How to test HRM for how accurate calorie burn is

yecatsml · November 2012

Using a polar FT40 HRM. Just finished this test as well. 4mph at 5% incline. Was pretty steady at 120 for the last 3 min of the warmup. I made sure I put in the same weight in my HRM and the calculator.

For the 20 min test I averaged 119 with a low of 117 and a max of 124.

HRM said 115 calories
Calculator is 176

Wow.

mike_littlerock · November 2012

Here is how I tell..
a) put on HRM prior to workout
b) hit "start" or equivalent button.
c) workout
d) hit "stop". write down number, add it to MFP.
e) eat back maintenance calories, plus workout calories minus 1,000 (or whatever deficit you use)

repeat every day.
if i drop weight.. then I would say its accurate.. if I gain weight, its not.

There.. I fixed it. lol

TrishasTime · November 2012

bump

AZKristi · November 2012

My HRM is almost always right about the same result as a cardio machine at the gym. But, HRM is the only thing I can use during outdoor activities, lifting, yoga, spin, etc. I love my HRM!

tigerblue · November 2012

Very interesting.

I stopped using my HRM about a year ago, when the battery went out. It always gave me a higher number than MFP.

So now I have been using my GPS running app which bases calorie burn on speed, distance, time, and weight. How accurate is that? It is often significantly less than MFP (which means it is a whole lot less than my HRM).

heybales · November 2012

Very interesting.

I stopped using my HRM about a year ago, when the battery went out. It always gave me a higher number than MFP.

So now I have been using my GPS running app which bases calorie burn on speed, distance, time, and weight. How accurate is that? It is often significantly less than MFP (which means it is a whole lot less than my HRM).

It should actually be using the calculated values. Do you have the actual weight while running, or do you run naked?

For level treadmill walking, MFP actually matches up with the calculator, which matches up with about 5 different treadmills that I've tried.

These treadmill calc's have been around a long time, I'd think the app would use them too. And outside, it should be more, because incline not only up but down is decent increase in energy.

easfahl · November 2012

Hmmmm, interesting. I need to try this...

redhousecat · November 2012

Here is how I tell..
a) put on HRM prior to workout
b) hit "start" or equivalent button.
c) workout
d) hit "stop". write down number, add it to MFP.
e) eat back maintenance calories, plus workout calories minus 1,000 (or whatever deficit you use)

repeat every day.
if i drop weight.. then I would say its accurate.. if I gain weight, its not.

There.. I fixed it. lol

word

tigerblue · November 2012

Good point on the clothing and shoes. I'll check on that.

heybales · November 2012

10 min, 4 mph, 6% incline.
HR started at 120 and avg 124 for the whole time.

Garmin reported 79.
Calculator is 111.

So over an hr, that's under-reported by 192 calories, at not that significant of a HR. That's the bottom of my Active Recovery HR zone, as low as the zones go.

Well, I almost forgot about this, and plugged these numbers into a formula from a Polar funded study, with tested VO2max and tested HRmax.

Actually for 10 min at 124 bpm, got 110 calories. Right on the nose for matching the calculator.

Too bad few Polar models allow all the stats to be entered, and worse most folks probably don't keep them updated.

To those interested to compare, the formula is on the HRM tab of the spreadsheet linked in this topic.
Must get stats at top correct, with sections below to help get the best VO2max and HRmax estimate. Calorie burn table at the very bottom.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/750920-spreadsheet-for-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones

rfsatar · January 2013

Here is how I tell..
a) put on HRM prior to workout
b) hit "start" or equivalent button.
c) workout
d) hit "stop". write down number, add it to MFP.
e) eat back maintenance calories, plus workout calories minus 1,000 (or whatever deficit you use)

repeat every day.
if i drop weight.. then I would say its accurate.. if I gain weight, its not.

There.. I fixed it. lol

Heheh - I would also add
f) try not to fall off the stationary bike with giddy techie-geek excitement when you see the machine pick up your heart rate and display it as you cycle... Marvelling at the wonders of technology!

When I started here I had to use MFP's values.
Then I bought a FitBit which was better for things like the treadmill an elliptical, but had to use the values on the machine for cycle, rower and MFP for swimming.
Now, I use the HRM for any specific activity (also include Wii activities in that).
And I am still losing at a consistent rate since I started going by my TDEE and 15-20% cut.
Perhaps when I reach my final goal weight, I may see a bit less accuracy as I focus on gaining muscle and keeping fat off.
Perhaps then I might invest in a VO2 capable HRM for more accuracy .

elka67 · January 2013

bumped as i've just ordered one

DouMc · January 2013

bump

Calif_Girl67 · February 2013

Ive just ordered my Polar FT4 HRM and so just to clarify, we are suppose to add our weight that we get when we weigh fully clothed instead of what we would way Naked ?

