Why you need an HRM -with pics
Dauntlessness
Posts: 1,489 Member
I know we all have different body types, heart rates, types of machines...etc etc but I really wanted to post these HRM/Machine numbers to show you how inaccurate they can be. We care so much about counting every last calorie we put in our mouths, shouldn't we do the same with how many calories we burn? Your best bet is an HRM.
I know there may be a difference of 10-20 seconds on some of the photos. I did stop exercising at the 10/60 minute marks but I kept forgetting to stop it. haha
Edit: I did program my weight in on every machine.
Cross Trainer Machine: 822 Calories / 1 Hour
HRM 602 Calories / Hour
A difference of 220 calories an Hour
Treadmill Machine: 112 cals for approx 10 minutes= 672 / 1 Hour
HRM: 88 cals for approx 10 minutes= 528 / 1 Hour
A difference of: 144 Calories an Hour
Elliptical Machine: 130 for approx 10 minutes=780 / 1 Hour
HRM: 95 for approx 10 minutes = 570 /1 Hour
A difference of 210 an Hour.
I know there may be a difference of 10-20 seconds on some of the photos. I did stop exercising at the 10/60 minute marks but I kept forgetting to stop it. haha
Edit: I did program my weight in on every machine.
Cross Trainer Machine: 822 Calories / 1 Hour
HRM 602 Calories / Hour
A difference of 220 calories an Hour
Treadmill Machine: 112 cals for approx 10 minutes= 672 / 1 Hour
HRM: 88 cals for approx 10 minutes= 528 / 1 Hour
A difference of: 144 Calories an Hour
Elliptical Machine: 130 for approx 10 minutes=780 / 1 Hour
HRM: 95 for approx 10 minutes = 570 /1 Hour
A difference of 210 an Hour.
0
Replies
-
On the treadmill do you input your weight? Or do you just go by the default setting.0
-
Oh sorry, Yes, I put in my weight under the manual setting on every machine0
-
So basically you are saying that almost every machine you use at the gym overestimates the number of calories you burn? Have you compared this with MFP? I'm wondering about the exercise I'm logging and not on a machine and not wearing my HRM...0
-
In my own experience, MFP overestimates too. I cant say that's the same for everyone but that's what has happened to me. When I first started working out it was worse...Some of the machines were off by 40%. I just cant get the heart rates I used to and I was much bigger so I think that has something to do with it.
I am a strong believer in knowing and not estimating. We are all different and the machines or MFP estimates don't take that into account.0 -
great example. I do think the number here are higher as well.
0 -
For the Elliptical trainer, MFP estimates I would burn 863 an hour. I burned 603, so that's even worse then what the machine said...0
-
I think it depends on the person. I've used 3-4 different types of body monitors. Nike+ watch, timex ironman (what I still use), polar hrm. And they all are maybe -/+ 5% with any treadmill. I think those things are built to read people like me though.0
-
I concur. My elliptical machine even picks up the signal from my HRM and in theory should be the same (height, weight and gender are entered into both and it reads my heart rate the same as my HRM watch.) But my HRM is always about 100 calories less, per half hour, than the machine. And the machine is always less than the generic figure that MFP gives me.0
-
I am a strong believer in knowing and not estimating. We are all different and the machines or MFP estimates don't take that into account.
I'm the same way...also, I laughed cause we have the same HRM, I love it!
I've also found that MFP over estimates what I would have burned compared to my HRM, MFP is even more than the machines which I thought were high to begin with0 -
To be on the safe side, when entering my weight...I round down. When logging time spent...I also shave off a bit of time. I figure that it will be more of a realistic number that way.0
-
just ran this experiment today, as it was my first chance to use my new hrm... i did 31 minutes of hills on my elliptical. my machine, which i purchased second hand and can't firgure out how to change the weight settings for, said i burned 520. mfp, which can't account for the hills, says i burned 486 and my hrm, polar ft4, says i burned 535. really the only surprise i had was that my own machine was so close.0
-
I do appreciate your post and totally agree with what you are saying. I probably would have said the same thing a year or so ago.
However, this is going to sound REALLY dumb, but I started using my HRM as a reason NOT to exercise. I know most people say it motivates them to keep going and watch the number go up. Personally, if I went away on a work trip and forgot it, I just didn't work out. I couldn't find my watch one time at home and all was lost.
My point is this: I use the numbers on the machine. This is not because I believe they are accurate, but they give me an idea. I also don't go to a gym. I have both an elliptical and a treadmill in my basement and both were FAIRLY accurate (not as bad as your pics). I don't eat back all my exercise calories, but I do eat back some of them. However, I gotta do what I need to do to make sure I exercise and not tying my exercise to a specific machine (HRM) works for me.0 -
I usually wear my HRM the first time I do a particular exercise to get my calorie burn then enter it into the system. I don't like wearing it every time I work out.0
-
This is an excellent example of Machines/HRM/MFP. I have found the very same to be true. I tend to not log manually my exercise so I take the defauts on MFP knowing that if I walk/run I shorten my time a few minutes, etc... With that said, I do NOT "eat back" all of my burned calories daily. This has worked out well for me and I am down 30 pounds in ten months and still going.
