HRM versus Elliptical

Options
MaryDreamer
MaryDreamer Posts: 439
in Fitness and Exercise
Here's the dilemma: My HRM (Polar F4) results are HIGHER than the gym Lifefitness ellipitical. (which is Polar Heart Rate Ready) The machine said I burned 350 cals in 35 mins.(10 cals min) My HRM says I burned 528 cals! (15 cals min) MFP says I burned 402! I don't know what to log :(

Replies

  • Aaronc909
    Aaronc909 Posts: 26
    Options
    I would stick with the FT4 unless you input your weight, height, age etc into the machine...I think the HRM will be your closest match.
  • sarakaufman
    sarakaufman Posts: 58 Member
    Options
    I think I would use your heart monitor. Not sure though wait for more results from others
  • Amajoy
    Amajoy Posts: 140 Member
    Options
    Hi, not sure what kind of shape your in or your size, or even how much that affects the cals burned... But your HRM seems a little high... I typically burn 450 cals in 45 mins on the elliptical and thats in the fitness zone going about 65-70 RPMs... My gym uses lifetime as well, and its anywhere from 60-100 ish cals higher then my HRM...
  • MisdemeanorM
    MisdemeanorM Posts: 3,493 Member
    Options
    I would go by your HRM but round down. Also, double check if you have your height and weight entered correctly (in both the machine, if applicable) and the HRM) - I'm 2" taller but at a little under your current weight would burn about 500-600 in a good solid hour of high (over 150) heart rate. Everyone's different, but if your heart rate is not high the whole time, 500 is (at least seems) too high for 35 mins at your weight. If the machine does not take weight / age entries then it loses a lot of its accuracy. It might be calculating your HR against the burn of a 45 yr old man who weighs 200 lbs at that HR.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    If using your HRM remember to back out the calories you would have burned had you not worked out as the HRM calculates total caloric burn not extra from exercise. To get this take you maintenance calories divide by 24 then by 60 to get cals you burn on average per minute of every day. so if your maintenance is 2200 cals you would have burned 1.53 cals/min (2200/24/60) so in 35 minutes you would have burned about 54 (1.53*35) so in MFP you should enter 474 (528-54) and eat that many extra calories. If you enter the full amount you would be double counting the 54. This wont make that much of a diffence on a short workout but if you worked out for 90 min it would be 138 cals.
  • HMKan
    HMKan Posts: 472 Member
    Options
    I agree, the HRM seems a little high. I have the Polar FT7 and when I do 30 minutes of light to moderate elliptical effort I burn about 260-300 calories.
  • hotmooglelove
    hotmooglelove Posts: 84
    Options
    If using your HRM remember to back out the calories you would have burned had you not worked out as the HRM calculates total caloric burn not extra from exercise. To get this take you maintenance calories divide by 24 then by 60 to get cals you burn on average per minute of every day. so if your maintenance is 2200 cals you would have burned 1.53 cals/min (2200/24/60) so in 35 minutes you would have burned about 54 (1.53*35) so in MFP you should enter 474 (528-54) and eat that many extra calories. If you enter the full amount you would be double counting the 54. This wont make that much of a diffence on a short workout but if you worked out for 90 min it would be 138 cals.

    This.
  • HawkeyeGuy
    HawkeyeGuy Posts: 183
    Options
    I'm here, too! ;) You can't hide from the truth!!!
  • MaryDreamer
    MaryDreamer Posts: 439
    Options
    LMAO @ Hawkeye!!! Thanks everyone, I thought it seemed a bit high too. (sigh!)

    I do have my height & weight entered correctly into both the elliptical and my HRM.

    Eric, I'll have to read that a few hundred more times until I hopefully eventually GET it, thanks for the help!

    I thought my stats were under my Ticker?
  • MaryDreamer
    MaryDreamer Posts: 439
    Options
    If using your HRM remember to back out the calories you would have burned had you not worked out as the HRM calculates total caloric burn not extra from exercise. To get this take you maintenance calories divide by 24 then by 60 to get cals you burn on average per minute of every day. so if your maintenance is 2200 cals you would have burned 1.53 cals/min (2200/24/60) so in 35 minutes you would have burned about 54 (1.53*35) so in MFP you should enter 474 (528-54) and eat that many extra calories. If you enter the full amount you would be double counting the 54. This wont make that much of a diffence on a short workout but if you worked out for 90 min it would be 138 cals.

    Eric, I got this far: 1810/24/60 = 1.26 cals/min x 35 = 44

    I don't understand where you got 528-54=474 from?
  • HawkeyeGuy
    HawkeyeGuy Posts: 183
    Options
    I understand and appreciate Eric's attempts at being precise, but this is more of an art than a science at times. Simply record the lower of the two, and work off that. No HRM can give us precise enough measurements with all the variables involved, so go conservative, eat to it, and you'll always be on the winning side of the equation.
    If using your HRM remember to back out the calories you would have burned had you not worked out as the HRM calculates total caloric burn not extra from exercise. To get this take you maintenance calories divide by 24 then by 60 to get cals you burn on average per minute of every day. so if your maintenance is 2200 cals you would have burned 1.53 cals/min (2200/24/60) so in 35 minutes you would have burned about 54 (1.53*35) so in MFP you should enter 474 (528-54) and eat that many extra calories. If you enter the full amount you would be double counting the 54. This wont make that much of a diffence on a short workout but if you worked out for 90 min it would be 138 cals.

    Eric, I got this far: 1810/24/60 = 1.26 cals/min x 35 = 44

    I don't understand where you got 528-454=474 from?
  • MisdemeanorM
    MisdemeanorM Posts: 3,493 Member
    Options
    The Polar F4s (if I am thinking of the right ones) are not coded - (it should tell you on your strap - says coded on the front if coded) so is there the chance that it was picking up someone else heart rate and confusing the two numbers affecting its accuracy? Personally, all other things being equal, I'd probably log about 425 of them, and eat back about 250-300 of them.
  • MaryDreamer
    MaryDreamer Posts: 439
    Options
    Hawkeye,
    Simply record the lower of the two, and work off that. No HRM can give us precise enough measurements with all the variables involved, so go conservative, eat to it, and you'll always be on the winning side of the equation.

    I have 3 numbers, so I recorded the middle one ;)~

    Elliptical - 350
    MFP - 402
    HRM - 528

    I do agree with you about using the more conservative figure, I'm just really very disappointed in this HRM!
  • MaryDreamer
    MaryDreamer Posts: 439
    Options
    The Polar F4s (if I am thinking of the right ones) are not coded - (it should tell you on your strap - says coded on the front if coded) so is there the chance that it was picking up someone else heart rate and confusing the two numbers affecting its accuracy? Personally, all other things being equal, I'd probably log about 425 of them, and eat back about 250-300 of them.

    I don't see the word "coded" anywhere. There was noone on either side of me, the closest person to me was an older woman with white hair on the treadmill about 3 machines down to my left. I logged the middle number 402 which is the MFP figure.

    I did notice something strange though, my transmittor says Polar T31 on the front? Is that right or should it also say F4?
  • MisdemeanorM
    MisdemeanorM Posts: 3,493 Member
    Options
    I did notice something strange though, my transmittor says Polar T31 on the front? Is that right or should it also say F4?

    No, that is the correct pair.

    And I'm guessing on the coded thing - I know mine says coded on it, and I have seen others that do not and I think someone mentioned that 4 is not coded - but, that is the P4 and this is the F4, which I think is a newer model, so I don't know. Sounds like that was not the problem, but if you could email polar and ask them, or test it by finding someone with a HRM too and seeing if your straps are interchangeable.
  • amo72
    amo72 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    I've been using my polar f4 for a couple of weeks now and I was surprised by how high my calorie burn was. I'm smaller than you but I work out hard and burn about 9 or 10 calories per min. When I log my calories I take out however many calories I would have been burning if I had just been sitting on my butt (for me 1 cal per min)
    Example: 60 min on spin bike
    600 calories - 60 calories(that I would have burned sitting on my butt) = 540
    I never eat back all my calories though...usually about half.

Categories