Trust the calories burned on HRM?

mommaski4
mommaski4 Posts: 305 Member
edited September 22 in Fitness and Exercise
I have a Timex Ironman HRM (w/chest strap). The Heart rate portion is correct. I fully trust it. However, the few times I used it, the calories burned seemed high, much higher than MFP. Today I walked the bridge (not feeling well so did no jogging) for 35 minutes. My average HR was 114 and my maximum HR was 141. It told me I burned 420 calories. I think that was high. I only logged the 250 or so I calculated through MFP (guessing at my speed) .

How much faith should I have in the calories burned? I know that it is a guesstimate but should I totally discount it and continue to use MFP or use the calories burned from HRM? Also, I thought at one point I remember reading that you have to subtract some from the HRM calories to account for what MFP calculates as average calories burned per hour based on the lifestyle choice in profile setup.

Does this all make sense? My brain is foggy today. lol

Replies

  • Mollydolly10
    Mollydolly10 Posts: 431 Member
    wondering the same thing - i get the same drastic differences with other things like exercise machines and MFP - would love to know the answer to this!
  • Vipecap
    Vipecap Posts: 166 Member
    The HRM should be more accurate as long as you entered in all your personal information correctly as it continuously monitors HR and adjusts calories burned for that. Double check your information to make sure it is correct like height, weigh, age, etc. Just remember no HRM or website is going to be 100% accurate, but try to use one or the other for consistency.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    That sounds high. At my weight (145), with some jogging and steep hills, I burn maybe 350 in 35 minutes.

    But I don't know what you weigh and that makes a difference. (The more weight, the more calories exerted.)

    As for MFP, I find that it's all over the place. For some exercises, it's very close to my HRM. For others, MFP is way higher or way lower than my HRM.
  • Aeriel
    Aeriel Posts: 864 Member
    From what I have been told, as long as your information is correct in your HRM settings, and it has a chest strap, it should be taken as correct. The only real variable is if your unit requires a VO2 max setting, which mine doesn't need. That has to be measured at a gym I think.

    The machines at the gym are usually set to one certain height and weight, and may or may not take into account your heart rate and age. The info on MFP takes into account your age and weight (I think) but not your heart rate and a lot of it is entered by other people and may be accurate for them but not for you. I have been trusting mine and it has been good for me so far. Sometimes it is close, sometimes it is lower and sometimes significantly higher. It doesn't matter so much to me, as I never eat ALL my exercise calories anyways, just some of them.
  • Panda86
    Panda86 Posts: 873
    If input is correct and the HRM is used correctly, it can be fairly reliable. With that said, nothing is 100%. Also, exercise machines are generally not reliable because they are just so general. Some can be someone reliable if they let you input weight/height/age and have the sensors for your pulse... But for the most part, HRMs are the way to go. Good luck :D
  • Aeriel
    Aeriel Posts: 864 Member
    Oh, if you are wanting to subtract calories for your BMR from your workout, figure it out like this. Go to your settings and see what your BMR is set at by MFP. Then divide that number by 24, and then again by 60 to get a rate per minute. Multiply that number by the number of minutes you worked to get the number you subtract off your total. Mine is about 1.4 calories per minute, so 14 calories for every 10 minutes of exercise for me.
  • heathersmilez
    heathersmilez Posts: 2,579 Member
    I get much lower numbers on my HRM than on MFP so I trust it and log less which means I only have to eat back less (I do Turbo Jam and 50 minutes only burns 350 calories NOT 530 like MFP says and I work my butt off, have been for 4 years now, go TJ!)

    My HRM is wrist only so the chest strap should make yours more accurate. Mine was also on sale for $39 was $90 so I know it wont be perfect, its a Mio.

    After reading other's posts I wonder in mine is too low? Specifically RML_16 who burns 350 calories in 35 min of jogging. I only burned 230 at most. I'm close to her weight (137lbs she’s 145) could be a height thing i suppose, I'm 5'8. Oh well, better to underestimate!
  • Bratkins
    Bratkins Posts: 47
    I don't think the calories calculated on MFP are perfect. A lot of them have been entered by users. If I don't enter my weight in at the gym, I burn a whole lot less then if I do. What is entered into MFP is probably not accounting for each person's weight. I generally trust the eliptical at the gym or a HRM before MFP, but at the same time I think it is ok to count less calories burned over more. :)
  • mommaski4
    mommaski4 Posts: 305 Member
    Ok, so after reading all of your input I am leaning more towards the HRM.

