So little calories burned

skygoddess86
skygoddess86 Posts: 487 Member
edited September 23 in Fitness and Exercise
I recently got a polar heart rate moniter. I really like it, but the calories burned according to it are so much less the the equipment or this site say. It frustrates me, I was on the treamil for 75 minutes today and only burned 480 calories. The treadmil said quite a bit more and its at the gymn and a really nice piece of equipment, you enter all your stats and stuff. And I'm confused about staying in the weight loss zone or ramping up to the cardio zone. Which is better? BTW I weigh 142 and am 5'5". 42 years old. My weight isn't moving either but some days my diet is iffy, not over , just really healthy some days and not as much others. :grumble:

Replies

  • schnarfo
    schnarfo Posts: 764 Member
    id trust the heart rate monitor as its going to be more accurate even if you dont like what it says
  • moses5885
    moses5885 Posts: 7
    Its because of your age. you usually don't put age into your workout machines. make sure you look at calories burned for age because their is a huge difference between 40 and 20 years old.
  • mandypizzle
    mandypizzle Posts: 633 Member
    Your heart rate monitor is going to be more accurate. Maybe you just need to push yourself more and get your heart rate up. Try going in intervals. You burn more calories that way.
  • stephanielynn76
    stephanielynn76 Posts: 709 Member
    Those cardio machines are famous for overestimating your calories burned. I usually assume I've burned only about half of what it says depending on the machine and how much effort I felt like I was exerting. Some machines are harder and make me sweat more but don't show as much calories burned as other machines I find less challenging. It's obvious something is off...
  • clioandboy
    clioandboy Posts: 963 Member
    I am in the same boat as you my Xmas present is fab BUT gives me nothing like the cals mfp offers me..... And for a woman that has always eaten all her exercise cals!!!!!! I should be eating less at the mo BUT I have fallen off the wagon, till tomorrow!
  • PaulC9554
    PaulC9554 Posts: 117 Member
    I found the same. Before using a HRM I could burn 1700 cals over 90 mins in the gym according to the machines. Now, I haven't topped 1000 yet over the same time with a HRM. Some may say that it doesn't really matter but if you want to eat your exercise cals I think which figure to use is a real consideration.
  • skygoddess86
    skygoddess86 Posts: 487 Member
    Its because of your age. you usually don't put age into your workout machines. make sure you look at calories burned for age because their is a huge difference between 40 and 20 years old.
    The machines at the gymn do ask for your age...ugh...I'm old.
  • calliope_music
    calliope_music Posts: 1,242 Member
    also remember that the less you weigh, the less calories you'll burn. there was a great thread about this the other day:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat
  • moses5885
    moses5885 Posts: 7
    hmm. well if you want to push it then just always write down you are buring 1/2 the calories and always try to workout harder and longer. mind games help me sometimes when it comes to burning calories. or even put your weight lower on the tread mill so you have to work harder to lose more calories.
  • pyro13g
    pyro13g Posts: 1,127 Member
    The fat burn zone is a myth. Best bet is Cardio Interval or High Intensity Cardio Interval training. Steady state if you must for other reasons.

    http://www.myfooddiary.com/resources/ask_the_expert/fat-burning_zone_myth.asp

    If your Polar let's you enter your stats and also utilizes a chest strap then I would put my faith in what it says.

    You should be able to burn that in 45 minutes(work your way up to it) and get 30 minutes of your life back.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories