Disappointed!! HRM vs Machine Calories
Mad_Dog_Muscle
Posts: 1,251 Member
Wow, I started using my HR Monitor today while I was on the treadmill. 30 minutes, level 15, 3.0 mph ..... my heart rate monitor showed I burned 315 calories...... the machine said I burned 520!! thats over 200 calories difference!!! I always assumed there could be a difference in the amount of calories, but I was a bit shocked that it was this much. I vow to never work out again without my HR monitor. I have seriously just been schooled here!!
Since I started using MFP in January, I have always tried leaving a bit of a "buffer" when I log my meals to offset the fact that the calories listed in the database could be off. I have steadily been losing about a pound a week, which I am more than fine with, but there were weeks where I thought I should have lost 2, considering how much surplus calories I would end up with at the end of the week.
Has anyone else experienced this??
Since I started using MFP in January, I have always tried leaving a bit of a "buffer" when I log my meals to offset the fact that the calories listed in the database could be off. I have steadily been losing about a pound a week, which I am more than fine with, but there were weeks where I thought I should have lost 2, considering how much surplus calories I would end up with at the end of the week.
Has anyone else experienced this??
0
Replies
-
ALL the time! In my cycle classes, the bike always says I've burned over 500 cal when in reality it's b/t 350-410. One day, it said I had a burn of over 900!!!! So yeah, those machines can be waaaaaay off. They're not calibrated to YOU, just to some arbitrary avg. joe. Don't I wish I'd really burn that many cal. in a workout!0
-
Wow, I started using my HR Monitor today while I was on the treadmill. 30 minutes, level 15, 3.0 mph ..... my heart rate monitor showed I burned 315 calories...... the machine said I burned 520!! thats over 200 calories difference!!! I always assumed there could be a difference in the amount of calories, but I was a bit shocked that it was this much. I vow to never work out again without my HR monitor. I have seriously just been schooled here!!
Since I started using MFP in January, I have always tried leaving a bit of a "buffer" when I log my meals to offset the fact that the calories listed in the database could be off. I have steadily been losing about a pound a week, which I am more than fine with, but there were weeks where I thought I should have lost 2, considering how much surplus calories I would end up with at the end of the week.
Has anyone else experienced this??
just curious, does mfp seem any more accurate than the machine? I usually ignore the machine and just log it on here. I'm scared for the answer!0 -
Oh I know what you mean. I had a wrist HRM and went and purchased one with a chest strap. Big big difference. Now I understand why I wasn't losing like I thought I was. My calorie burn was was under. Oh well now I know and hopefully see some results now that I have a more accurate idea of what I am burning.0
-
Yep, I was the same way before I bought mine. I had days where it was saying i was burning 1500+ calories and in reality I was only burning between 700 and 900. I have found some of the readings on the gym equipment to be right on though. The treadmill is usually within 50 calories of what my HRM says.
I also vow to never work out without my HRM again! I've gone without it before and felt completely lost! here's to being obsessive :drinker:0 -
I would think (if you set up your HRM) that it would be more accurate that the 'generic' setup on any gym machine.
I don't know anything about it but you could find a site on the web (maybe a few) and plug in your numbers and see what you get off your HRM.
Like here:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm0 -
Wow, I started using my HR Monitor today while I was on the treadmill. 30 minutes, level 15, 3.0 mph ..... my heart rate monitor showed I burned 315 calories...... the machine said I burned 520!! thats over 200 calories difference!!! I always assumed there could be a difference in the amount of calories, but I was a bit shocked that it was this much. I vow to never work out again without my HR monitor. I have seriously just been schooled here!!
Since I started using MFP in January, I have always tried leaving a bit of a "buffer" when I log my meals to offset the fact that the calories listed in the database could be off. I have steadily been losing about a pound a week, which I am more than fine with, but there were weeks where I thought I should have lost 2, considering how much surplus calories I would end up with at the end of the week.
Has anyone else experienced this??
