WTH?? My new HRM is WAAAY off from calories burned in ANY ca

Options
kspeach
kspeach Posts: 179 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Okay, this new FT4 Polar is waaaaaaaaaaaay off on how many calories I've burned. I've been walking/exercising for a month on here, and I believe that my calorie burn counts on here are correct, because I'm losing the proper weight given my intake/output. The counts match up very closely to other sites, for my size, speed, and distance.

I'm 41 years old, 246 (yikes) pounds, 5'6. I was BOOKING it at 6-7 MPH on my stationary bike for 20 minutes; my HRM SAID it was max 144, avg 134, but only burned 108 calories, being in the proper 'zone' for 16+ minutes according to my HRM!! Even if I was doing LIGHT cycling (which I wasn't) I burned 205 calories. I was going a moderate speed with moderate resistance.

I've found like 15 different weight loss/calorie burning heart rate zones and they are ALL different. There is either no WAY that this HRM was correct on my HR, or something else is wrong with it. I double checked and all the info I put into it is correct.

I know some of you swear by the calories burned on the HRM. HELPPPPPPPP!

And of course, the note on the side of the box says no returns to the store, per Polar. I might still try to return it. I can't afford to waste $80!! I used a HRM a few years back, and it worked fine and always matched up to the computer/machine.
«1

Replies

  • nopeekiepeekie
    nopeekiepeekie Posts: 338 Member
    Options
    I tend to find my HRM more accurate, as it accounts for the ebbs and flows of how hard you are working out and what your max & min heart rates should be. Seeing that all the websites you found are different, I would tend to lean towards the HRM. When you got it, did you set it up with your stats, resting heart rate included?
  • tex43
    tex43 Posts: 229
    Options
    mine has a hard moderate and slow setting as well,meaning intensity of your workout,do you have it set to high/hard?
  • hiddensecant
    hiddensecant Posts: 2,446 Member
    Options
    If you are losing weight just fine eating the MFP calories (which were much higher than your HRM calories), then you're probably better off with a lower deficit (bigger base calories).

    The difference is likely due to you being in better shape than MFP thinks you should be.
  • lilchino4af
    lilchino4af Posts: 1,292 Member
    Options
    Go with your HRM monitor because it has the most accurate picture of your HRM for the whole time you worked out along with a more complete user profile (e.g. your height, weight, sex, etc). I know it's shocking, but that's why people (including me) love and swear by HRMs because they are more accurate and machines or online calculators can be way off because they use built in assumptions for data they don't have access to (where a HRM does). It could also be that your body is getting used to that level of workout on the stationary bike and as such has become better conditioned and doesn't need to work as hard; in other words, it's time to bump it up to the next level! :bigsmile:
  • cbmillz
    cbmillz Posts: 16
    Options
    Believe me...I know it is depressing but the HRM is closer to the truth.

    The only way to make it more accurate is to calculate you VO2MAX score and put that in your settings. The HRM basically "assumes" you are a healthy person with a healthy VO2MAX. However if you are just starting and haven't exercised in a while you VO2MAX score would be lower, therefore meaning you use way more oxygen than most people, which would mean you are burning more calories than the HRM says.

    I.e. If a marathon runner sits next to you on a bike and shows the same heart rate it will most likely be easier for them to continue and they also burn less calories. Hence why a VO2MAX score matters. It is essentially your fitness quotient.
  • rjadams
    rjadams Posts: 4,060 Member
    Options
    according to Heartcalories.com with info you provided it said you burned about 136 calories if you use the 134 avereage HR for 20 minutes. So the HRM doesn't seem that far off to me.
  • Laceylala
    Laceylala Posts: 3,094 Member
    Options
    If you read more of the HRM posts on this site, you will find that the general consensus is that the HRM's are more accurate than the exercise equipment and MFP.

    Here is the thing though. You've found your groove. Your losing weight with what you are doing right now, so don't change it. Once you hit a plateau, then change it. At the end of the day even if the cals burned are off on either HRM or here on MFP, as long as it works, don't fix it.

    I know your frustration though. You pay for a nice HRM and it tells you something completely different than everything else.

    I stopped using the bikes because I find I don't "burn" as much on those as I do on the elliptical.
  • LittleSpy
    LittleSpy Posts: 6,754 Member
    Options
    I swear I'm not trying to be rude, just realistic -- 6-7mph is "booking it" on a bike? I used to log my average 17-18mph stationary bike rides as "moderate" intensity.

    That being said -- are you sure everything is set up 100% correctly? And, are you sure it's reading your heart rate 100% of the time you're exercising? Those may seem like offensive questions, and I hope you don't take them that way, but *usually* (of course, not always!) the issue, if there is one, is a user error.
  • nopeekiepeekie
    nopeekiepeekie Posts: 338 Member
    Options
    The only way to make it more accurate is to calculate you VO2MAX score and put that in your settings.

    Thinking I need to look into my VO2MAX score. :)
  • kspeach
    kspeach Posts: 179 Member
    Options
    I tend to find my HRM more accurate, as it accounts for the ebbs and flows of how hard you are working out and what your max & min heart rates should be. Seeing that all the websites you found are different, I would tend to lean towards the HRM. When you got it, did you set it up with your stats, resting heart rate included?

