HRM calories burned really low....
krazykate483
Posts: 41 Member
I bought my first HRM yesterday, sportline duo 1060, and my goals for using it were to stay focused on where my heart rate was as well as getting a more accurate reading of my calories burned.
Today I used it for the first time and the burned calories were really low compared to the machine I was using which also incorporated my heart rate and age.
The machine said I burned 352 in 30 mins and the HRM said 132! That's a huge difference! My heat rate was between 75% and 85% the whole time.
I have the chest strap and used it.
I don't understand why they would be that low, especially how hard I was working!
Thoughts? Suggestions? Anyone else deal with this?
Today I used it for the first time and the burned calories were really low compared to the machine I was using which also incorporated my heart rate and age.
The machine said I burned 352 in 30 mins and the HRM said 132! That's a huge difference! My heat rate was between 75% and 85% the whole time.
I have the chest strap and used it.
I don't understand why they would be that low, especially how hard I was working!
Thoughts? Suggestions? Anyone else deal with this?
0
Replies
-
Anyone?0
-
I don't understand why they would be that low, especially how hard I was working!
The Universe, unfortunately, doesn't care how hard it feels, it only cares how fast and how far.
I would use the HRM number.0 -
That's why I always say machines lie. I haven't found out yet that is truthful compared to my HRM.0
-
Disappointing, isn't it? But go with the HRM, it's probably correct. I always thought I was burning around 300 calories during a semi-intense 30 minute workout...turns out it's more like 130-160.0
-
Definitely go with the heart rate monitor. At least you know what your accurate calories burned are now. I think this is one big reason why we see so many people here wondering why they aren't losing weight.0
-
Your HRM calories burned wasn't low, the machine was just really high. Go with the HRM burn, it is probably fairly accurate.0
-
Yep - its a bummer. I'm also a seriously low calorie burner. It was shocking when I first got my HRM.0
-
Make sure the info you put into your HRM are right
But you probably burn way less than the machine say.0 -
Go with the HRM, the machines are most of the times wayyy off. I burn around 150 calories of pretty intense cardio in 30 minutes.0
-
Machines tend to overestimate BIG time. If you are concerned about the hrm number though, make sure that you put all of your information in correctly when you set it up as a mistake there could cause improper estimates.
Good luck!0 -
What machine were you using? Since that HRM has a chest strap, it should be fairly accurate, though I don't know anything about that brand specifically. Check all the settings on it for sure. When I'm doing intense cardio (mainly running), I'll burn about 500 to 550 an hour. In less intense things (cycling), I'll burn maybe 350 to 400 an hour.0
-
To be even tougher, you can log net calories burned -- the amount you burned over what you would have burned anyway just by sitting on the couch (which MFP has already taken into account). My HRM number, especially when I look at net calories burned, just reminds me that you can't outrun a bad diet.0
-
Age? Weight? Average HR during? Total time?
A 30yo female, 130lbs, 30mins with average 160HR=330 gross calorie burn.0 -
Age? Weight? Average HR during? Total time?
A 30yo female, 130lbs, 30mins with average 160HR=330 gross calorie burn.
22yo female, 159lbs, 30mins with average was HR of 162...0 -
I was using an elliptical. My average HR was 162.What machine were you using? Since that HRM has a chest strap, it should be fairly accurate, though I don't know anything about that brand specifically. Check all the settings on it for sure. When I'm doing intense cardio (mainly running), I'll burn about 500 to 550 an hour. In less intense things (cycling), I'll burn maybe 350 to 400 an hour.0 -
I was wondering. Is your HRM close to what calculators on websites say? If you log in low intensity, would it be around the same number as HRM?0
-
I agree with everyone else. Go with your Hrm. The machines can't calculate properly. Everyone is different. It does take a lot of work to burn calories. A general rule of thumb is 100 cal per mile. That's not a lot. Also, you have to walk briskly. If you stroll for a mile you won't burn that many. Don't get discouraged. I try to think of how hard I work to lose 100 cal and how easily I can eat that same amount (one cookie for example). It helps me to stay on track. Good luck0
-
I have put my heart rate in the calculators with age, sex, and weight and the calories burned is closer to the machine calories...I was wondering. Is your HRM close to what calculators on websites say? If you log in low intensity, would it be around the same number as HRM?0 -
Age? Weight? Average HR during? Total time?
A 30yo female, 130lbs, 30mins with average 160HR=330 gross calorie burn.
22yo female, 159lbs, 30mins with average was HR of 162...
I use an online calculator to check and it's within 3% of my polar FT7. With your stats it came up with 320.0 -
Anyone?
I was so excited to get my Polar Watch. The first time I used it I was pumped up and motivated. Then when I finished my workout I was let down. The calories I burned were 1/2 as much as I had been thinking. What a slap of reality. What was even worse was my boyfriend bought a polar watch--did the same exact workout--at the same pace--and burned 200 MORE calories than me. I thought my watch was defective. Stick with it. You will train yourself to burn more calories. I promise
0 -
Most disappointing moment was my first use of my HRM and the five after that lol. I thought for sure I was doing something wrong. Nope, however I was finally glad to know what I TRULY burn in calories. machine and mfp calculations were sooooo wrong! Now my weight is slowly creeping back down after getting my calories burned correctly input!0
-
I have put my heart rate in the calculators with age, sex, and weight and the calories burned is closer to the machine calories...I was wondering. Is your HRM close to what calculators on websites say? If you log in low intensity, would it be around the same number as HRM?
Wow
I might have to get an HRM after all.. 0 -
Hmm my HRM and the treadmill are pretty close in figures for a 5k.0
-
Yep, same thing happened to me. Don't look at it as a bad thing though! Now you know around how much you're ACTUALLY burning, and that can only help you in your journey. :flowerforyou:0
-
Which HRM do you use?Hmm my HRM and the treadmill are pretty close in figures for a 5k.0 -
Have you adjusted the settings on your HRM watch for age, weight, sex etc?
I normally burn about 100 cal per 10 min running on a treadmill, HR up between 155 and 1700 -
Yes. I put all of that information in it. Maybe I got a bad one? I don't really know. Everything I have calculated says my burned calories should be much higher, especially with how high my heart rate.Have you adjusted the settings on your HRM watch for age, weight, sex etc?
I normally burn about 100 cal per 10 min running on a treadmill, HR up between 155 and 1700 -
I have a polar FT40 and I burn about 100 calories for a mile. I know I have to make sure the chest strap sensors are wet for it to pick up my heart rate.0
-
Normally I would say follow your HRM - because at the very least its consistent regardless of what machine you're on, and at over time you'll get a good feel of how much exercise you need to put in to get the results you want. However, that does seem unusually low to me... maybe talk to the store or tech support from where you bought it and see what they say?
One other thing to consider - in the past I have had issues with my HRM dropping out during a workout (losing connection with the strap) and therefore not logging time, HR and cal burned. Does the workout time on your HRM match the actual workout time?0 -
If you want a better estimate of what you burn in 30 minutes, just do this:
- figure out how far you can run in 30 minutes
- calculate net calories = 0.6 * body weight in pounds * miles run
- multiply by 0.5 (moderate effort) or 0.8 (vigorous effort) to figure out what you're burning on whatever machine you're on
At 159 pounds, you need to be running 5km in 30 minutes to hit 300 calories burned. If you can't do that, scale down accordingly.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions