HR Monitor Says I Burn Much Higher Calories Than The Machine

Options
chirosche
chirosche Posts: 66 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hello,

I started using a HR monitor today to track calories while using my Total Gym and my Weight Machine since there is nothing that measures calories on them. It said I burned 487 calories for my 1 hour workout with weights and the Total Gym. So then I did 41 minutes on the treadmill and the HR monitor said I did 800 additional calories for a total of 1300 calories, I don't know which is right, the treadmill count of 260 calories or the HR monitor. Confused.

Does anyone know anything about Heaert Rate Monitors?

Thank you.

Replies

  • sharonfoustmills
    sharonfoustmills Posts: 519 Member
    Options
    I know that I hope they are accurate, just ordered one about an hour ago.
  • evgenythe2nd
    evgenythe2nd Posts: 36 Member
    Options
    so if you have untrained or tachycardic heart, it will show you are burning more calories? what if you are trained and your heart rate will be lower?
  • chirosche
    chirosche Posts: 66 Member
    Options
    My heart rate measured in the normal target heart rate zone for my age and weight the whole time and matched those stats on the treadmill. It was the CALORIES that were drastically different. I don't know which was one is right. I have the HR Monitor settings for my weight and age so that is the only metric that the treadmill doesn't have. Would love to think I burned 1300 calories altogether. I can more believe that my 60 minutes weight training actually did burn 487 calories as indicated by the HR monitor.

    My heart is pretty well trained and at least those stats were right on.
  • MightyDomo
    MightyDomo Posts: 1,265 Member
    Options
    If you had to input personal values in your HRM then it would be accurate. Though the most accurate method to measure calorie burns is measuring the VO2 MAX levels during activity.
  • TisheaDH
    TisheaDH Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    Your HR monitor is actually attached to your body for your entire workout so the numbers should be more accurate. Depending on the monitor it can sync with your gym equipment which would then provide the same numbers for both devices.
  • stonel94
    stonel94 Posts: 550 Member
    Options
    did you check reviews before buying it and set it up properly?
    The machines supposedly calculate for a 150 pound person, so if you weigh much more than that and didn't input the right weight and age and stuff then your HRM is probably correct. However, if you did input age and weight or weigh right around 150 then I would make sure the HRM is set up right and stuff.
  • bubblygoldfish
    bubblygoldfish Posts: 213 Member
    Options
    I've heard the "calories burned" on treadmills can be fairly inaccurate. Then again, this is hearsay. Just what I've heard in the gym. :) Hope it helps.

    Oh, and HR monitors can be chekced by manually taking your pulse to verify the bpm.
  • chirosche
    chirosche Posts: 66 Member
    Options
    Oooooh, sounds like I can put 800 for treadmill instead of the 260. I'm liking it. I'm liking it..... :-)
  • MyaPapaya75
    MyaPapaya75 Posts: 3,143 Member
    Options
    Does your HRM have a chest strap? If so that's the reading I would go with
  • chirosche
    chirosche Posts: 66 Member
    Options
    Yeah the HRM is calibrated correctly for my weight and age. My treadmill doesn't have a feature for putting in your weight and age. It's universal I guess. But it was the just about the same heart rate as the HRM when I checked while walking.
  • scrapjen
    scrapjen Posts: 387 Member
    Options
    I'm having the opposite issue (purchased a Polar FT4) ... My machines ARE calibrated to my weight (but so is the HRM) ... I'm also wearing a Fitbit *Ü*

    On my elliptical, I get a reading of about 200 calories per 20 minutes. The Fitbit comes in about 180, the HRM at 140. I was in "the zone" for almost all of the workout, but in the lower portion.

    On my bike, it said 245, HRM 190. I never got "in the zone" ... admittedly, I mark it as leisurely.

    When I just jog, I really try to stay in "the zone" ... and my Fitbit and HRM came back with almost identical readings.

    I have to admit I've been disappointed in learning my machine readings may be overestimating. They really didn't seem that far off ... nothing CLOSE to a 800 calorie burn in 40 minutes! As for wearing the HRM for the weight training, I've heard that it's really only accurate for cardio. That if you wore your HRM all day, it would end up giving you a 6000 burn or something like that. I haven't tried it myself ...
  • chirosche
    chirosche Posts: 66 Member
    Options
    It definitely sounded to good to be true, but we'll see if I've lost a pound a least tomorrow AM. Thank you all for your input. I've even found an older post on MFP from someone who sounded very scientific who said none of them are accurate because nothing can really measure calories accurately. But we have to have something to put in our exercise dairy and for now it will have to work for me. I might try getting one that straps on my chest to see what that gets, but who knows.
  • buzzcockgirl
    buzzcockgirl Posts: 260 Member
    Options
    I'd like to think HRM's are accurate, though I always subtract about 10% of what it says-- just to be safe! After all, you're burning SOME calories even without exercising (we all burn X amount of calories per hour, just by 'being') ... But 800 cals for 40 minutes on treadmill sounds kind of high. Unless you were GOING! Like- running at least 5 or 6mph non stop.
    Of course, without knowing your weight-- that could be a factor as well. Someone who is 275lbs will burn more in that 40 mins than someone who is 150lbs. Not that you're 275 or 150lb or whatever... just saying.
    I read somewhere (on here?) that a "good burn" on average is about 10cals per minutes. But, when I do a super intense cardio-kickboxing class for 60-65 mins, I usually burn between 800-950 cals (so says my HRM) so I do know you can go over that 10cals/min. thing. Just be careful if you're eating back exercise cals-- you'd hate to think you burned 800, ate back 600, but really only burned 500.
    Way to go either way!!!
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    It's pretty unlikely you burned 800 calories for just 41 minutes on the treadmill. We're you running? What pace and distance?

    Also, an HRM is not accurate for weight lifting. They are not intended for strength training - just cardio.

Categories