    However, mine does ask your weight, but does not ask age, although it does ask you to enter maximum heart rate as 220 less age, which means it has the data to calculate my age. But no where did I enter my height. I am not sure how much that has a bearing on my heart rate versus my age and weight.

    I certainly weigh more so I know I will burn more calories I just don't want to overestimate.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    I get much lower numbers on my HRM than on MFP so I trust it and log less which means I only have to eat back less (I do Turbo Jam and 50 minutes only burns 350 calories NOT 530 like MFP says and I work my butt off, have been for 4 years now, go TJ!)

    My HRM is wrist only so the chest strap should make yours more accurate. Mine was also on sale for $39 was $90 so I know it wont be perfect, its a Mio.

    After reading other's posts I wonder in mine is too low? Specifically RML_16 who burns 350 calories in 35 min of jogging. I only burned 230 at most. I'm close to her weight (137lbs she’s 145) could be a height thing i suppose, I'm 5'8. Oh well, better to underestimate!

    I trust my chest strap over a wrist-only HRM, personally. But if you're losing and healthy, then I think that's what matters most. I'm 5'3", if that makes a huge difference.
  • T_R_A_V
    T_R_A_V Posts: 1,629 Member
    The HRM should be more accurate because its based upon vitals from each person. As long as you are using it correctly it should be damn near spot on. The stats posted here are probably based upon near averages. Just remember that every person will burn different amounts of calories based upon their age, health, intensity level and so on
  • PJilly
    PJilly Posts: 22,114 Member
    Because they're all just educated guesses, I think the most important thing is to choose one method and stick with it consistently for several weeks to determine if it needs to be tweaked one way or the other. My HRM happens to give me lower numbers than MFP. I lost the bulk of my weight using MFP's numbers, averaging about a pound a week, which is what I was shooting for, so my bias is to use the numbers that give you the most food. If that works, why cut calories any more than you need to? :bigsmile:
  • fitnessfoodtravel
    fitnessfoodtravel Posts: 32 Member
    I am the opposite; MFP has higher calorie burns than my Polar HRM. I have never used an Ironman one but from my friends who do have an IronMan HRM, their calories count is very high; my friend and I are the same size and di the same spin class, and my avg heart rate was higher than her, and she still burned 200 calories for than me.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Your calorie numbers are way too high for the exercise you did. HRMs are NOT automatically "more accurate", despite what many people on MFP say.

    The accuracy of HRM calorie counts varies widely by brand. Your brand (Timex) is not known for being particularly accurate when it comes to calories (heart rate accuracy is easy--that's not the issue). The most accurate brands (i.e. they have done the most research and have the most accurate algorithms) are Polar, Suunto and some Garmin models, from what I can tell (and I even have questions about the lower-end Polar models).

    Your setup makes all the difference in the world. Even a good HRM is only as accurate as the information it is programmed with.

    In your case, you almost certainly have a higher max heart rate than what the HRM programmed for you. So it thinks you are working at 90% to 100% effort when you are only working at 50%-60% effort.

    MFP is no better. They use standard equations for walking and running, so those are not bad, but everything else is just a vague estimate. If MFP numbers work for you, it is more of a random coincidence than anything else.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Your calorie numbers are way too high for the exercise you did. HRMs are NOT automatically "more accurate", despite what many people on MFP say.

    The accuracy of HRM calorie counts varies widely by brand. Your brand (Timex) is not known for being particularly accurate when it comes to calories (heart rate accuracy is easy--that's not the issue). The most accurate brands (i.e. they have done the most research and have the most accurate algorithms) are Polar, Suunto and some Garmin models, from what I can tell (and I even have questions about the lower-end Polar models).

    Your setup makes all the difference in the world. Even a good HRM is only as accurate as the information it is programmed with.

    In your case, you almost certainly have a higher max heart rate than what the HRM programmed for you. So it thinks you are working at 90% to 100% effort when you are only working at 50%-60% effort.

