HRM Calories is more than what machine side

Orient_Charm
Orient_Charm Posts: 385 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi,
I got lately Polar FT7 HRM, I feel that the calculated calories by HRM is too much.

For example :
Walking about 0.6 miles = 97 cals as per HRM.
Treadmill for about 12 min = 155 cals as per HRM while it is only 75 as per machine ( Machine input is weight and age and HR - same time I used HRM sensor for my HRM and for the machine )
Elliptical trainer for about 12 min = 136 cals as per HRM while it is only 79 as per machine ( Machine input is weight and age and HR )

Boxing for 12 min = 208 cals as per HRM ????

What is the correct ?
should I believe my HRM ?

Any suggestion.

Replies

  • YorriaRaine
    YorriaRaine Posts: 370 Member
    There are two topics on this forum that I found interesting reads that you might want to see.

    This one was over a study done on the accuracy of polar hrm, however keep in mind the study was done on already physically fit people and it was not a mass study. So take it with a grain of salt, but its worth the read anyway.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

    This was done by somebody to help you make your heart rate monitor more accurate.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/548645-setup-polar-hrm-for-more-accurate-calorie-burn-for-known-bmr

    I have however, seen SOOOO many post by people stating that they trust their hrm anyway despite these post and still lose weight even if they eat back the calories their hrm says they burned off.

    In the end the best thing you can do is test to see if eating back your calories burned allows you to keep weekly goal (whatever it may be, weight loss, maintenance, etc.)

    ----

    A small thing to mention, hrm do not subtract the amount of calories you would have burned if you would just sat on your butt during that time frame, so that's something to consider when determining accuracy.
  • Orient_Charm
    Orient_Charm Posts: 385 Member
    There are two topics on this forum that I found interesting reads that you might want to see.

    This one was over a study done on the accuracy of polar hrm, however keep in mind the study was done on already physically fit people and it was not a mass study. So take it with a grain of salt, but its worth the read anyway.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

    This was done by somebody to help you make your heart rate monitor more accurate.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/548645-setup-polar-hrm-for-more-accurate-calorie-burn-for-known-bmr

    I have however, seen SOOOO many post by people stating that they trust their hrm anyway despite these post and still lose weight even if they eat back the calories their hrm says they burned off.

    In the end the best thing you can do is test to see if eating back your calories burned allows you to keep weekly goal (whatever it may be, weight loss, maintenance, etc.)

    ----

    A small thing to mention, hrm do not subtract the amount of calories you would have burned if you would just sat on your butt during that time frame, so that's something to consider when determining accuracy.

    Thank you so much, I will read the information in both post, as well I will try today if My HRM calculate cals when I am sitting.
  • Orient_Charm
    Orient_Charm Posts: 385 Member
    Any more suggestion?
  • JCLondonUK
    JCLondonUK Posts: 159
    Bump to read later
  • Orient_Charm
    Orient_Charm Posts: 385 Member
    Any more suggestion?
  • Orient_Charm
    Orient_Charm Posts: 385 Member
    Bump
  • Orient_Charm
    Orient_Charm Posts: 385 Member
    Bump
  • Orient_Charm
    Orient_Charm Posts: 385 Member
    Bump
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    I'm guessing you may have some settings wrong on your HRM.
    I've always just gone with the lower number.
  • Mighty_Rabite
    Mighty_Rabite Posts: 581 Member
    I always thought that the machines were estimating high for me, but I found that, to a point, they were actually either under or accurate, per my FT4.

    I'm a 29 year old, 182lb / 82.5kg, 5'8" / 173cm male - using the stationary bike with a resistance setting of 12-13, I biked 20 miles in about 67 minutes.. the station itself said I had burned something like 740 cals, whereas my HRM had 885.

    Same goes on with the ellipticals - I'll have one set to level 13-14; after ten minutes I usually ring up 130-140 per the machine, but HRM was generally 140-150. I break even in estimate on the elliptical once I push to level 15 or 16.
  • xbellezx
    xbellezx Posts: 32 Member
    If you have put the right hight, age and weight into your heart rate monitor then it should be right. For me the machines often under estimate my cal burn. Just remember that HRM aren't 100% accurate however they are more accurate then the gym equipment.
  • Orient_Charm
    Orient_Charm Posts: 385 Member
    Thank you all,
    I checked my setting many times, and it is correct.

Categories