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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

RREEEEEAAAAAOOOOOOWWWWHHHH!!!!!!!

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".

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.....

There seem to be a few things here. First it is difficult to translate a stationary bike speed to real world speed since you would need to know the gearing and then the actual resistance translated into % hill grade.

The second thing is perceived effort and current max heart rate. Your actual max heart generally cannot be increased but since it sounds like you are new to heavy exercise, you may not be able to reach it yet without feeling like you are dying, i.e. perceived effort of 10. When I started biking 7 weeks ago, I was breathing really hard and at my maximum effort around 140 bpm. 7 weeks later I can get into the 150's and just be working hard. Now I do know my max heart rate is lower than the standard 220-age. I am estimating my max HR is somewhere between 168-175 after having 7 weeks of monitoring my HR profile. No matter how hard I work now I cannot get above 165. If I used what I could achieve 7 weeks ago my maxHR would have been too low and if I used it, the HRM would have greatly increased my calorie count. Standard 220-age was close enough.

Third, mechanical work is mechanical work. Someone riding the same stationary bike with the same settings at the same pace is going to burn basically the same calories even if they appear to hardly be putting in any effort while you are working very hard. Increased VO2Max means a person can process more oxygen per breath and generate more work (burn more calories) at the same % of max effort. Someone with a low VO2Max at maximum effort burns far fewer calories than someone with a high VO2Max at maximum effort. As your fitness improves what you do now will take a lower percentage of maximum effort but burn about the same number of calories or you can maintain the same level of effort and burn more calories per minute because you are now doing more work (riding faster at the same resistance or the same speed at a higher resistance).

All of the above is just to get to here. An HRM is only as good as the settings it uses. It has no idea how much mechanical work was performed. It calculates calories burned by measuring effort as a % of maxHR, weight, and a VO2Max equivalent. A 200lb moderately fit man at 75% effort burns X calories a minute. If any of those things are wrong, the HRM will be wrong and even when they are right, it is still a best guess but based upon real data.

From everything I have read so far, it seems like most people burn between 8 and 14 calories per minute doing hard, sustainable exercise. Out of shape, closer to 8. Really fit and/or very overweight doing something that moves your body weight, closer to 14. If your exercise calories calculation is outside that range, you might need to reevaluate.

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.....

There seem to be a few things here. First it is difficult to translate a stationary bike speed to real world speed since you would need to know the gearing and then the actual resistance translated into % hill grade.

The second thing is perceived effort and current max heart rate. Your actual max heart generally cannot be increased but since it sounds like you are new to heavy exercise, you may not be able to reach it yet without feeling like you are dying, i.e. perceived effort of 10. When I started biking 7 weeks ago, I was breathing really hard and at my maximum effort around 140 bpm. 7 weeks later I can get into the 150's and just be working hard. Now I do know my max heart rate is lower than the standard 220-age. I am estimating my max HR is somewhere between 168-175 after having 7 weeks of monitoring my HR profile. No matter how hard I work now I cannot get above 165. If I used what I could achieve 7 weeks ago my maxHR would have been too low and if I used it, the HRM would have greatly increased my calorie count. Standard 220-age was close enough.

Third, mechanical work is mechanical work. Someone riding the same stationary bike with the same settings at the same pace is going to burn basically the same calories even if they appear to hardly be putting in any effort while you are working very hard. Increased VO2Max means a person can process more oxygen per breath and generate more work (burn more calories) at the same % of max effort. Someone with a low VO2Max at maximum effort burns far fewer calories than someone with a high VO2Max at maximum effort. As your fitness improves what you do now will take a lower percentage of maximum effort but burn about the same number of calories or you can maintain the same level of effort and burn more calories per minute because you are now doing more work (riding faster at the same resistance or the same speed at a higher resistance).

All of the above is just to get to here. An HRM is only as good as the settings it uses. It has no idea how much mechanical work was performed. It calculates calories burned by measuring effort as a % of maxHR, weight, and a VO2Max equivalent. A 200lb moderately fit man at 75% effort burns X calories a minute. If any of those things are wrong, the HRM will be wrong and even when they are right, it is still a best guess but based upon real data.

From everything I have read so far, it seems like most people burn between 8 and 14 calories per minute doing hard, sustainable exercise. Out of shape, closer to 8. Really fit and/or very overweight doing something that moves your body weight, closer to 14. If your exercise calories calculation is outside that range, you might need to reevaluate.

Hmmm.....you are wise in the ways of the force, my young paduan.

Well said. As always by both of you.

I had no idea I wasn't coming close either, I was on Spark for a year and I used their estimates and when I got my HRM for V-Day I was like WTF ( and I don't swear so the f used to stand for fudge now that I am healthier I jokingly say Fruit!). I was in disbelief I had after all lost weight. But in reality the change in my diet and moderate activity made that difference. I have seen a true change in my body since using my HRM to track my calories burned.