Which should I trust more HRM or machines?

Options
2»

Replies

  • AmyFett
    AmyFett Posts: 1,607 Member
    Options
    HRM
  • YoungDoc2B
    YoungDoc2B Posts: 1,593 Member
    Options
    HRM, for sure. When I first bought my HRM I was surprised to see that I burned alot more calories than the machine gave me credit for.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Why does everyone assume an HRM is more accurate than the machine? Because it's some fancy, expensive gadget? All these posts saying "the gym machine said X, my HRM said Y... the gym machine was way off." How do you know the HRM isn't way off?
  • frando
    frando Posts: 583 Member
    Options
    HRM, they're more accurate (if set up properly, at least!) and taking a constant measure next to your heart where as the machines have to rely on present calculations and assumptions.
  • frando
    frando Posts: 583 Member
    Options
    According to some medical lab studies, an HRM often reads about 9% higher than true burn, but the machines are even worse. Go by your HRM. If you're concerned about accountability, subtract 9% from your HRM reading. I always figure it's better to overestimate food and underestimate exercise. I subtract 10% from my HRM.

    Also, don't forget to update your weight in your HRM. I update mine every time I lose five pounds.


    The comments in here are spot on. Overestimate food and underestimate exercise...it's a true zen saying. Oh by the way, go by the HRM

    Overestimate food that you're unsure of. When you measure it yourself, no need to estimate.

    I have found that at the gym, the elliptical and the arc trainer over estimate. The Treadmill is fairly close. The bike is underestimated by a great deal. This is in comparison to my Polar FT4 readings.

    I found that, the cross trainer (it's what we call ellipitcals over here) were massively over- nearly 200 calories on some machines but the treadmill was either on the dot or just under- compared to my HRM at least. I think it's a version of the Polar systems, MyZone belt- you don't get a watch display though but it was only like £30 and I only use it in the gym (where they have the sensors to pick up the HRM readouts) so I don't mind.
  • melbatoast917
    melbatoast917 Posts: 370 Member
    Options
    what HRM is recommended?

    I LOVE my Polar FT7
  • cubbies77
    cubbies77 Posts: 607 Member
    Options
    Yes, I agree. I should have clarified. If you measure your food, you probably don't need to overestimate. I was talking about those times you can't measure and have to "eye it". (Like knowing 3 ounces of meat is about the size of a deck of playing cards, stuff like that.)

    My Polar FT4 is really easy to use, and it syncs with the Life Fitness machines at my gym. I like that I can see my heart rate on the machine instead of having to look at my wrist every minute.
  • RJAgeo
    RJAgeo Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    HRM, Polar FT7!
  • cardoza2011
    cardoza2011 Posts: 15
    Options
    According to some medical lab studies, an HRM often reads about 9% higher than true burn, but the machines are even worse. Go by your HRM. If you're concerned about accountability, subtract 9% from your HRM reading. I always figure it's better to overestimate food and underestimate exercise. I subtract 10% from my HRM.

    Also, don't forget to update your weight in your HRM. I update mine every time I lose five pounds.


    The comments in here are spot on. Overestimate food and underestimate exercise...it's a true zen saying. Oh by the way, go by the HRM

    Overestimate food that you're unsure of. When you measure it yourself, no need to estimate.

    I have found that at the gym, the elliptical and the arc trainer over estimate. The Treadmill is fairly close. The bike is underestimated by a great deal. This is in comparison to my Polar FT4 readings.

    Thanks everyone for the answers, I also have the Polar FT4 and that is what I am going to go with.

Categories