Heart Rate Monitor Accuracy

chrismeece74
chrismeece74 Posts: 18
in Fitness and Exercise
Ok, so I had my wife send me a Polar FT-4 Heart Rate Monitor to use when I am working out in the gym onboard the ship. Yesterday I did a 50 minute Cardio workout on the elliptical machine and the machine said I burned 424 calories. Today I did the same workout, this time using the FT-4, and it said I burned 783 calories. I am assuming the Heart Rate Monitor is more accurate....is this right? That is a huge difference in measurements.

Replies

  • floppybackend
    floppybackend Posts: 52 Member
    I always work out on the principal of max 10 calories per min, this to me gives a ball park. Because of my level of fitness and lack of strength to keep up I usually work between 5 - 10 cals per min so round up to average 7. I would rather under estimate. Therefore the first figure looks accurate.
  • pinkraynedropjacki
    pinkraynedropjacki Posts: 3,027 Member
    I live by my HRM rate. Never been wrong & I've manage to always lose weight using it. I NEVER trust the rate on the machine...never. HRM takes into account way more than the machine ever could. 50 mins on elliptical looks about right with the Polar.

    10 cals per min? I get 10 per 30 seconds depending on what I'm doing.
  • kindasortachewy
    kindasortachewy Posts: 1,084 Member
    I would guess the HRM is more accurate - I can measure my HR while I have my HRM on and its spot on - I burn 10-20 calories a minute running - I do know that I forgot to take my HRM off once and I had my laptop on my chest it it was recording my HR at 320 something, so it can be effected by thing like that, but I dont think 700 something is outta the ballpark and its probably closer than 424 by far
  • grimendale
    grimendale Posts: 2,153 Member
    The gym machines tend to be somewhat optimistic (partly to keep you motivated to keep coming back to the gym). HRMs have an error range as well, but they tend to be a lot closer to the actual burn. Trust the HRM over the machine.
  • DPernet
    DPernet Posts: 481 Member
    As long as you have it set up properly (height/weight/age etc) and can verify that the heart rate being recorded is your actual heart rate, then go with the HRM.
  • ernestbecker
    ernestbecker Posts: 232 Member
    Stick with the HRM. Even if the EFX machine you were on has a heart rat monitor, your probably not always holding it throughout the exercise, at least I don't anyway. The HRM is your best friend when working out. I advocate their use by those really trying to get healthy and fit. Here's the deal though. Make sure it's set up correctly with your age, weight, etc... And then use the calorie reading here in MFP. The other thing, don't take any of this stuff too seriously because there is a margin of error and you have to be willing to make changes to adjust to what works for your body.
  • Shetchncn1
    Shetchncn1 Posts: 260 Member
    On the machines it is just an average. The HRM is taylored to what your body is actually doing. Go with the HRM. Think of it this way a 300lb person is going to burn more cals than a 110lb person doing the same exercise but if they both are on the machine it is going to say the same cals for both.
  • flumi_f
    flumi_f Posts: 1,888 Member
    The HRMs are more accurate, although 700+ seems alot for 50min even for a man. Did you configure the HRM with your weight, age and sex?
  • johnnygizmo
    johnnygizmo Posts: 59 Member
    I trust my FT-7 a whole lot more than machines. One exception: Runtastic. If I've updated my weight in runtastic to be accurate and do a GPS track of my run, it is usually within 10-20 calories of my HRM. Even on a treadmill, it was a whole lot more accurate than the machine compared to my HRM.
  • MachiavelliNZ
    MachiavelliNZ Posts: 36 Member
    700+ seems alot for 50min even for a man. Did you configure the HRM with your weight, age and sex?

    That'd be my concern. A 100% discrepancy tells me that something is very wrong with this picture. I would initially guess that the gym machine simply hasn't been provided with the OP's profile properly but the HRM's calories also seem wrong in that they seem relatively high.

    I'd suggest making sure that your HRM knows your statistics accurately and then just stick with what it says. Ignore the gym machine (I once had a gym machine that kept reading someone else's heartrate haha)
  • zornig
    zornig Posts: 336 Member
    I dunno, I think you all are too believing in the HRM values too! I just got back from a 60 minute bike ride in which my average heart rate was 159 bpm, and my average pace was 16.3 mph. According to my Garmin Forerunner 305, I burned 1200. I'm a 39 year old, 5'4" female. I'm heavy (my HRM knows how much I weigh) but I still don't think it's at all feasible that I've burned 1200 calories in that hour. Even MFP's exercise value says at that pace and with my particulars it's only 800 calories. Personally, I'm skeptical that it's even possible to know with any kind of accuracy how many calories you've burned. That's why I just use guidelines like 400 calories burned at low intensity, 600 calories per hour at moderate intensity, and 800 calories per hour at high intensity. I know when I'm working really hard versus when I'm hardly working.
  • BreakinTheChains
    BreakinTheChains Posts: 381 Member
    I would say your HRM is accurate with the calorie burn you posted, but usually in my experience the machine seems to always give me a higher reading.... I too have the POLAR F-4 and LOVE IT :)
  • chrismeece74
    chrismeece74 Posts: 18
    Yes I configured my HRM with my height, weight, and sex, so it should be good.

Categories