How Much Do You Trust Your HRM?
Options
CandiedCarrion
Posts: 94 Member
I was gifted a heart rate monitor a while back, perhaps a year or so ago, and I've finally gotten back into wearing it. How much should I trust it?
Today, I ran for 30 minutes, averaging about 11min/mi. I am a five foot three female, 18 years old, and I don't own a scale but I'd estimate about 140ish lbs, give or take 10. I try to exercise 3-5 times a week.
10 minutes into my run, I checked my HR and it said 191.
Now, the problem. Which calorie count do I use?
MFP Database says I burned 287 calories.
Runtastic says I burned 276.
My HRM says I burned 363.
To me, the MFP number seems most accurate, but why is my HRM show a significantly greater burn?
Today, I ran for 30 minutes, averaging about 11min/mi. I am a five foot three female, 18 years old, and I don't own a scale but I'd estimate about 140ish lbs, give or take 10. I try to exercise 3-5 times a week.
10 minutes into my run, I checked my HR and it said 191.
Now, the problem. Which calorie count do I use?
MFP Database says I burned 287 calories.
Runtastic says I burned 276.
My HRM says I burned 363.
To me, the MFP number seems most accurate, but why is my HRM show a significantly greater burn?
0
Replies
-
Have you set it up properly and were you doing steady state? And turned it on and off at start and end of run
I'd trust HRM if the above was done0 -
I believe I set it up properly.
I did turn it on at the beginning of the run, and set my heart rate then, and turned it off after I was done.0 -
You need to log your age, height, weight in it too don't you?0
-
did you enter your stats into the HRM? Does your HRM have a strap you wear around your chest?
it's all estimates...and really, you're just not used to looking at the numbers...there's not that big of a difference between what your HRM says and MFP.0 -
CandiedCarrion wrote: »I was gifted a heart rate monitor a while back, perhaps a year or so ago, and I've finally gotten back into wearing it. How much should I trust it?
Today, I ran for 30 minutes, averaging about 11min/mi. I am a five foot three female, 18 years old, and I don't own a scale but I'd estimate about 140ish lbs, give or take 10. I try to exercise 3-5 times a week.
10 minutes into my run, I checked my HR and it said 191.
Now, the problem. Which calorie count do I use?
MFP Database says I burned 287 calories.
Runtastic says I burned 276.
My HRM says I burned 363.
To me, the MFP number seems most accurate, but why is my HRM show a significantly greater burn?
Did you take away the calories you'd burn say if you just sat on the sofa instead? I do this by going to shape sense.com and entering gross cals burnt then your statistics it will then give you your actual calorie burn0 -
I alway trust my HRM, MFP is off on burn for me sometimes by 100 calories, ...trust the HRM!0
-
I always burn less that what mfp says I burn. I trust mine.0
-
You have to set your HRM: weight and height. It should be started when you start and stopped as soon as your heart rate gets back to about 100 (if you want to count the after burn).
My HRM is consistently lower than MFP or any count on a website calculator. I have a Polar FT4.
Those canned counts assume aa 150 body weight and don't adjust for male vs female.0 -
47Jacqueline wrote: »You have to set your HRM: weight and height. It should be started when you start and stopped as soon as your heart rate gets back to about 100 (if you want to count the after burn).
My HRM is consistently lower than MFP or any count on a website calculator. I have a Polar FT4.
Those canned counts assume aa 150 body weight and don't adjust for male vs female.
I have a polar ft4 too I bloody love it!!0 -
albalegume wrote: »I alway trust my HRM, MFP is off on burn for me sometimes by 100 calories, ...trust the HRM!
How do you know it's MFP that is wrong and not your HRM?
HRM like everything else is just an estimate take it as such and just use it as a general guide but don't delude yourself that it's 100% accurate0 -
Oh I never delude myself. It is more accurate then MFP.0
-
CandiedCarrion wrote: »I was gifted a heart rate monitor a while back, perhaps a year or so ago, and I've finally gotten back into wearing it. How much should I trust it?
Today, I ran for 30 minutes, averaging about 11min/mi. I am a five foot three female, 18 years old, and I don't own a scale but I'd estimate about 140ish lbs, give or take 10. I try to exercise 3-5 times a week.
10 minutes into my run, I checked my HR and it said 191.
Now, the problem. Which calorie count do I use?
MFP Database says I burned 287 calories.
Runtastic says I burned 276.
My HRM says I burned 363.
To me, the MFP number seems most accurate, but why is my HRM show a significantly greater burn?
140 lbs * .6 * 2.7 miles -> 230 calories
That you can actually run 3 miles puts you in a reasonable fitness category, and an HRM should be reasonably close because you fit the models. So I'm guessing you haven't set the HRM up properly.
Either that, or you're way off on your weight estimate.
0 -
Running calories can be estimated pretty accurately if you know weight and speed and distance, and your heart being at a higher rate isn't going to mean that you burned a lot more calories. Chances are that the HRM is not set up properly or isn't one of the more accurate ones (if it's wrist only it's not accurate). One issue is that some people naturally have higher heart rates, so it has to learn what yours is through that test you do when setting it up (I believe--I hate mine, so rarely wear it, as I find the chest strap uncomfortable).
Anyway, I'm 5'3 also and run a lot, so I can say that at your weight and less than 3 miles, it's going to be less than 300 calories. (Generally a good rule of thumb if you are less than 150 is that your calories burnt from running will be less than total miles times 100.)0 -
CandiedCarrion wrote: »I was gifted a heart rate monitor a while back, perhaps a year or so ago, and I've finally gotten back into wearing it. How much should I trust it?
Today, I ran for 30 minutes, averaging about 11min/mi. I am a five foot three female, 18 years old, and I don't own a scale but I'd estimate about 140ish lbs, give or take 10. I try to exercise 3-5 times a week.
10 minutes into my run, I checked my HR and it said 191.
Now, the problem. Which calorie count do I use?
MFP Database says I burned 287 calories.
Runtastic says I burned 276.
My HRM says I burned 363.
To me, the MFP number seems most accurate, but why is my HRM show a significantly greater burn?
140 lbs * .6 * 2.7 miles -> 230 calories
That you can actually run 3 miles puts you in a reasonable fitness category, and an HRM should be reasonably close because you fit the models. So I'm guessing you haven't set the HRM up properly.
Either that, or you're way off on your weight estimate.
No matter how many times the verified MET table data it the Runner's World formula are presented people here will continue to swear by HRM numbers. Marketing trumped science and logic in that case.0 -
cant you link your HRM to runstastic? I have Polar Bluetooth HRM linked to runtastic. So far, it has worked great0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions