Are heart rate monitors bogus?

I don't know anything about heart rate monitors. Maybe i'm not just all about excercising. But I do know I put on these extra pounds by eating too much, I've always been kind of active. I think myfitnesspal calories burned is too high as are the machines at the gym. That's why I don't eat back my calories. But I do count everyday activies like "cleaning the house" and "Playing with little kids" because I usually only do those things once a week. I work at a desk all week and long hours 8 to 10 per day. And when I clean my house I'm going up & down stairs carrying stuff so I think that counts. When my grandkids come over I'm flying a kite, playing tag, baseball, dancing, jumping or running. Maybe the neighbors think it odd that a 57 yr. old grandma is doing these activities, but I don't care. All activitity counts - even if it's fun! :flowerforyou:

I don't have a HRM yet, but I am getting on in June for my birthday. I have noticed that often, values differ greatly between machines and MFP, and values even differ between calorie sites.
At the moment, I am using a site which calculates average calorie burn by heart rate, weight and time. It seems more reliable to me, but it's not always possible to accurately take my own heart rate as I often miscount haha.

My Polar FT4 and the Precor machines at the gym (which also have HRMs) tally close to the same amount. Generally on an ellipical - cross country training interval I can average 400-450 calories/40 minute workout (which includes the warmup and cool down). If I come into MFP and log that same 35 minutes it will tell me I burned closer to 450 (ETA I rechecked and MFP tells me 501). I always go with the HRM and generally subtract about 50 calories to be on the safe side of "eating back my calories".

I also only log true deep and dirty cleaning. When I am scrubbing, sweeping and sweating. It generally takes me 5-6 hours to do the whole house with a couple of small breaks thrown in but even then I will only add in 1-2 hours of cleaning on MFP. I think it all comes down to being honest about your exertion. For instance MFP tells me that Swimming "Leisurely" burns 500 calories - but how many people are actually doing Leisurely laps while swimming? If you are playing in the pool with your toddler chances are good that you did not put out 500 calories worth of effort in that hour.

I say if you aren't out of breath, sweaty, and feeling the burn don't log it as cardio. If you are here to lose weight those little extra "burns" that you don't log will help boost your weight loss or at least make up for the fact that calorie estimates aren't 100% accurate.

Heart rate monitors are excellent at measuring heart rate. In my experience, less so in calculating calories burned. It is interesting that some here think it overestimates and others the opposite.

I have a Timex HRM that is pretty bad overall, and calculates calorie burn more than 60% higher than machines or even MFP typically does. I top out my HR in the mid-160's and do intervals between that and around 140, usually averaging a HR in the high 140's. My CW is 166 lbs. but I've generally been around 180-190 for most of the past 10 years (yay MFP!).

There is no way that I am burning at a rate of about 1,000 cals per hour, but that's what my Timex says. I would greatly appreciate it if one of the many MFP people who know more than I do about this could give me some feedback--am I right in assuming my HRM calorie numbers are garbage? Many thanks.

Several online calculators that use age, HR, & weight indicatewith your details 935 cal burned at an avg HR of 150 over an hour, so maybe not too far off.

I trust it to give me an accurate heart rate, but I strongly suspect it way overestimates by burn levels. Any kind of sustained intense cardio and it's giving me numbers of around a thousand per hour. Consequently I use the number it gives me, but set my net goal a bit lower than I otherwise would.

So here's the magic question: how do you know if your heart rate monitor is telling you an accurate number of calories?

You can check the heart rate number. Just hold your finger on your artery and count. The calories, unless you have access to some serious lab equipment, you really don't know if the number is correct or if it's off by 40%.

If you put the same numbers into 10 different online calculators for the same activity, you will get 10 different numbers over a range of 10 to 20%. Which one of them is right?

Just because one monitor asks for body weight, fat %, VO2 max (like you spent the money on that test), height, and gender does not mean it's more accurate. It is just trying to fill in a few wild guesses with rough assumptions. They can still be wildly off.

You want your heart rate monitor to know whether you are sitting walking, cross country skiing, or just nervous about a big date and give you an accurate calorie burn based on that? It's not going to happen.

Heart rate monitors are great for telling you your heart rate. GPS units are great for telling you speed and distance. Neither is great for calculating calories burned.