Great Post. Thanks.0 -
Does anyone notice their HRM losing time while it's scanning for your heart rate? I started to notice the same thing with my calories burned not being as high as what read on the treadmill or MFP. I can also track the amount of time I'm below, in and above target zone and the times never add up to how long I've actually worked out, it's always about 10 to 15 minutes less. That's why I'm thinking the scanning may be causing an inaccurate reading since it's not like I stop burning calories just because my heart rate changes.0
-
Thank you for this. My HRM seems to have lost it's soul (it's dead I think) so while not in a huge rush, I am in the market for a new one. It seems you are happy with yours, so what kind of HRM do you have? If possible I would like to get away from the annoyance of a chest strap but that might be asking for too much. I'm really tempted to go with fitbit but I have read conflicting reviews. Anyway, thanks for the reminder.0
-
This is really interesting and a great post. I was thinking about getting a HRM and now I think I will 0
-
I have a Polar ft4. I love it. It does have a chest strap and I know you dont really want that though. I bet the body bug thing(I think that's what its called) would work well for you. I think that's what they used on the biggest loser for years so I would imagine it would be pretty accurate.
Here is the link for the Polar ft4 if you chnage your mind. Its super easy to program and use too. I got mine for $75.00 I think
http://www.amazon.com/Polar-FT4F-Heart-Monitor-Watch/dp/B003AJGN5Y0 -
Thank you I'll check it out!0
-
Can you please explain to us how you verified that the number pictured on your watch was closer to your actual calorie burn? How do why know the number on the machine isn't spot on and your watch is the inaccurate device?
Couldn't I take these same photos, and title the thread "Proof your HRM is inaccurate" and base statement around the machine being accurate? Where is the independent verification?0 -
Well the heart rate monitor has a chest strap so it is likely more accurate wouldn't you think?Can you please explain to us how you verified that the number pictured on your watch was closer to your actual calorie burn? How do why know the number on the machine isn't spot on and your watch is the inaccurate device?
Couldn't I take these same photos, and title the thread "Proof your HRM is inaccurate" and base statement around the machine being accurate? Where is the independent verification?0 -
Can you please explain to us how you verified that the number pictured on your watch was closer to your actual calorie burn? How do why know the number on the machine isn't spot on and your watch is the inaccurate device?
Couldn't I take these same photos, and title the thread "Proof your HRM is inaccurate" and base statement around the machine being accurate? Where is the independent verification?
science doesn't lie.
rule of thumb 30 min exercise = 1000 calories burned
it doesn't really matter how much you weigh, your age or if you're male or female.0 -
Can you please explain to us how you verified that the number pictured on your watch was closer to your actual calorie burn? How do why know the number on the machine isn't spot on and your watch is the inaccurate device?
Couldn't I take these same photos, and title the thread "Proof your HRM is inaccurate" and base statement around the machine being accurate? Where is the independent verification?
Do your own study if you don't buy into it. Don't argue with her claims. I have done the same study, and I agree with her outcome. Using a HRM from two different companies, the HRM always came in 20+% lower than the machines (which aren't strapped to your pulse. And the HRMs gave me almost identical numbers.
Let's not start a fight just for the sake of it.0 -
science doesn't lie.
rule of thumb 30 min exercise = 1000 calories burned
it doesn't really matter how much you weigh, your age or if you're male or female.
bah ha ha. Good luck with your weight loss using that calculation!!
*edit to say: Looking at your ticker, I see you apparently aren't trying to lose weight. So, don't bother correcting me on that.
0 -
science doesn't lie.
rule of thumb 30 min exercise = 1000 calories burned
it doesn't really matter how much you weigh, your age or if you're male or female.
I'm afraid that is not true. Intensity makes a big difference.
A person weighing 160 lbs. will burn 183 calories per hour walking at 2 miles per hour, while a person weighing 240 lbs. will burn 273 calories per hour at the same speed
Increasing the treadmill walking rate from 2 to 3.5 miles per hour will lead to a significant increase in energy output. A person weighing 200 lbs. burns 228 calories per hour at the lower speed, and 346 calories per hour after the speed increase.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/308255-calories-burned-per-hour-on-a-treadmill/#ixzz2B6dvseYn0 -
Just to throw this out there, you do realize that a HRM is an estimate as well, right?0
-
Can you please explain to us how you verified that the number pictured on your watch was closer to your actual calorie burn? How do why know the number on the machine isn't spot on and your watch is the inaccurate device?
Couldn't I take these same photos, and title the thread "Proof your HRM is inaccurate" and base statement around the machine being accurate? Where is the independent verification?
Do your own study if you don't buy into it. Don't argue with her claims. I have done the same study, and I agree with her outcome. Using a HRM from two different companies, the HRM always came in 20+% lower than the machines (which aren't strapped to your pulse. And the HRMs gave me almost identical numbers.
Let's not start a fight just for the sake of it.
I'm not sure what your story just proved. That all HRMs use the same algorithm and are 20% inaccurate?
If you want to tell me your HRM accurately measured your heart rate, I'm buying. If you want to tell me it accurately measured your calories burned, not so much.
Question: why do you think they don't call them Calorie Burned Monitors?0 -
Can you please explain to us how you verified that the number pictured on your watch was closer to your actual calorie burn? How do why know the number on the machine isn't spot on and your watch is the inaccurate device?
Couldn't I take these same photos, and title the thread "Proof your HRM is inaccurate" and base statement around the machine being accurate? Where is the independent verification?
science doesn't lie.
rule of thumb 30 min exercise = 1000 calories burned
it doesn't really matter how much you weigh, your age or if you're male or female.
This is why I never wasted money on a HRM. Why bother when I can just plug 1000 calories burned into MFP after cleaning my house?0 -
Just to throw this out there, you do realize that a HRM is an estimate as well, right?
Cut that out. Telling the truth is considered fighting.
Reported0 -
Can you please explain to us how you verified that the number pictured on your watch was closer to your actual calorie burn? How do why know the number on the machine isn't spot on and your watch is the inaccurate device?
^^this0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions