Heart Rate Monitor
Options
ferd_ttp5
Posts: 246 Member
Anyone here using a HRM? Is it a good piece of gadgetry to track calorie burn? Anyone can share their thoughts and how they eat back the calorie burn given by HRM. Buying a HRM for fitness and because im interested on that accessorie
0
Replies
-
if i was you i would just pick a number of calories to eat, do some exercise and see what the scales do... you're WAY over thinking it at the moment...2
-
I have a Fitbit Charge 2 with an HRM included. I let it decide how my heart rate affects my calories. Then, I just eat back the calories it says I've burned. I think that's a lot easier than having an independent gadget and dong a bunch of calculations.
If you're asking about just plain exercise calories, most people use the rule of thumb of eating back only half the calories burned during exercise. A bonus with the Fitbit is it can adjust to you and how many calories you actually burn. It's about 95% accurate for me so I eat 95% of the calories it says I've burned for the day.2 -
Nope, I will buy a Bluetooth fitness tracker that can connect to a phone via bluetooth, It doesn't only serve as a HRM also alarm clocks i can benefit on that use because i woke up early to exercise and it track steps overtime how much active you are. So on that device HRM is available and why and why not i shouldn't use it? I should give it a tryTavistockToad wrote: »if i was you i would just pick a number of calories to eat, do some exercise and see what the scales do... you're WAY over thinking it at the moment...1 -
I'm not buying a single HRM gadget, I'll buy the kind you got that only included HRM.I have a Fitbit Charge 2 with an HRM included. I let it decide how my heart rate affects my calories. Then, I just eat back the calories it says I've burned. I think that's a lot easier than having an independent gadget and dong a bunch of calculations.
If you're asking about just plain exercise calories, most people use the rule of thumb of eating back only half the calories burned during exercise. A bonus with the Fitbit is it can adjust to you and how many calories you actually burn. It's about 95% accurate for me so I eat 95% of the calories it says I've burned for the day.
0 -
I like my Garmin VivoActive HR. It will track all kinds of activities, I can download golf courses to it, use it swimming, running, cycling, walking the dogs and the calorie burn seem accurate based on how fast I'm losing weight.0
-
When I can run again I want to get some kind of fitness tracker but that's a good 30 pounds down the line so no big rush to get one on my part.0
-
I have an Apple Watch, which I love.
It made me realize that I was wayyyyy overestimating my activity.
I'm 5'8" and have a sedentary job, but do run/lift most days of the week. But, you know, it still doesn't cancel out sedentary...0 -
I use two kinds of heart rate monitors. I have a Fitbit Charge HR (1st version) it's great at tracking and monitoring everyday activities like sleep, steps, resting heart rate. I set my calories based on averages from Fitbit.
I find Fitbit doesn't do well at tracking my heart rate during strenuous exercises that either involves a lot of sweating or drastic heart rate changes (HIIT). In that case, I use a polar strap monitor. The kind I have is not blue tooth but there is one that is available. Wearing a strap all day and night is not very convenient, and unnecessary.
By profession I'm a data analyst, so I like accurate data during my activities and later so I can analyze and make incremental improvements.2 -
I use a Garmin HRM that links to my Garmin Edge and to Zwift, but I don't think they are using it to measure calorie burn because they have other data that will provide a more accurate figure. I hardly look at my heart rate other than to satisfy my curiosity once in a while.1
-
I have a Polar FT4 that I bought 5 years ago. Comes with a chest strap and is great for tracking burns when you're working out, but isn't something you can wear all the time like a fitbit, I've even used it swimming. I've set my calorie allowance to sedentary then added my polar workout cal readings on top (seemed fairly accurate).
I'm tempted to get something that tracks you all the time though (since the chest straps a bit of a hassle), when I first got my Polar, fitbit didn't have a HRM (at least a good one) and I was initially told HRM's that took the readings from your wrist weren't as accurate, I'm assuming the techs moved on though?
I'd be interested to hear other peoples responses.1 -
You'll find opinions widely varied, but for me, I find a HRM makes calorie burns more accurate rather than less. People that don't use them, or don't like them, tend to tell you they way overestimate your calorie burn because you can't base calorie burn on heart rate. While that is true, heart rate alone is not a good estimate of calorie burn, you can use heart rate (to estimate intensity) along with time, and type of activity to calculate calorie burns, and for some people it'll be more accurate. I probably have better luck with the estimates because I'm tall and tend to burn more calories than someone who is much shorter or smaller. All calorie burns are over estimated with devices, no matter if you use an HRM enabled one or not (because they are all just estimates), so just keep that in mind and you should do fine if you want to use one. I figure mine at 80% accurate with the HRM in use, and without I figure mine at 60% accurate and it's pretty dead on for me. Again, that's me, you'll have to track your weight gain/loss over time to figure out if your HRM enabled device is accurate or not for you, or what percentage of accuracy you can expect.
As a side note, I found mine less accurate when I was more out of shape starting out. Now that I have to work much much harder to raise my heart rate to near its max I find the HRM more accurate. Again, that's how it works for me, you'll have to judge how one will work for you.1 -
Anyone here using a HRM?
Yes. I am.Is it a good piece of gadgetry to track calorie burn?
