Help, please HRM calories burned vs online estimates.

Options
BootyAssemble
BootyAssemble Posts: 3 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So, I have a Timex heart rate monitor (the kind that has a band that goes around your ribs, just under your bra strap) and I work out on a Bowflex treadclimber. Well, I know the commercials say it can burn a lot more calories than a regular treadmill, but the HRM (which is programmed to my MHR, age, weight, sex, & height) suggested I burned 644 in 44 minutes while staying in my cardio zone. That just seemed like a lot more considering in I post on MFP, 41minutes of Cardio would be 392.

Replies

  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    I had the same problem with my Garmin fr70. It overestimated calories too. I used 2 other devices before I accepted that I was not that awesome LOL!

    You can change devices (more money), or make an adjustment in your age and/or weight to get closer to a 5-7 calories/minute burn.

    Better to underestimate than over. It was frustrating burning 3k cals a week and not losing or feeling like I was even gaining muscle.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    They are all just estimates... hard to say which one is more correct. If the machines allows you to enter your weight, I'd generally go with that number as it factors in both your weight and your activity (the 2 more important variables).

    Otherwise, I'd use the lower of the 2 number and error on the safe/conservative side.
  • DvlDwnInGA
    DvlDwnInGA Posts: 368 Member
    Options
    Go by what your HRM is telling you. What MFP has for exercises in it's database is generally not that accurate. Your heart rate and burn is going to be set for your settings, not the MFP settings. Weight, age, etc are going to be specific to you.

    I just had this talk with my better half the other night. If you put our workout in side by side, with all things equal, as far as time on the machine and distance gone and HR the same, I would burn an additional 114 calories in that same time. Reason being is I weigh a hundred more pounds than she does.

    Don't get caught up in what MFP suggests for burns. Use your HRM. Just make sure you are not double dipping on you calories. If you said you were going to workout 30 minutes 3 times a week when you set up your goals, you should not be adding back all those additional calories and eating them all back.
  • DvlDwnInGA
    DvlDwnInGA Posts: 368 Member
    Options
    GuitarJerry wrote: »
    It doesn't matter. Use your results to determine. If it says you burn 1,000 calories, log it, and eat back 1,000. If you gain, then it's not working. So, then log half of what it says, and try again.

    HRM's are a scam. It's a Heart Rate Monitor. It measures your heart rate, not how many calories you burn. You can just as easily use the online guess of your calorie burn. Or, not worry about it and manually set your calories to a steady amount which include the calories you burn during exercise. Then, you just measure results weekly or monthly and make adjustments, as needed, periodically.

    This too. I don't even log my cardio anymore. I eat the same calories daily whether I go in and spend 35 minutes a day on the elliptical burning 600 calories or not. At the end of the month if I am losing over my goal and have found that I am hungry I will adjust my calories to eat more the next month. If I am on target I keep it the same.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't go so far as to say that HRMs are a scam, since they do what their name implies. But for calories burned, they may or may not be accurate. Your heart rate does increase when your body needs more oxygen and the only reason you need significant amounts of oxygen is because you're burning calories. So, under some conditions, your average heart rate will tell you how many calories you burned. But your heart rate can also go up when you are overheated or when you're dehydrated, or when you've had too much caffeine. The only accurate way to measure calories burned is to measure oxygen usage during the workout.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Calling them "a scam" is, IMO, a bit overstated... but I agree with the general point.

    They can be exceptionally useful in some situations, but the notion that they are a beacon of accuracy in regard to calorie burns or that they are some crucial/necessary tool for weight loss is silly.
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    Options
    I don't think they are a scam, some use different calculations than others. I found this site helpful.

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    GuitarJerry wrote: »
    I see people post all the time about how MFP overestimates, based on the HRM. I always wonder how they know their HRM isn't wrong.

    I've brought up this same point several times. No one ever responds.
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    GuitarJerry wrote: »
    I say they are a scam because people think they are accurate, and they are not. Thus, they are not called Calorie Measurement Systems. They are called Heart Rate Monitors. "Scam" could be a tad harsh, but many people don't understand that they are really just guessing, which then begs the question, why not just use online guesstimating, like here on MFP.

    I see people post all the time about how MFP overestimates, based on the HRM. I always wonder how they know their HRM isn't wrong.

    Sure, I think everyone understands that. You take what you can from them.

    It offers me motivation-i'm a data nerd. My husband and son only use their devices for mileage only, they don't care what the calories or heart rates are.

    You are right not to just blindly accept the numbers. I though I was a bad *kitten* pulling large burns. I was absolutely duped.
  • notcorky
    notcorky Posts: 49 Member
    Options
    I use a Polar FT 4 HRM. As long as you set up all the setting with your age, sex, weight, etc., it is normally fairly accurate for cardio exercises. The catch is - you burn xx amount a day just being alive so you need to take that into consideration when determining calories burned with an HRM. My BRM is 1590 so if I exercise for an hour I subtract 66 calories from what the HRM displays because I would have burned those anyway had I just sat on my rear end. At least that's how it was explained to me.
  • WhatMeRunning
    WhatMeRunning Posts: 3,538 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Truly the only way to be sure is to track your actual weight against your overall calories. Over a few weeks time you will be able to tell how accurate your calorie burn estimates are, and can adjust if needed to hone in on a more accurate number.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    Calling them "a scam" is, IMO, a bit overstated... but I agree with the general point.

    They can be exceptionally useful in some situations, but the notion that they are a beacon of accuracy in regard to calorie burns or that they are some crucial/necessary tool for weight loss is silly.

    Marketeers.

    Third up against the wall come the time of the glorious revolution :)
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    Elise4270 wrote: »
    Sure, I think everyone understands that. You take what you can from them.

    Very few seem to really.
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    Elise4270 wrote: »
    Sure, I think everyone understands that. You take what you can from them.

    Very few seem to really.

    LOL! Ya your prob right. I forget its the new year with so many people making new commitments with new gadgets.

    Maybe "everyone should understand". It is marketed in a way that makes you believe its flawless science you've just purchased.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    BootyAssemble wrote: »
    So, I have a Timex heart rate monitor (the kind that has a band that goes around your ribs, just under your bra strap) and I work out on a Bowflex treadclimber. Well, I know the commercials say it can burn a lot more calories than a regular treadmill, but the HRM (which is programmed to my MHR, age, weight, sex, & height) suggested I burned 644 in 44 minutes while staying in my cardio zone. That just seemed like a lot more considering in I post on MFP, 41minutes of Cardio would be 392.
    https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/Activity-Categories

    I would spend 5 minutes perusing the METS values of various activities in that site. I don't know if 'treadclimber' will be there but you can get an idea of what sort of activities/intensities warrant what sort of multiplier. If you think you're working out at say around the 10 METS level based on activities in that table, take your per minute BMR times 10, and that's your per minute calorie burn. Or use 9 if you want 'net burn' (above your BMR).

    Most of us don't burn more than about 10x BMR at the most intense cardio. For my BMR (around 1400, about a calorie per minute), that's about 10 calories per minute (10 times 1). So a 40 minute run, I would estimate is around 400 calories burned (or 350 net). A more leisurely activity might be 5 calories/minute.

  • beavislong
    beavislong Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    Interesting conversation. I even emailed Polar once and asked them to explain why they say thier heart rate monitors correctly estimate calorie burn. I did get a reply with a bunch of scientific data that I really did not understand. I realize my HRM may not be accrurate but if it's on the low side then I am in the clear. If nothing else the extra calories that I may burn during exercise that aren't reported are bonus calories for my weight loss.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Options
    I have heard that Timex HRMs are notorious for overestimating calorie burns, especially in women. I would think the 392 is much closer to reality than 644.

Categories