How accurate are heart rate monitors in counting calories

Options
eblackk17
eblackk17 Posts: 25
in Fitness and Exercise
I have the polar ft7 with chest strap and it has me burning 351 cals walking 3,3 mph on a 4.5% to 5.5% incline for 30 minutes how accurate would you say this would be i weigh 339 im 6 foot even and 29 yrs old what do you guys think?

Replies

  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
  • eblackk17
    eblackk17 Posts: 25
    Options
    so basically your saying hrm calories burned are crap and i wasted my 70 bucks.






    gee thanks
  • mcspiffy88
    mcspiffy88 Posts: 90 Member
    Options
    That would be pretty much spot on, yes. HRMs (pretty much all of them) overestimate your calories burned.

    While it is true that there is a direct connection between heart BPM and calories burned it is far from the complete picture. THat way you could just loose weight by watching thriller movies all day long ... Or according to that logic burn much less calories by weight lifting where your average heart rate per workout is much lower than HIIT cardio or just plain jogging.

    Its the same marketing gimmick used to trick people into buying all that fancy teleshopping workout equipement which makes exercises easier but somehow magically burns for more and builds more muscle. Yea right.

    No need to get pissy over other members here :)
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Options
    so basically your saying hrm calories burned are crap and i wasted my 70 bucks.

    You will see many different comments on here about the accuracy of an HRM but at the end of the day the only real way to find out is to use it along with your calorie deficit and see what the results are.

    When I use mine and eat back the net calories burnt (I use a site to remove what it estimates I would have burnt in the time I spent exercising while doing nothing) my weight loss is always pretty close to where I expect it to be.

    Use yours and see what results you get before you assume its a waste of money
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    so basically your saying hrm calories burned are crap and i wasted my 70 bucks.

    not really, it's useful to know your heart rate during exercise. How high was it ? Does your HRM have data entry for your VO2max or does it just go off height and weight etc.
  • msafunk
    msafunk Posts: 163 Member
    Options
    I would never call a HRM a waste of money if you're using it to track your heart rate to make sure that you're staying your safe zone-- especially if you're doing intense workouts. They are called heart rate monitors and not calorie burn calculators for a reason!
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    so basically your saying hrm calories burned are crap and i wasted my 70 bucks.

    You'll get lots of different views from different people, elsewhere there is a discussion where Fitbit is magically accurate yet HRMs are crap :) Personally I'd disagree.

    Any instrumentation is only as good as how it's used, and if you're using an inappropriate tool for the job then you get inaccurate results. From what you describe, very gentle exercise at steady state, the differences between the various methods of approximating your calorie expenditure will be minimal. If you were doing a purely resistance training session then an HRM is useless, but that's not what it's designed for.

    An HRM makes an approximation of calorie burn based on what's happening to your heart rate. A fitbit makes an approximation based on the number of steps you take, it's a glorified pedometer, MFP makes an approximation based on the information that you give it

    An HRM informs your training, and the calorie count is, for me, secondary to its usefulness. It helps me manage the intensity of my CV work, so helps me improve my running performance.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    Or according to that logic burn much less calories by weight lifting where your average heart rate per workout is much lower than HIIT cardio or just plain jogging.

    You do burn far fewer calories resistance training than a similar period spent doing CV work, unless its very leisurely CV.
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    Options
    I find it's a useful training tool and helps me monitor my progress.

    If you are a guy the calories aren't likely waaay off. My Polar and the machines are usually within 20 calories of one another after 30 minutes.

    At the end of the day none of this is accurate. It's a best guess.
  • majica8
    majica8 Posts: 210 Member
    Options
    They are basically just a guess, but they are more accurate than not having one at all.
    I have found that taking 20% off whatever my HRM says at the end of the workout and logging that works for me. I doubt it is overestimating by that much in reality but I've been doing that for the 8 or so months I've had a HRM and I've been losing steadily that whole time, so I can only assume the numbers are pretty close to being right.

    Whether that would work for you or not I don't know, it's something you would have to experiment with. They do only work with cardio workouts though. If you aren't getting your heart rate much above what is your average resting HR then it won't be very accurate at all. I use mine for cycling where my avg HR is in the 130-140s (resting is around 60-70bpm for me) but I don't bother if I'm just going for a walk as that doesn't get my HR much above 80-90 unless it's up a good hill.
  • oc1timoco
    oc1timoco Posts: 272 Member
    Options
    so basically your saying hrm calories burned are crap and i wasted my 70 bucks.

    You'll get lots of different views from different people, elsewhere there is a discussion where Fitbit is magically accurate yet HRMs are crap :) Personally I'd disagree.

    Any instrumentation is only as good as how it's used, and if you're using an inappropriate tool for the job then you get inaccurate results. From what you describe, very gentle exercise at steady state, the differences between the various methods of approximating your calorie expenditure will be minimal. If you were doing a purely resistance training session then an HRM is useless, but that's not what it's designed for.

    An HRM makes an approximation of calorie burn based on what's happening to your heart rate. A fitbit makes an approximation based on the number of steps you take, it's a glorified pedometer, MFP makes an approximation based on the information that you give it

    An HRM informs your training, and the calorie count is, for me, secondary to its usefulness. It helps me manage the intensity of my CV work, so helps me improve my running performance.


    Take a look in your toolbox. You have a food scale, MFP with all its fancy graphs and charts, calculator for calories burned and an HRM, Using all of these together will assist in fine tuning your particular needs. Because all of them at best are a calculation by themselves.
  • brminor
    brminor Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    I have a polar HRM and I love it! I wear it during all my workouts and I have lost weight. No tool is 100% accurate but I find that by using the HRM versus the gym machines seems to be way more accurate. Everyone will have their own opinion but I think mine was a good investment.
  • LTGPSA
    LTGPSA Posts: 633 Member
    Options
    I recently purchased and began using an HRM, and {except for one program on my elliptical} the HRM reports LESS calories burned than what both my elliptical and Endomondo report. So, I've been using the HRM numbers. I am also happy with my investment. :wink:

Categories