    It did not ask for a resting heart rate. The websites seem to show my 70% anywhere from 125-135-148-152! 80% shows at 143-161-165.

    Trust me, there was no WAY my HR could hit any higher than 144, which is the lowest 'max' heart rate.

    Also, I am in no way 'used' to the stationary bike. It's only like the 3rd or 4th time I've used it. Generally, I walk 3 miles or so at 3.0-3.5 miles per hour. This was 20 minutes at 6-7 MPH, moderate resistance. And yeah, my legs could not go ANY faster, and it was saying 6-7 mph. It's a stationary bike. Sorry if my 'booking' it doesn't meet someone else's standards. Perhaps I have the resistance set pretty high.....
  • cbmillz
    cbmillz Posts: 16
    Options
    I know it is frustrating. Just read the Polar book and attempt to get an accurate VO2MAX and set up the watch the best you can. i promise the HRM is better than a machine. You just have to get used it it. Also, only YOU know your limits...no bike or watch can tell you that.

    Good LUCK!
  • Roxie65
    Roxie65 Posts: 155 Member
    Options
    Saturday I rode the stationary bike for 38 min with and avg hr of 126 and my hrm said I burned 199 cals and it is a Polar F4 so yours is pretty close.
  • LittleSpy
    LittleSpy Posts: 6,754 Member
    Options
    Sorry if my 'booking' it doesn't meet someone else's standards.

    So now you're just being ridiculously snarky.

    We're trying to HELP you. :grumble:

    Now please continue with the denial of all possible solutions to your problem.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    Do you have some medical reason for the following statement?

    "there was no WAY my HR could hit any higher than 144"

    because, unless there's something wrong with your cardiovascular system, you're max heart rate should generally be around 180 or so (very general rule of thumb, I.E. 220 - age) granted that's really general, but 144 is awfully low for a 40 year old woman.

    Again, this is just to clear it up, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it sounds off to me.
  • kspeach
    kspeach Posts: 179 Member
    Options
    Saturday I rode the stationary bike for 38 min with and avg hr of 126 and my hrm said I burned 199 cals and it is a Polar F4 so yours is pretty close.
    But then it's not figuring the fact that I'm more out of shape and weigh twice as much as you do. To me, those numbers don't compute.
    Sorry if my 'booking' it doesn't meet someone else's standards.

    So now you're just being ridiculously snarky.

    We're trying to HELP you. :grumble:

    Now please continue with the denial of all possible solutions to your problem.

    Yeah it's not like I'm having a bad moment. I didn't ask for your snarky criticism. I asked for HELP. There is a difference. And I do know my exercise level and weight and fitness level. And a stationary bike burns at different than a regular bike. To match the calories on this website (or any other website on the internet) to that calorie loss would be very light effort. It was NOT 'very light effort.
  • kspeach
    kspeach Posts: 179 Member
    Options
    Do you have some medical reason for the following statement?

    "there was no WAY my HR could hit any higher than 144"

    because, unless there's something wrong with your cardiovascular system, you're max heart rate should generally be around 180 or so (very general rule of thumb, I.E. 220 - age) granted that's really general, but 144 is awfully low for a 40 year old woman.

    Again, this is just to clear it up, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it sounds off to me.

    I meant during this 'ride', I was going very hard (FOR ME) and 144 was when I was going hard. And according to what I've read and calculated online, for instance, my fat burning zone is either from 90-135, or 125-145, or around there. 220-41 is 179. I don't believe you're supposed to exercise at your max heart rate. Esp for a beginner. 70--80% of max heart rate.
    Thanks though.
  • tex43
    tex43 Posts: 229
    Options
    RREEEEEAAAAAOOOOOOWWWWHHHH!!!!!!!:wink:
  • smuehlbauer
    smuehlbauer Posts: 1,041 Member
    Options
    [/quote]

    Yeah it's not like I'm having a bad moment. I didn't ask for your snarky criticism. I asked for HELP.
    [/quote]

    It sounded to me like LittleSpy was trying to help.
    And I do agree, that 7-8 mph on a bike is pretty slow when you can walk 4 mph...
    When you ask for help you need to have a thick skin to some of the answers, sometimes honest isn't the prettiest thing...
  • hiddensecant
    hiddensecant Posts: 2,446 Member
    Options
    So there are 3 things you can do:

    1. Start eating the HRM calories and bump up your base calories so you're more or less eating the same as before. It will have you eating a bit more on rest days but it is something worth exploring.

    2. Keep using MFP calories until you hit a plateau. Then switch to HRM calories.

    3. Keep your current deficit and start eating the HRM calories instead of the MFP calories. You'll be at a bigger deficit on exercise days but it will be "more accurate" and also worth "exploring".
  • zoed
    zoed Posts: 8
    Options
    My polar watch is completely over estimating the number of calories I burn. I think the only way is for me to reset it and make sure all of the settings are correct. That's what I'm off to do now- then I can be sure that the HRM is correct. If you still don't believe it, then just stick to what you're doing because you were going along fine until then!

    Also, my old gym instructor told me that fitness machines lie and they can all be configured quite differently, depending on the brand, the model etc. so don't rely on the information it gives you too much, unless of course you plan to use the same machine time and time again!

    Best of luck!

Categories