HRM

Options
dscampbell1979
dscampbell1979 Posts: 23 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I'm a 30 year old female, 144 lbs, and I started running a few months or so ago. I'm up to running a little over 5 miles but I run pretty slow, more of a jog I guess. Almost everyone on here says to buy a HRM for calorie burn accuracy so I bit the bullet and bought one. I have also read numerous times that the exercise burns on mfp are overstated. Well, my HRM is showing much higher burns than mfp. I feel like I wasted my money now! For instance, I ran for 62 mins the other day and the HRM says I burnt 818 but mfp says 607!?! Much, if not most, of my run is hills and such. Could this make a significant difference? I input my info correctly so I don't think that is the problem. Thanks for any advice.

Replies

  • gsager
    gsager Posts: 977 Member
    Options
    Did you get a HRM with a chest strap? If you did, it is probably right.
  • dscampbell1979
    dscampbell1979 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    Yes ma'am. The Polar FT7.
  • kshadows
    kshadows Posts: 1,315 Member
    Options
    It sounds around right, especially on hills. I burn about 400-500 in 35-40 minutes and just a little heavier than you. If your HRM has a chest strap and you can manually enter your height and weight, it's probably prettty accurate.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    I'm a 30 year old female, 144 lbs, and I started running a few months or so ago. I'm up to running a little over 5 miles but I run pretty slow, more of a jog I guess. Almost everyone on here says to buy a HRM for calorie burn accuracy so I bit the bullet and bought one. I have also read numerous times that the exercise burns on mfp are overstated. Well, my HRM is showing much higher burns than mfp. I feel like I wasted my money now! For instance, I ran for 62 mins the other day and the HRM says I burnt 818 but mfp says 607!?! Much, if not most, of my run is hills and such. Could this make a significant difference? I input my info correctly so I don't think that is the problem. Thanks for any advice.

    Does your HRM have a chest strap? Did you plug in height, weight, age, gender in your HRM setup? Chest strap models measure your heart rate constantly. Wrist only models sometimes have trouble with arm movement.

    If you are rather unfit - you will burn more calories. Hills will increase the exertion level too. I'm not a runner...so I can't really guess.
  • dscampbell1979
    dscampbell1979 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    It sounds around right, especially on hills. I burn about 400-500 in 35-40 minutes and just a little heavier than you. If your HRM has a chest strap and you can manually enter your height and weight, it's probably prettty accurate.

    Great Thanks!
  • dscampbell1979
    dscampbell1979 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    I'm a 30 year old female, 144 lbs, and I started running a few months or so ago. I'm up to running a little over 5 miles but I run pretty slow, more of a jog I guess. Almost everyone on here says to buy a HRM for calorie burn accuracy so I bit the bullet and bought one. I have also read numerous times that the exercise burns on mfp are overstated. Well, my HRM is showing much higher burns than mfp. I feel like I wasted my money now! For instance, I ran for 62 mins the other day and the HRM says I burnt 818 but mfp says 607!?! Much, if not most, of my run is hills and such. Could this make a significant difference? I input my info correctly so I don't think that is the problem. Thanks for any advice.

    Does your HRM have a chest strap? Did you plug in height, weight, age, gender in your HRM setup? Chest strap models measure your heart rate constantly. Wrist only models sometimes have trouble with arm movement.

    If you are rather unfit - you will burn more calories. Hills will increase the exertion level too. I'm not a runner...so I can't really guess.

    It does have a chest strap and I plugged everything in properly. Seems to be working fine as I run at a pretty steady pace when not climbing a hill and the HRM reflects that. I wouldn't call myself unfit. I've always been an active person but only recently started exercising consistently. I can pretty easily run 5 miles right now and still feel great!
  • mebepiglet123
    mebepiglet123 Posts: 327 Member
    Options
    Yep sounds about right... Enjoy your HRM.. Trust the burns, eat them back if you stop losing then cut back some cals easy peasy..
    Edited to add.. I'm 160lbs5ft 6 I burn around 700 in 60 mins elliptical, rower, bike , treadmill(running and walking).

    From what I understand. If you are weight training it can be a little off, but other than that it's pretty spot on.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    A really helpful thread. It includes tips for setting up for better accuracy

    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
  • vms4evr
    vms4evr Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    I vote that the FT7 is right and MFP isn't... I have one and so does my GF. Because assumed numbers from sites like MFP are just that, assumed... Go with the numbers it gave you. I don't run but I bike and do cross training amongst other things. Biking with lots of hills. I can knock out 800 cals in an hour no problem. Same with cross fit stuff. Get you personal info correct. Make sure the strap pad on your chest is wet so it conducts correctly when you put it on. Then go.

Categories