Ok so are the HRM accurate then or not ?

heybales · February 2013

Ive just ordered my Polar FT4 HRM and so just to clarify, we are suppose to add our weight that we get when we weigh fully clothed instead of what we would way Naked ?

Ok so are the HRM accurate then or not ?

Not.

Narrow range that has a chance.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

And that is for one of the more expensive Polars that self tests, and allows correcting the important stats.
Yours has no such stats available to change. It assumes worse BMI, worse fitness level - which is bad assumption.

Men aren't off the hook either.

http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/JEPonlineOctober2011Esco.pdf

And yes to weight doing the exercise.

Calif_Girl67 · February 2013

Ive just ordered my Polar FT4 HRM and so just to clarify, we are suppose to add our weight that we get when we weigh fully clothed instead of what we would way Naked ?

Ok so are the HRM accurate then or not ?

Not.

Narrow range that has a chance.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

And that is for one of the more expensive Polars that self tests, and allows correcting the important stats.
Yours has no such stats available to change. It assumes worse BMI, worse fitness level - which is bad assumption.

Men aren't off the hook either.

http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/JEPonlineOctober2011Esco.pdf

And yes to weight doing the exercise.

SO what are you trying to say ? That my Polar Ft4 HRM is crap ? I chose that one because of all the reviews ive seen here on MFP and its one that I can afford which was still higher then I wanted to pay.

heybales · February 2013

SO what are you trying to say ? That my Polar Ft4 HRM is crap ? I chose that one because of all the reviews ive seen here on MFP and its one that I can afford which was still higher then I wanted to pay.

If you've ever noticed the positive reviews of the cheaper Polars, where people say it's accurate, and why they know it's accurate, it's usually along the lines of "it reports a different (or lower) value that anything else, so it must be accurate".

Different is accurate?
That must be the same reason why 1200 goal is so blindly accepted by so many. Never seen any other value, but it must be lower, therefore it must be right.

They have actually no clue how a HRM estimates calorie burns based on HR.

Yes, compared to the more expensive Polar's, I'd call the several cheaper models crap for their price. And I'd call Polar cheap for having a HRM with all the exact same programming in it, with certain things purposely disabled so that higher priced models can be sold with those features. Yes, they were pioneers in the HRM field, and spent money on studies to develop their formula's for calorie burn (because the actual reading of the HR is nothing now, dirt cheap models do that with EKG accuracy), but they are the biggest name and they can't do right by the consumer. Eventually I'm sure they will when people learn.

I have no idea if you fit the narrow band of accuracy, hence the purpose of this topic.

40 min and you can test it out yourself. Then you'll know. And I'm actually been working on figuring out how they assume some of their values, to tweak the stats that are available to make it more closely match their more expensive models. Work in progress.
I just need to find what formula are they using (because they use many standard formulas from studies) to equate BMI and age and gender to VO2max.

Calif_Girl67 · February 2013

SO what are you trying to say ? That my Polar Ft4 HRM is crap ? I chose that one because of all the reviews ive seen here on MFP and its one that I can afford which was still higher then I wanted to pay.

If you've ever noticed the positive reviews of the cheaper Polars, where people say it's accurate, and why they know it's accurate, it's usually along the lines of "it reports a different (or lower) value that anything else, so it must be accurate".

Different is accurate?
That must be the same reason why 1200 goal is so blindly accepted by so many. Never seen any other value, but it must be lower, therefore it must be right.

They have actually no clue how a HRM estimates calorie burns based on HR.

Yes, compared to the more expensive Polar's, I'd call the several cheaper models crap for their price. And I'd call Polar cheap for having a HRM with all the exact same programming in it, with certain things purposely disabled so that higher priced models can be sold with those features. Yes, they were pioneers in the HRM field, and spent money on studies to develop their formula's for calorie burn (because the actual reading of the HR is nothing now, dirt cheap models do that with EKG accuracy), but they are the biggest name and they can't do right by the consumer. Eventually I'm sure they will when people learn.

I have no idea if you fit the narrow band of accuracy, hence the purpose of this topic.

40 min and you can test it out yourself. Then you'll know. And I'm actually been working on figuring out how they assume some of their values, to tweak the stats that are available to make it more closely match their more expensive models. Work in progress.
I just need to find what formula are they using (because they use many standard formulas from studies) to equate BMI and age and gender to VO2max.