On top of that the HRM is calculating total caloric burn, which if entered into MFP would be double counting the calories you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories should be deducted from the HRM readout) So that 315 should be more like 270 assuming you burn 1.5 cal/min during the day. maintenance calories/24/60.
Don't be disappointed this just means you are in much better shape (if you enter weight and age) than the machine thinks you are, this is a good thing.0 -
On top of that the HRM is calculating total caloric burn, which if entered into MFP would be double counting the calories you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories should be deducted from the HRM readout) So that 315 should be more like 270 assuming you burn 1.5 cal/min during the day. maintenance calories/24/60.
Don't be disappointed this just means you are in much better shape (if you enter weight and age) than the machine thinks you are, this is a good thing.
Wouldn't it only count maintainace calories if you wore it all day, not just while working out? I'm a bit confused.0 -
YES! Last week I got a HRM and I LOVE IT! For the most part I burn more than what the machine says but it doesn't take into account all of the factors that a HRM does. Plus, I hate having to hold onto the metal things on the machine that get your heart rate.0
-
On top of that the HRM is calculating total caloric burn, which if entered into MFP would be double counting the calories you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories should be deducted from the HRM readout) So that 315 should be more like 270 assuming you burn 1.5 cal/min during the day. maintenance calories/24/60.
Don't be disappointed this just means you are in much better shape (if you enter weight and age) than the machine thinks you are, this is a good thing.
WAIT!! If I work out (Cardio) for 30 minutes and I come up with 400 calories burned I am supposed to subract 1.5 * 30 = 45 calories for a 'real' extra calorie burn of 355 calories?0 -
Do you have anything to support this theory? You would think that HRM makers would take that into consideration when programing the algorithm.On top of that the HRM is calculating total caloric burn, which if entered into MFP would be double counting the calories you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories should be deducted from the HRM readout) So that 315 should be more like 270 assuming you burn 1.5 cal/min during the day. maintenance calories/24/60.
Don't be disappointed this just means you are in much better shape (if you enter weight and age) than the machine thinks you are, this is a good thing.
Another thing to consider, the BMR you speak of equates to approx. 35-50 cals/30 mins for the average person. The margin of error on the HRM is probably more than that. Therefore, I wouldn't bother "deducting" that BMR figure.0 -
A good rule of thumb is that 1 minute burns about 10 calories if you are pushing yourself to the point of sweating.... that is what I have found is most accurate..0
-
I will be getting a HRM 2 pounds from now...a goal. But I always log whatever is lower, MFP or the machine.0
-
On top of that the HRM is calculating total caloric burn, which if entered into MFP would be double counting the calories you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories should be deducted from the HRM readout) So that 315 should be more like 270 assuming you burn 1.5 cal/min during the day. maintenance calories/24/60.
Don't be disappointed this just means you are in much better shape (if you enter weight and age) than the machine thinks you are, this is a good thing.
WAIT!! If I work out (Cardio) for 30 minutes and I come up with 400 calories burned I am supposed to subract 1.5 * 30 = 45 calories for a 'real' extra calorie burn of 355 calories?
You would have burned 355 total, but some of those you would have burned had you not worked out. so to get calories burned from exercise alone (which is what should be added to MFP) yes you would have to back out maintenance calories from the total. This is usually 1.2 to 1.8 cals/minute depending on your stats (age, weight, gender)0 -
Do you have anything to support this theory? You would think that HRM makers would take that into consideration when programing the algorithm.On top of that the HRM is calculating total caloric burn, which if entered into MFP would be double counting the calories you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories should be deducted from the HRM readout) So that 315 should be more like 270 assuming you burn 1.5 cal/min during the day. maintenance calories/24/60.
Don't be disappointed this just means you are in much better shape (if you enter weight and age) than the machine thinks you are, this is a good thing.
Another thing to consider, the BMR you speak of equates to approx. 35-50 cals/30 mins for the average person. The margin of error on the HRM is probably more than that. Therefore, I wouldn't bother "deducting" that BMR figure.
Don't deduct BMR, deduct maintenance. Iif you did not workout you would not be in a coma, but rather doing something else, sitting, standing, whatever. HRMs do have a margin of error but I don't think they are off by more than 1 cal/min.
HRM makers wouldn't take that away because they are showing you what you burned during your workout, but if you enter into something like MFP you should back them out. HRM makers don't know you are using a program like MFP so why would they back those out.0 -
Now that I think of it, I know your theory isn't accurate. Why? Because if wear the HRM then sit on the couch all day, then sleep 8 hours, it'll show an outragous cal burn...way more than what your real maintenance calories are. The HRM are designed to calc cals burnt when the HR is elevated.0
-
I would love to get a HRM but when reading the reviews there weren't any that seemed that great....can you all suggest good HRMs?!
Thanks!!0 -
On top of that the HRM is calculating total caloric burn, which if entered into MFP would be double counting the calories you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories should be deducted from the HRM readout) So that 315 should be more like 270 assuming you burn 1.5 cal/min during the day. maintenance calories/24/60.
Don't be disappointed this just means you are in much better shape (if you enter weight and age) than the machine thinks you are, this is a good thing.
Wouldn't it only count maintainace calories if you wore it all day, not just while working out? I'm a bit confused.
MFP counts maintenance calories for you, the watch counts total caloric burn (which maintenance would be a part of)0 -
Do you have anything to support this theory? You would think that HRM makers would take that into consideration when programing the algorithm.On top of that the HRM is calculating total caloric burn, which if entered into MFP would be double counting the calories you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories should be deducted from the HRM readout) So that 315 should be more like 270 assuming you burn 1.5 cal/min during the day. maintenance calories/24/60.
Don't be disappointed this just means you are in much better shape (if you enter weight and age) than the machine thinks you are, this is a good thing.
Another thing to consider, the BMR you speak of equates to approx. 35-50 cals/30 mins for the average person. The margin of error on the HRM is probably more than that. Therefore, I wouldn't bother "deducting" that BMR figure.
Don't deduct BMR, deduct maintenance. Iif you did not workout you would not be in a coma, but rather doing something else, sitting, standing, whatever. HRMs do have a margin of error but I don't think they are off by more than 1 cal/min.
HRM makers wouldn't take that away because they are showing you what you burned during your workout, but if you enter into something like MFP you should back them out. HRM makers don't know you are using a program like MFP so why would they back those out.
Go read up about it on this site: http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf0 -
ok...so you are saying that the activity/exercise we log (and we use MFP calculator) INCLUDES what calories we would be burning if we just sat on the couch? NOT additional calories?
this is confusing.....
:huh:0 -
Now that I think of it, I know your theory isn't accurate. Why? Because if wear the HRM then sit on the couch all day, then sleep 8 hours, it'll show an outragous cal burn...way more than what your real maintenance calories are. The HRM are designed to calc cals burnt when the HR is elevated.
Yes, that is so it only works when HR is elevated, but it is a calculation in-bedded in the watch that spits out total caloric burn, not extra calories burned from working out. This is only really an issue with longer lower intensity workouts and only if you eat your exercise calories, this way you won't overeat and double count a portion of the calories.0 -
ok...so you are saying that the activity/exercise we log (and we use MFP calculator) INCLUDES what calories we would be burning if we just sat on the couch? NOT additional calories?
this is confusing.....
:huh:
I doubt it, but these number can be off by as much as 50% on MFP's database anyway, usually overestimated.0 -
On top of that the HRM is calculating total caloric burn, which if entered into MFP would be double counting the calories you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories should be deducted from the HRM readout) So that 315 should be more like 270 assuming you burn 1.5 cal/min during the day. maintenance calories/24/60.
Don't be disappointed this just means you are in much better shape (if you enter weight and age) than the machine thinks you are, this is a good thing.
WAIT!! If I work out (Cardio) for 30 minutes and I come up with 400 calories burned I am supposed to subract 1.5 * 30 = 45 calories for a 'real' extra calorie burn of 355 calories?
