measure every cup, and double check all serving sizes for everything we eat?

    IMO, if you're only off by 50 cals at the end of the day, that's pretty damn good.
    The idea of substracting can make a lot of sense for longer distance/time activity - what I do with 6+ hour bike rides (4000+ kcals) is to subtract about 10% - so subtracting 70 to 80 per hour might make as much sense to my tracking.

    Sure, but how many people on this site are doing 6+ hour workouts? And secondly, a 6 hour workout, even based on an HRM... how accurate do you think the calculated calorie burn is?

    Again, I'm not saying specifically don't do it, I'm just saying it's not necessary for the average MFPer.

    My rule used to be I only subtracted if my workout was longer than an hour. So, let's say I did 5 hour long workouts a week (which is typical) that's only 350 calories, true. But, with all the other estimates out there, this gives me extra cushion. As time goes on and I lose more weight, I try to tighten things up as much as humanly possible simply because it's all estimates and will be off by some factor already. And let's be honest...it's rarely off in the direction we'd prefer LOL.

Categories