So then why do so many people even buy them ? I mean the sole purpose is to have a number to use when exercising to see how much we burn. I don't have a HRM right now and just bought the FT4 because of good reviews on here Lol. SO whos to say that its no more accurate then the numbers in the exercise database here on MFP that people use without adding any additional info. I should of just kept my money then Lol

heybales · February 2013

So then why do so many people even buy them ? I mean the sole purpose is to have a number to use when exercising to see how much we burn. I don't have a HRM right now and just bought the FT4 because of good reviews on here Lol. SO whos to say that its no more accurate then the numbers in the exercise database here on MFP that people use without adding any additional info. I should of just kept my money then Lol

Herd mentality and comments.

"sure eat your exercise calories back, but you better get a HRM because MFP is terribly inflated"

Without knowing that actually the walking 2-4 mph and jogging 4-6.3 mph entries, if you indeed do that pace level, will be more accurate than a HRM will be.

Vast majority don't use it for primary purpose, Monitoring Heart Rate. Nor for training in zones to improve anything.
Just want to burn calories, and know what that was.
There are so many posts where ones start to suspect the HRM may be wrong, or are surprised, or wondering why one workout was different burn, and when you ask what the avgHR was for the workout, never even noticed what the HR was.

It can be more accurate than MFP entries that have no intensity description at all, or huge range.
Like the biking entries are pretty bad, was my fast speed because of downhill or tailwind or drafting the whole time, so really an easy effort. Or was my slow speed really an easy ride, or because of a headwind, uphill, or out in front, so really was a hard effort, more than the faster speed might have been.

So do your test, see how off it is. See how you might tweak the HRmax as that is pretty important stat that is calculated, and for women is a wide bell curve for accuracy.

It should end up being more useful as a tool to know when to go hard, and when you should go easy, either in weekly schedule or even within a workout.

Azdak · February 2013

SO what are you trying to say ? That my Polar Ft4 HRM is crap ? I chose that one because of all the reviews ive seen here on MFP and its one that I can afford which was still higher then I wanted to pay.

If you've ever noticed the positive reviews of the cheaper Polars, where people say it's accurate, and why they know it's accurate, it's usually along the lines of "it reports a different (or lower) value that anything else, so it must be accurate".

Different is accurate?
That must be the same reason why 1200 goal is so blindly accepted by so many. Never seen any other value, but it must be lower, therefore it must be right.

They have actually no clue how a HRM estimates calorie burns based on HR.

Yes, compared to the more expensive Polar's, I'd call the several cheaper models crap for their price. And I'd call Polar cheap for having a HRM with all the exact same programming in it, with certain things purposely disabled so that higher priced models can be sold with those features. Yes, they were pioneers in the HRM field, and spent money on studies to develop their formula's for calorie burn (because the actual reading of the HR is nothing now, dirt cheap models do that with EKG accuracy), but they are the biggest name and they can't do right by the consumer. Eventually I'm sure they will when people learn.

I have no idea if you fit the narrow band of accuracy, hence the purpose of this topic.

40 min and you can test it out yourself. Then you'll know. And I'm actually been working on figuring out how they assume some of their values, to tweak the stats that are available to make it more closely match their more expensive models. Work in progress.
I just need to find what formula are they using (because they use many standard formulas from studies) to equate BMI and age and gender to VO2max.

So then why do so many people even buy them ? I mean the sole purpose is to have a number to use when exercising to see how much we burn. I don't have a HRM right now and just bought the FT4 because of good reviews on here Lol. SO whos to say that its no more accurate then the numbers in the exercise database here on MFP that people use without adding any additional info. I should of just kept my money then Lol

There is a reason they are called "Heart Rate Monitors" and not "Calorie Monitors".

And look in the manual--virtually no mention of the feature whatsoever.

jturnerx · February 2013

There is a reason they are called "Heart Rate Monitors" and not "Calorie Monitors".

Seriously. I use my GPS/HRM watch for what it's good at like data on pace, distance and tracking intensity based on heart rate. I'm very clear that it can't actually measure calorie expenditure. Estimate, yes, measure, no. I'd have to be strapped into a met cart for that. But the marketing machine really has done an excellent job of convincing the masses that the HRM is the magic crystal ball into their metabolism just because it's listening to the beep, beep, beep of their beating heart.

daj150 · February 2013

Bump, trying this out this weekend w/ Polar FT40.

jrreed1 · April 2013

coming back to this one later

McSpike · April 2013

bump

iWaffle · April 2013

There is a reason they are called "Heart Rate Monitors" and not "Calorie Monitors".

Call me funny but I use mine to log my heart rate to get a sample of exertion during my runs. As far as calories burned it does an okay job but I always figure that's a ballpark estimate anyway.