When I see people recording enormous calorie burns for routine activities I know that their primary exercise is self-deception.

Beautifully poetic.

I use a combination of HRM and online calculators and adjust my time when I enter a workout into MFP to reflect an approximation. I used to always go with MFP but quickly determined it was bogus very often. That is why I tend to look at calories in/ calories out on a weekly basis rather than daily.

That is true, but I am asking whether or not heart rate monitors are evil little fibbers.

It's all estimation, but HRMs are far more accurate than data bases and cardio machines. I usually just knock off 20% or so to account for BMR (what I would have burned watching spongebob) and estimation error. I think people get far too wrapped up in exact burns, etc.

I also think people cheat themselves when they log activity that should just be included in their daily NEAT or TDEE. Even if I go out and spend half a day doing yard work that is outside of the ordinary, I don't log it...I might have an extra beer or two, but I don't log my 4 hours of yard work as exercise.

That is true, but I am asking whether or not heart rate monitors are evil little fibbers.

It's all estimation, but HRMs are far more accurate than data bases and cardio machines. I usually just knock off 20% or so to account for BMR (what I would have burned watching spongebob) and estimation error. I think people get far too wrapped up in exact burns, etc.

I also think people cheat themselves when they log activity that should just be included in their daily NEAT or TDEE. Even if I go out and spend half a day doing yard work that is outside of the ordinary, I don't log it...I might have an extra beer or two, but I don't log my 4 hours of yard work as exercise.

You "might" have an extra 400 calories of alcohol and sugar if you do a lot of yard work, but you don't log it? Maybe you should log it if you're going to be consuming extra calories to cover it

I had a quiet hour at work so entered all my calories eaten and burned (measured by HRM) into a spreadsheet to see how accurate this whole food logging & exercise burn counting thing was.....
Since Jan 2nd by my numbers I "should" have lost 6.5lbs - in fact I've lost 5lbs.

So yes I would say that a HRM used properly is pretty accurate, certainly useful.

But as others have stated I wish more people would use them as a training aid instead of a calorie counter!!

Do you lift weights at all. You may have lost more but gained some better weight in its place. Explain the 1.5 difference.

Sounds like some people are jealous I weigh 220 pounds and when I run for an hour I burn 1000 calories. If I dance for 5 hours I burn 2500 calories. If you want to burn like that gain weight.

I recently purchased a heart rate monitor and received a RUDE AWAKENING.

Now, I'm 100 pounds overweight doing these exercises so keep that in mind when I give you my counts.

1 hour on the bike - MFP tells me it's somewhere betweeen 900 and 1000 calories burned depending on my speed
1 hour on the bike - my bike tells me it's about 750 calories burned (my bike doesn't take into account weight or height)
1 hour on the bike - my heart rate monitor tells me it's about 350 calories burned

I always thought MFP counts were high so I always subtracked 2-300 hundred from what it gave me but wow, wasn't expecting this!

And this is why a lot of people are still hanging onto excess lbs. Because they think the readings on MFP are Gospel. Invest in a heart rate monitor, use it. It does work. I'm living proof. 87 lbs doing zumba, running and eating within my means. All in a year.

I had a quiet hour at work so entered all my calories eaten and burned (measured by HRM) into a spreadsheet to see how accurate this whole food logging & exercise burn counting thing was.....
Since Jan 2nd by my numbers I "should" have lost 6.5lbs - in fact I've lost 5lbs.

So yes I would say that a HRM used properly is pretty accurate, certainly useful.

But as others have stated I wish more people would use them as a training aid instead of a calorie counter!!

Do you lift weights at all. You may have lost more but gained some better weight in its place. Explain the 1.5 difference.

I do lift weights (normally 3 cardio and 3 separate strength sessions a week). Strength and definition certainly improved but muscle mass - hmmm, not so sure. Don't really qualify for "newbie muscle gains during a calorie deficit" as I've been training for about 37 years now!!
More likely the difference is forgetting to log those exra few glasses of Sauvignon Blanc. :drinker:

In 30 mins I usually only burn about 400-440 calories (according to my Polar FT4)...and that's doing HIIT..if they are burning 1000 calories in 30 mins doing cleaning, sign me up for that program.