You would have burned 355 total, but some of those you would have burned had you not worked out. so to get calories burned from exercise alone (which is what should be added to MFP) yes you would have to back out maintenance calories from the total. This is usually 1.2 to 1.8 cals/minute depending on your stats (age, weight, gender)
Thanks Eric!!0 -
Do you have anything to support this theory? You would think that HRM makers would take that into consideration when programing the algorithm.On top of that the HRM is calculating total caloric burn, which if entered into MFP would be double counting the calories you would have burned had you not worked out (maintenance calories should be deducted from the HRM readout) So that 315 should be more like 270 assuming you burn 1.5 cal/min during the day. maintenance calories/24/60.
Don't be disappointed this just means you are in much better shape (if you enter weight and age) than the machine thinks you are, this is a good thing.
Another thing to consider, the BMR you speak of equates to approx. 35-50 cals/30 mins for the average person. The margin of error on the HRM is probably more than that. Therefore, I wouldn't bother "deducting" that BMR figure.
yes, I called Polar about a year ago, they do NOT subtract maintenance calories, I.E. you have to account for them manually, each manufacturer is potentially different though, you should call yours and ask.0 -
Which is why I try to make sure that I don't eat back ALL my exercise calories, and leave a padding for that maintenance burn that is added in.0
-
I also vow to never work out without my HRM again! I've gone without it before and felt completely lost! here's to being obsessive :drinker:
I'm the same way! I can't even go on a quick 15 minute walk without it or I feel completely out of sorts!:drinker:0 -
Thats what I have been doing as well, but now I will be especially aware of how many I eat back!!Which is why I try to make sure that I don't eat back ALL my exercise calories, and leave a padding for that maintenance burn that is added in.0 -
Thats what I have been doing as well, but now I will be especially aware of how many I eat back!!Which is why I try to make sure that I don't eat back ALL my exercise calories, and leave a padding for that maintenance burn that is added in.0 -
A good rule of thumb is that 1 minute burns about 10 calories if you are pushing yourself to the point of sweating.... that is what I have found is most accurate..
This varies GREATLY from person to person.
I WISH I could burn 10 per minute.
Average for me is 4-7.
A real hard HOUR LONG workout for me is 300-400 calories, and you are saying it is a "rule of thumb" that is should be about 600. I have NEVER hit 600 in one hour even pushing to the point of almost collapsing at the end of a hard run.
So, yes, it may be accurate for you, but it's not THE rule of thumb...0 -
This is the exact topic I was wondering about. I had logged a 4.4 mile hike I had done as 440 calories burned, but in reality, we were out bird watching/hiking over a 3.5 hour period in which we walked 4.4 miles.. My "normal" caloric burn if was at home or work would be 70 to 90 calories per hour = 280 calories, so was the 4.4 miles of walking only worth 440 - 280 = 160 calories? Not a lot of benefit for a good walk!0
-
Wow, I started using my HR Monitor today while I was on the treadmill. 30 minutes, level 15, 3.0 mph ..... my heart rate monitor showed I burned 315 calories...... the machine said I burned 520!! thats over 200 calories difference!!! I always assumed there could be a difference in the amount of calories, but I was a bit shocked that it was this much. I vow to never work out again without my HR monitor. I have seriously just been schooled here!!
Since I started using MFP in January, I have always tried leaving a bit of a "buffer" when I log my meals to offset the fact that the calories listed in the database could be off. I have steadily been losing about a pound a week, which I am more than fine with, but there were weeks where I thought I should have lost 2, considering how much surplus calories I would end up with at the end of the week.
Has anyone else experienced this??
Do you by any chance hold onto the treadmill when you incline walk???????????
That absolutely wipes out calorie count!!!
Of course the treadmill won't know whether you're holding on or not.
If you do hold on, read this...
http://walking.about.com/od/treadmillworkouts/a/treadmillhold.htm
... and stop it!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions