HRM against NO HRM??

Options
AmandaLenn86
AmandaLenn86 Posts: 57 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Ok so i have a question, I have been wokring out since i started this journey, i do not own a HRM, I usually go off of the Gym equipment, I was curious to know how off they actually are, And if anyone was using the gym machines before and then got a HRM what the difference was?! i just wanted to know if getting a HRM is all that important.

Thanks :)
«1

Replies

  • innerfashionista
    innerfashionista Posts: 451 Member
    Options
    I hardly ever have access to the machines, but when I do, they seem to be about the same.
  • getfitdiva
    getfitdiva Posts: 1,148 Member
    Options
    Huge different I just started using an HRM with a chest strap and let me tell you. The gym equipment (treadmill & elliptical) may count about 1/3 of the calories you are actually burning. Which is a great thing but I know an HRM is a great investment.
  • foxxybrown
    foxxybrown Posts: 838 Member
    Options
    The machines always show a lower output for me, like half. I don't put a 100% faith in my HRM though.
  • redrustdobe
    redrustdobe Posts: 43
    Options
    Machines are pretty good, especially if you are entering your age and weight. I have noticed a huge difference in circuit training, which I use for HIIT videos. MFP gave me 190 for 20 minutes, while my HRM has ranged from 180-280 all depending on how hard I was pushing through the workout.
  • tammyr76
    tammyr76 Posts: 174
    Options
    I don't workout at the gym but the MFP calories and my HRM is off by about a hundred..if I do 20 mins of aerobics MFP says I burn about 220 my HRM says I burn about 345.....I always go by the lowest calories just to stay safely within my limit....
    Hope this helps you some...
  • The_Saint
    The_Saint Posts: 358 Member
    Options
    Huge different I just started using an HRM with a chest strap and let me tell you. The gym equipment (treadmill & elliptical) may count about 1/3 of the calories you are actually burning. Which is a great thing but I know an HRM is a great investment.

    Agreed!
    HRM is more personal to me than the gym equipment. I feel like its actually monitoring my heart rate for me, not general heart rates for the general populous.


    PLUS! if you have a HRM you can see actual burn for weight training.
    I had a day that I did some serious legs work in 55 mns + 30 mins of cardio burned 1345 calories in that time.
    Max HR at 185....think that was the point where I almost passed out.
  • JustMichelleB
    JustMichelleB Posts: 290
    Options
    The gym equipment vastly overestimates the burn in many instances, by usually 100-200+ cal (ime)
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    They can be off by as little as 1% and by as much as 150% depending on the machine and the person.
  • hilhall822
    hilhall822 Posts: 116 Member
    Options
    My HRM is higher than what MFP and the gym equipment say- usually 100-300 higher (depending on how long I go).
  • hilhall822
    hilhall822 Posts: 116 Member
    Options
    My HRM is higher than what MFP and the gym equipment say- usually 100-300 higher (depending on how long I go).
  • dlangenfeld
    dlangenfeld Posts: 119
    Options
    The machines at my gym are always WAY too high compared to my heart rate monitor. I would trust a HRM more.
  • Flyntiggr
    Flyntiggr Posts: 898 Member
    Options
    I've had the opposite problem of most folks - my HRM is significantly lower than both MFP and the treadmill. I think they are a better way to track, as they take into account gender, weight, HR, age, etc....
  • jaimejean478
    jaimejean478 Posts: 152 Member
    Options
    I often use the arc trainer at the gym... and the calories are usually way off. Last night the machine told me 452 calories in 40 minutes, when my HRM told me 378. MFP says 531 for 40 minutes on an elliptical. This is why I cringe when I see ladies relying very heavily on the MFP values.
  • chevy88grl
    chevy88grl Posts: 3,937 Member
    Options
    Since the treadmill at my gym asks for weight and such - I always go by the number it gives me. I figure it has a pretty accurate idea as to how much I weigh, how fast I'm walking/running, the incline, etc. I don't use MFP's numbers for that because they are WAY off my treadmill.

    I want a HRM simply because I think I burn WAY more calories than I think I do based on the fact that every time I raise my calories, I lose more weight. But, a HRM isn't in the budget right now -- so I just go by the machines (or I'll even estimate a little lower just to be safe).
  • McKayMachina
    McKayMachina Posts: 2,670 Member
    Options
    I take my HR manually in 15-second intervals 5 times during exercise, (multiply by 4 to get the full 60-second value) average it and enter my info here: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    I like that I didn't have to spend $$ on a HRM. :)
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Options
    I used the machine from about January until May, and I lost weight... then I got an HRM, so that I could see how much I burning during my sessions with my trainer. Since I became so addicted to the thing, I wore it on the treadmill and the elliptical and found that for the treadmill the HRM is under what the machine says and for the elliptical the HRM is higher then what the machine is telling me. By under, for the treadmill I mean like 50 calories.. the elliptical theres a little more then a 200 calorie difference.

    So honestly, if its not in your budget right now, I wouldn't worry too much... but if your a bit of a nerd like me who likes to see whats going on, then its a good investment.
  • ilovethelaw07
    ilovethelaw07 Posts: 37
    Options
    I am still pretty confused about this myself. I usually use the elliptical, and the machine is usually the lowest for calories burned, then my HRM, and MFP is always the highest. I have been putting in the HRM calories, but trying not to eat back any more than the machine tells me just in case. I bought a watch version instead of a strap version, so I'm not sure if it's as accurate as the pricier ones.
  • 4jenniferk
    4jenniferk Posts: 307 Member
    Options
    I just purchased a HRM Polar FT7 which is something I should have done ages ago..... as I am a heart patient. My point like alot of the others is there is a big difference. On some machines like the cybex ARC my calorie burn per my HRM is less but overall on things like the elliptical, treadmill, stairstepper are usually higher. I get to add in more personal information and I love that it tracks things like my strength training that this site doesn't give you any calorie burn credit for. I can now do run/walks around the neighborhood and get a great accurate count on the calories, heartrate info (which is important for me) and true amount of time I spent doing it as well as the DVD's like Jillian Michaels that I do. I would absolutely suggest it and I think the people on MFP for steering into the direction of a great one to start off with.
  • BethanyMasters
    BethanyMasters Posts: 519 Member
    Options
    I dont think a HRM is absolutely necessary but I recently got one and its a great tool to have. Theres def. a difference between my monitor and the machines and its nice to be able to track my burn during circuit training.

    They dont have to be a huge investment either. I got my polar ft4 off ebay for 50 dollars unused and still in the original packaging. You just gotta keep an eye out for good deals.
  • DropsOJupiter
    DropsOJupiter Posts: 131
    Options
    I have to agree with the pro side to a HRM. Beause it is personalized, I believe it is more accurate and mine (my preference is the Polar F7) is usually higher output. However, I don't adjust the gym machines to my weight so that is probably why. I also agree that it isn't essential but a tool for assessing.

Categories