    MFP is no better. They use standard equations for walking and running, so those are not bad, but everything else is just a vague estimate. If MFP numbers work for you, it is more of a random coincidence than anything else.

    I see an awful lot of posts from you telling people not to trust MFP or HRMs or you-name-the-calorie-counting-method.

    How, pray tell, are we supposed to estimate our calorie burn? We have to use something.
  • PJilly
    PJilly Posts: 22,114 Member
    I see an awful lot of posts from you telling people not to trust MFP or HRMs or you-name-the-calorie-counting-method.

    How, pray tell, are we supposed to estimate our calorie burn? We have to use something.
    I agree that no tool is going to be 100 percent accurate, but I think it's a good starting point to use something, and it's also why I think it's important to choose one method and stick with it for a while so you know if you need to adjust up or down. To do that, you have to be consistent and diligent with your tracking, but I think it's a good way to go about it.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    I see an awful lot of posts from you telling people not to trust MFP or HRMs or you-name-the-calorie-counting-method.

    How, pray tell, are we supposed to estimate our calorie burn? We have to use something.
    I agree that no tool is going to be 100 percent accurate, but I think it's a good starting point to use something, and it's also why I think it's important to choose one method and stick with it for a while so you know if you need to adjust up or down. To do that, you have to be consistent and diligent with your tracking, but I think it's a good way to go about it.

    I absolutely agree. I just see that particular poster come into EVERY thread on this subject and tell people their method is wrong or inaccurate or whatever and never bothers to offer his alternative.

    To me, if you're losing weight doing what you're doing, then you're doing it right, whatever it is.
  • clipsychic
    clipsychic Posts: 99
    Tagging for later. Thanks!
  • Lyadeia
    Lyadeia Posts: 4,603 Member
    I see an awful lot of posts from you telling people not to trust MFP or HRMs or you-name-the-calorie-counting-method.

    How, pray tell, are we supposed to estimate our calorie burn? We have to use something.
    I agree that no tool is going to be 100 percent accurate, but I think it's a good starting point to use something, and it's also why I think it's important to choose one method and stick with it for a while so you know if you need to adjust up or down. To do that, you have to be consistent and diligent with your tracking, but I think it's a good way to go about it.

    I absolutely agree. I just see that particular poster come into EVERY thread on this subject and tell people their method is wrong or inaccurate or whatever and never bothers to offer his alternative.

    To me, if you're losing weight doing what you're doing, then you're doing it right, whatever it is.

    I just ignore all his posts when I see him posting. I have lost a lot of weight and body fat, and it has been tracked by the ways he claims are wrong and inaccurate. I read one of his posts on another thread where he claimed that weight lifting didn't burn much more than 200 calories per hour. Interesting since I didn't start losing weight until after adding weight training to my weekly routines and my HRM says I burn between 500-600 cals per P90X workout yet only around 300 cals per hour doing what I was doing before. So my HRM says I burn more and I see I am losing weight...yet that particular person wants to claim that my HRM is wrong. Go figure.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Thanks, Lya. I guess I don't post enough here to get to know people as well as I could. Good to know I'm not the only one noticing. :-)

    I burn about 200 calories in an hour of power yoga, so I have no doubt that one would burn more than that (depending on fitness, weight, etc.) lifting weights.
  • JDMPWR
    JDMPWR Posts: 1,863 Member
    Oh, if you are wanting to subtract calories for your BMR from your workout, figure it out like this. Go to your settings and see what your BMR is set at by MFP. Then divide that number by 24, and then again by 60 to get a rate per minute. Multiply that number by the number of minutes you worked to get the number you subtract off your total. Mine is about 1.4 calories per minute, so 14 calories for every 10 minutes of exercise for me.
    I beg to differ. First you use 24 as in hours I take it. Well your body burns way less during rest then even resting in bed but not sleeping. Now take into consideration that your cals burned per minute are much higher as you move throughout the day.
    If you exercised for 10 hours straight you would only lose 840 cals.....hardly.
    If we go by your math then I would only burn 1.4 while exercising and less when not.
    I know at an average my body burns about 1-2 cals a minute and while exercising I burn 15-17 a minute. During sleep your body burns off about 1/2 to 1/3 of what it does at rest but awake.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories