Heart rate monitor help please

alyz
alyz Posts: 41
edited September 21 in Fitness and Exercise
I finally broke down and bought a new heart rate monitor last night. It's very nice and has several functions...I just don't know how to use it! I successfully paired the watch to the chest band, entered my personal info, and my target heart rates. At my workout this morning (50 mins), the machine said that I burned 340 calories. When I reviewed my workout on my HRM, it said I had burned 644! Now that's a huge difference! I honestly don't feel like I worked hard enough for that. Comments? What am I doing wrong?

Replies

  • Chenoachem
    Chenoachem Posts: 1,758 Member
    Your HRM is going to monitor your intensity as you go since you have a chest strap. As long as you entered your infor in correctly, it should be pretty accurate. Great job. What brand did you buy?
  • TabiHerbalifeCoach
    TabiHerbalifeCoach Posts: 691 Member
    What brand do you have?

    My calories are always higher than the machine...it is based off of your heart rate, but if you are unsure double check your inof and make sure its in there correctly ie if your 6 ft you didn't put in 5 ft or something like that.
  • balfonso
    balfonso Posts: 370 Member
    I'm looking into getting one but every time I read reviews, they always seem so mixed; good and bad....
  • alyz
    alyz Posts: 41
    It's a timex ironman Triathlon. I bought it at Academy. I'll double check my info.
    Whenever I put the same activities into the exercise database on MFP, it too is lower than my HRM. Hmmm...perhaps I've been underestimating all along. : )
  • austinusn
    austinusn Posts: 38
    Hi - I agree with what has been said -- your HRM is going to be more accurate because it goes off of your heart rate (of course) but be sure to check your HRM settings, etc. The machine tends to be rather "generic" in its readings. What type of machine did you workout on and what brand of HRM?
  • funkyspunky871
    funkyspunky871 Posts: 1,675 Member
    Double check your info, of course. :) And, if everything's right.... Maybe you're not wearing the chest strap right? Otherwise, good job! 50 minutes is a lot! I burn around 700 with an hour long walk.


    EDIT: I definitely suggest that you monitor your heart rate with the watch the next time. It could be not working right. The higher your heart rate, the more calories you burn. Mine tends to stop tracking my heart rate for a few seconds, but yours could be doing the opposite.
  • TabiHerbalifeCoach
    TabiHerbalifeCoach Posts: 691 Member
    I'm looking into getting one but every time I read reviews, they always seem so mixed; good and bad....

    I tell you, i have bought a lot of things in my life and hands down this is the BEST purchase I have ever made. I could not be happeir with it, AND with the polar the warenty is so amazing, something happens to it they fix it or replace it for a year, and you can get extended warrantys. The battery life is 2 years!! the best 100 bucks i've spent.
  • funkyspunky871
    funkyspunky871 Posts: 1,675 Member
    I'm looking into getting one but every time I read reviews, they always seem so mixed; good and bad....

    I tell you, i have bought a lot of things in my life and hands down this is the BEST purchase I have ever made. I could not be happeir with it, AND with the polar the warenty is so amazing, something happens to it they fix it or replace it for a year, and you can get extended warrantys. The battery life is 2 years!! the best 100 bucks i've spent.

    AGREED!!
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    The Timex does not allow you to enter VO2 max, so it is using a fixed general number to estimate calories expended. If your actual max heart rate is higher than the 220-age figure, an HRM that uses that formula to estimate max HR will overestimate calories burned (because it thinks you are working at a much higher intensity than you already are).

    Just because an HRM has a calorie count feature doesn't mean it is any more accurate than a machine. Only a couple of manufacturers are serious about accurate calorie measurements--Suunto "t" series, Polar (F6 or higher, not the F4), and maybe some newer Garmin models. For the rest, the calorie count feature is just a marketing tool.

    The idea that "all HRMs are going to be more accurate" is one of the biggest misunderstandings and fallacies in the fitness world.
  • alyz
    alyz Posts: 41
    Just double checked everything. All of the info was correct except for my max heart rate. I reset it and will try again tomorrow morning. Thanks for all of the help!
  • VeryKerri
    VeryKerri Posts: 359 Member
    The Timex does not allow you to enter VO2 max, so it is using a fixed general number to estimate calories expended. If your actual max heart rate is higher than the 220-age figure, an HRM that uses that formula to estimate max HR will overestimate calories burned (because it thinks you are working at a much higher intensity than you already are).

    Just because an HRM has a calorie count feature doesn't mean it is any more accurate than a machine. Only a couple of manufacturers are serious about accurate calorie measurements--Suunto "t" series, Polar (F6 or higher, not the F4), and maybe some newer Garmin models. For the rest, the calorie count feature is just a marketing tool.

    The idea that "all HRMs are going to be more accurate" is one of the biggest misunderstandings and fallacies in the fitness world.

    I'm sorry, I'm not normally so obtuse, but can you please explain in plain english the beginning part of your post? What is the VO2 max? and the 220*age figure?
  • inforsey
    inforsey Posts: 35 Member
    So is the Polar F6 the one people recommend? I am also in the market for one of these gadgets... How easy are they to use?
  • jrich1
    jrich1 Posts: 2,408 Member
    So is the Polar F6 the one people recommend? I am also in the market for one of these gadgets... How easy are they to use?

    I have a Polar Ft7 (updated model of F6/F7) and once you set it up, its just hitting button to start and stop the workout session. Its nice to have an accurate number for cals burned
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    The Timex does not allow you to enter VO2 max, so it is using a fixed general number to estimate calories expended. If your actual max heart rate is higher than the 220-age figure, an HRM that uses that formula to estimate max HR will overestimate calories burned (because it thinks you are working at a much higher intensity than you already are).

    Just because an HRM has a calorie count feature doesn't mean it is any more accurate than a machine. Only a couple of manufacturers are serious about accurate calorie measurements--Suunto "t" series, Polar (F6 or higher, not the F4), and maybe some newer Garmin models. For the rest, the calorie count feature is just a marketing tool.

    The idea that "all HRMs are going to be more accurate" is one of the biggest misunderstandings and fallacies in the fitness world.

    I'm sorry, I'm not normally so obtuse, but can you please explain in plain english the beginning part of your post? What is the VO2 max? and the 220*age figure?

    Try this--let me know if you have additional specific questions:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
  • Kath15
    Kath15 Posts: 165 Member
    So is the Polar F6 the one people recommend? I am also in the market for one of these gadgets... How easy are they to use?

    I have a Polar Ft7 (updated model of F6/F7) and once you set it up, its just hitting button to start and stop the workout session. Its nice to have an accurate number for cals burned
    I was hesitant to spend money on a HRM, but I'm very happy that I made the decision to do so. It really helps improve your training and know more accurately where you're at with calories. I have the Polar FT7 which I love and is very easy to use. It is waterproof, stores your workout info, and you don't have to send it away to get the battery replaced. The Polar F6 is also widely recommended by MFP users as well. I took my HRM with me on vacation last week and used it to keep track of my workouts (walking, jogging at the beach, etc.). I'm glad I did because I was definitely eating and drinking more than usual, but working out a little less. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I lost 1.5 pounds when I got back instead of gaining weight.
  • kmulhollen
    kmulhollen Posts: 54
    Today I bought a New Balance HRM for $43+ from Costco. I was fully planning to buy a Polar brand HRM but I liked the look of the watch and thought What the Hey, if I don't like it I'll take it back. It's Costco and they have a great return policy. I used it tonight and had no difficulty entering my basic info for age, gender, weight, etc... It did have the VOC on the display but I didn't adjust that or even understand it. I followed the instructions carefully about the chest strap. I was psyched to wear it tonight for my workout. Wa Wa Waaa! I was really disappointed that the readings didn't seem real. My resting heart rate was 66 by counting my pulse but was over 190 on the watch!! The directions said that electrical interference from devices etc can cause this. My heart rate during a mostly mild-moderate level was about 110 - 125. So I'm not sure what to think. Is it user error or faulty product?!
  • kmulhollen
    kmulhollen Posts: 54
    Today I bought a New Balance HRM for $43+ from Costco. I was fully planning to buy a Polar brand HRM but I liked the look of the watch and thought What the Hey, if I don't like it I'll take it back. It's Costco and they have a great return policy. I used it tonight and had no difficulty entering my basic info for age, gender, weight, etc... It did have the VOC on the display but I didn't adjust that or even understand it. I followed the instructions carefully about the chest strap. I was psyched to wear it tonight for my workout. Wa Wa Waaa! I was really disappointed that the readings didn't seem real. My resting heart rate was 66 by counting my pulse but was over 190 on the watch!! The directions said that electrical interference from devices etc can cause this. My heart rate during a mostly mild-moderate level was about 110 - 125. So I'm not sure what to think. Is it user error or faulty product?!

    Think the problem is fixed. You have to be careful to set everything to zero before you enter any info into the watch. We'll see how it goes with my next work out.

    btw, thanks Adzak for your detailed blog post about HRMs.
  • JBennis1013
    JBennis1013 Posts: 377 Member
    It's a timex ironman Triathlon. I bought it at Academy. I'll double check my info.
    Whenever I put the same activities into the exercise database on MFP, it too is lower than my HRM. Hmmm...perhaps I've been underestimating all along. : )
    My Sister had bought an Ironman HRM. For 35 minutes on the elliptical it said she burned 584...which is definitely too high! I work for a doctor and even asked him if this was too good to be true and he said generaly you burn 10-12 calories a minute, obviously take other things into effect. Bit 584 in 35 minues is too high.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories