HRM calories burned really low....

Options
krazykate483
krazykate483 Posts: 41 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
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?
«1

Replies

  • krazykate483
    krazykate483 Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    Anyone?
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Options
    That's why I always say machines lie. I haven't found out yet that is truthful compared to my HRM.
  • I_Will_End_You
    I_Will_End_You Posts: 4,397 Member
    Options
    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.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    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.
  • KateK8LoseW8
    KateK8LoseW8 Posts: 824 Member
    Options
    Your HRM calories burned wasn't low, the machine was just really high. Go with the HRM burn, it is probably fairly accurate.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,488 Member
    Options
    Yep - its a bummer. I'm also a seriously low calorie burner. It was shocking when I first got my HRM.
  • Yanicka1
    Yanicka1 Posts: 4,564 Member
    Options
    Make sure the info you put into your HRM are right

    But you probably burn way less than the machine say.
  • mel4bee
    mel4bee Posts: 225 Member
    Options
    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.
  • paintlisapurple
    paintlisapurple Posts: 982 Member
    Options
    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!
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    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.
  • spoiledpuppies
    spoiledpuppies Posts: 675 Member
    Options
    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.
  • skadoosh33
    skadoosh33 Posts: 353 Member
    Options
    Age? Weight? Average HR during? Total time?

    A 30yo female, 130lbs, 30mins with average 160HR=330 gross calorie burn.
  • krazykate483
    krazykate483 Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    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...
  • krazykate483
    krazykate483 Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    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.
    I was using an elliptical. My average HR was 162.
  • IanBee93
    IanBee93 Posts: 237
    Options
    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?
  • jeanninecurran
    jeanninecurran Posts: 63 Member
    Options
    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 luck
  • krazykate483
    krazykate483 Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    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?
    I have put my heart rate in the calculators with age, sex, and weight and the calories burned is closer to the machine calories...
  • skadoosh33
    skadoosh33 Posts: 353 Member
    Options
    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.
  • _jayciemarie_
    _jayciemarie_ Posts: 574 Member
    Options
    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 :)

Categories