Why you need an HRM -with pics

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.

Reported

Good thing I like spankings as I suppose I'm about to be spanked by a moderator! :laugh:

thanks for taking the trouble to post this info. I always suspected a difference, but not such a wide difference!

For me this is completely the opposite Every machine Underestimates my caloric burn rate. But its only by 20-50 cals per workout.

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.

He is not starting a fight just for the sake of it--he is pointing out something that is very important in this discussion.

He is asking the question I was going to ask: Since none of you know how HRMs work and how they determine calories and none of you know how machines determine calories, why do you summarily reject one number and accept the other without reservation?

Some pieces of equipment are more accurate than others. A Life Fitness treadmill--if one inputs weight, is walking, and doesn't hold on to the handrails--will usually be more accurate than an HRM. In fact, doing a walking, steady-state workout on a treadmill is a decent way to assess the accuracy of your HRM--if there is a big difference, it usually means your HRM settings are off.

Many people don't realize that unless your HRM is set up with your ACTUAL maximum heart rate and a close estimate of your maximum aerobic capacity, even quality HRMs like Polar can have a significant error.

I explain this in more detail here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

My issue with this statement is that you referred to "some" pieces of equipment being more accurate than a HRM that isn't set up properly. "Some" is a pretty vague statement.

1. I've never seen a piece of equipment that states it is one of the more accurate ones. How does anyone know which one is right and wrong.

2. Not dialing in your HRM would fall under "user error". When someone like me takes the time to dial it in properly, does your statement still stand?

The bottom line is if you are losing weight with the numbers you record, it doesn't really matter in the end.

Question: why do you think they don't call them Calorie Burned Monitors?

I'm stealing that. Just letting you know.

TRADEMARKED

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?

Please take your logic elsewhere. There is no place for it around here.

On another note, I lost 45lbs getting all the way down to 12% bf without tracking calories burned by any activity. I think my algorithm may be more accurate. Do same exercise every week. Eat same calories every day. Adjust calories based on results.

Stop that crazy talk! Everyone knows the only way to lose weight is to workout more then eat it back so that you net zero! Lowering BF % can only be accomplished by discovering more perfect calorie counting methods/devices.

Perhaps your mind was subliminally counting calories for you?

I counted what I ate, just not what I burned

Thank you so much for posting this! I'm so glad I got a HRM!

I had the same experience the other day on an elliptical. I entered my age and weight and after 28 minutes the machine said I burned around 425 cals, but my HRM said 294. Interestingly, MFPs calculation based on time was close to my HRM (but I use my number). I was surprised how wrong the machine was.

Ever since I started using the HRM I found out I''ve been burning way more than what mfp calculates for me...I've never reached a 300+ calorie burn in an hour with mfp logging in but with my HRM it shows around a 500 for my one hour of workouts!....l'm glad that it worked the opposite way for me :drinker:

I don't know because I haven't got one yet (one on the way in post) but:

Is it possible to calibrate your HRM to your resting heart rate for a minute to make sure it is accurate there and then expect the HRM to read accurately as your own HR increases?

That way you would know your own HRM is accurate and comparable to the machine readings.

Ive done my own tests with the gym machines vs. my hrm and found that the difference between the two increased the longer the exercise went. But my problem with the whole calorie calculation thing is I believe I might have a higher max heart rate than 'normal' and that skews my readings. I don't even feel like I'm working unless my rate is higher than 157.

Ive done my own tests with the gym machines vs. my hrm and found that the difference between the two increased the longer the exercise went. But my problem with the whole calorie calculation thing is I believe I might have a higher max heart rate than 'normal' and that skews my readings. I don't even feel like I'm working unless my rate is higher than 157.

Excellent point, if you have the HRM with default HRmax stat, you calorie burn estimates are way off.

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.

He is not starting a fight just for the sake of it--he is pointing out something that is very important in this discussion.

He is asking the question I was going to ask: Since none of you know how HRMs work and how they determine calories and none of you know how machines determine calories, why do you summarily reject one number and accept the other without reservation?

Some pieces of equipment are more accurate than others. A Life Fitness treadmill--if one inputs weight, is walking, and doesn't hold on to the handrails--will usually be more accurate than an HRM. In fact, doing a walking, steady-state workout on a treadmill is a decent way to assess the accuracy of your HRM--if there is a big difference, it usually means your HRM settings are off.

Many people don't realize that unless your HRM is set up with your ACTUAL maximum heart rate and a close estimate of your maximum aerobic capacity, even quality HRMs like Polar can have a significant error.

I explain this in more detail here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/exercise-calories-sometimes-the-cardio-machines-are-more-accurate-404739

My issue with this statement is that you referred to "some" pieces of equipment being more accurate than a HRM that isn't set up properly. "Some" is a pretty vague statement.

1. I've never seen a piece of equipment that states it is one of the more accurate ones. How does anyone know which one is right and wrong.

2. Not dialing in your HRM would fall under "user error". When someone like me takes the time to dial it in properly, does your statement still stand?

The bottom line is if you are losing weight with the numbers you record, it doesn't really matter in the end.

This is a general discussion--I was taking issue with the fact that you and others were making blanket statements about the accuracy of HRMs vs machines that were patently false. And you were attacking without cause or proof someone who was properly questioning the OPs original premise. And, as support for my "some" statement, I specifically identified one of the pieces and described how it was more accurate.

1. I'm not sure if you read it, but I go into a lot more detail in the blog, identifying specific groupings of machines that tend to be more accurate than others. Not every equipment manufacturer (nor HRM manufacturer) publishes their data, so there is no way to state with certainly exactly how they derive their numbers. So, in answer to your question, there is no way for the average person to know. (But there is also no way to know how the HRMs derive THEIR information, which is why the "HRMs are always most accurate" statement is so misguided). That's why I take the time to share my experiences on the forums -- to help point people in the right direction so that they do not make big mistakes, and to correct the large amount of misinformation on the subject.

2. Depending on the exercise modality, yes, the statement still stands. It is much more accurate to measure ACTUAL workload and use it to estimate calories than it is to INFER calories burned based on a mathematical "fit" of an indirect effect (i.g. heart rate) of a physiological process (oxygen uptake) to the average workloads of an experimental sample. And it hasn't been mentioned, but there is also the issue of "cardiovascular drift". During longer workouts (for me >30 min), heart rate will start to increase without any increase in workload (or oxygen uptake). For me, if I start running on a treadmill @ 6 mph, my heart rate for the first 5 min might average 115, but by the end of 45 min, I'll be pushing 140. With no change in workload. My VO2 (and thus calories burned) hasn't changed, but my heart rate has. Sometimes there is a 30% increase in my HRM calories burned over a 45 min workout comparing the first half to the second half with no increase in workload. In the real world, that should not happen, but it does. So, yes, there are always inherent weaknesses in HRM calorie estimations, even under the most "ideal" conditions. However with some machines (particularly elliptical cross trainers), the calorie counts are so off, HRMs, even with all of their weaknesses can be more accurate--as long as they are quality models (higher-end Polars, Suunto, Garmin) and they are set up properly.

As for your last statement, that's a different topic. I am only addressing the assertions of the OP, and your follow up questions.

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?

Some treadmills (like the ones I use at work) factor in your weight AND your heart rate to determine calories burned. I noticed that during a weight loss plateau during the summer, I would do the exact same workout but the calorie burn would decrease over time. I realized that as I got used to the workout, my HR would decrease over time and that would be reflected in the calorie burn. I don't think that the OP's pictures prove definitively that the HR is more accurate... or less accurate. However, it's ALL estimates anyway. Someone that matches my age, height, and weight doing the exact same workout could easily have a dramatically different burn based on numerous factors (body fat %, heart rate, etc.)

Personally, I compensate as follows: set MFP to sedentary (true), record my cardio, and eat back NO MORE THAN 50% of the burned calories. It's worked for me. :happy:

I would be curious to know what brand of treadmills you are referring to. In most commercial exercise equipment, the HR display is separate whatever part of the console board estimates calories. There is a modular Polar receiver that plugs into the console and that picks up the signals from your chest transmitter. In the absence of a chest strap, the sensors on the handrail are used to sense heart rate. If the machine has heart rate interactive programs, then the heart rate signal will be used to adjust workload.

I don't know of any commercial treadmill that uses heart rate as part of the calorie estimations. However, I have been out of the front lines of the equipment business for 3 years, so someone might have come up with a new feature, and, if so, I would definitely like to investigate.

I just always log 10-15lbs UNDER my actual weight when I use the machines, and then usually take off calories when I log in MFP to play it safe.