No. But it's useful for fitness purposes!Anyone can share their thoughts and how they eat back the calorie burn given by HRM.
Only use it (to estimate calories) as a last resort. If you go for a walk or a run, you'll get better results from the distance you traveled, your weight, and the total elevation gain, because the laws of physics require a specific amount of energy to do that. Cross country skiing is an example of when you can't do that, because snow conditions have a bigger effect on your speed than effort does.Buying a HRM for fitness and because im interested on that accessorie
Figure out your lactate threshold heart rate (if your device can't auto-detect this, it'll be your average heart rate over the course of a 10K run) and set your zones from that.0 -
Spliner1969 wrote: »You'll find opinions widely varied, but for me, I find a HRM makes calorie burns more accurate rather than less. People that don't use them, or don't like them, tend to tell you they way overestimate your calorie burn because you can't base calorie burn on heart rate. While that is true, heart rate alone is not a good estimate of calorie burn, you can use heart rate (to estimate intensity) along with time, and type of activity to calculate calorie burns, and for some people it'll be more accurate.
I've been doing some tests on this. It's one thing for people to say "HRMs are super accurate" and other people to say "no they're not" but having real numbers is another thing entirely.
Test 1:
11.3 mile "steady state" bike ride, 55 minutes, 538 feet elevation gain, 147 bpm, 150 w, 493 measured calories, HRM estimated 704 calories, that's 43 % over
Test 2:
Warm up: 11:53, 125 bpm, 120 w, 85 kilo-Joules, 115 calories estimated from HR (35 % over)
HIIT: 10:48, ~160 bpm, ~450 w, 118 kilo-Joules, 145 calories estimated from HR (23 % over)
Cool down: 9:37, 129 bpm, 100 w, 57 kilo-Joules, 77 calories estimated from HR (35 % over)
Test 3:
36.5 mile "steady state" bike ride, 2 hours 46 minutes, 127 bpm, 127 w, 1,267 measured calories, 1,241 calories estimated by HRM (spot on)
The last one surprised me.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I've been doing some tests on this. It's one thing for people to say "HRMs are super accurate" and other people to say "no they're not" but having real numbers is another thing entirely.
Test 1:
11.3 mile "steady state" bike ride, 55 minutes, 538 feet elevation gain, 147 bpm, 150 w, 493 measured calories, HRM estimated 704 calories, that's 43 % over
Test 2:
Warm up: 11:53, 125 bpm, 120 w, 85 kilo-Joules, 115 calories estimated from HR (35 % over)
HIIT: 10:48, ~160 bpm, ~450 w, 118 kilo-Joules, 145 calories estimated from HR (23 % over)
Cool down: 9:37, 129 bpm, 100 w, 57 kilo-Joules, 77 calories estimated from HR (35 % over)
Test 3:
36.5 mile "steady state" bike ride, 2 hours 46 minutes, 127 bpm, 127 w, 1,267 measured calories, 1,241 calories estimated by HRM (spot on)
The last one surprised me.
Like I said, it works differently for different people, but almost always a HRM will help with more accurate calculations if the exercise you're doing is steady state cardio. For me, it does a great job and is probably 85-90% accurate, but my exercise routine keeps my HR between 120-155ish for a total of 90 minutes. If it drops much lower than say 110bpm it becomes much less accurate at the calculations I get. If I did shorter workouts with lower heart rates it might not be as accurate for me. But keep in mind it's going to be different for everyone and it going to depend on brand, app, device, height, age, weight, fitness level, etc. Nobody's individual results with an HRM can dictate the results someone else will have.
Edit: Also I'm not sure where your 'real numbers' come from, but they are no more real to me than what my app gives me. I assume you're using a power meter to gauge power output for those readings, but you should know as well as anyone that no two people have the same strength. One person may be able to output more power with their muscles at a much lower heart rate than another. It's the same argument that is used to say HRM's are inaccurate, and it can be applied to power meters as well.0 -
Spliner1969 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I've been doing some tests on this. It's one thing for people to say "HRMs are super accurate" and other people to say "no they're not" but having real numbers is another thing entirely.
Test 1:
11.3 mile "steady state" bike ride, 55 minutes, 538 feet elevation gain, 147 bpm, 150 w, 493 measured calories, HRM estimated 704 calories, that's 43 % over
Test 2:
Warm up: 11:53, 125 bpm, 120 w, 85 kilo-Joules, 115 calories estimated from HR (35 % over)
HIIT: 10:48, ~160 bpm, ~450 w, 118 kilo-Joules, 145 calories estimated from HR (23 % over)
Cool down: 9:37, 129 bpm, 100 w, 57 kilo-Joules, 77 calories estimated from HR (35 % over)
Test 3:
36.5 mile "steady state" bike ride, 2 hours 46 minutes, 127 bpm, 127 w, 1,267 measured calories, 1,241 calories estimated by HRM (spot on)
The last one surprised me.
Like I said, it works differently for different people, but almost always a HRM will help with more accurate calculations if the exercise you're doing is steady state cardio. For me, it does a great job and is probably 85-90% accurate, but my exercise routine keeps my HR between 120-155ish for a total of 90 minutes. If it drops much lower than say 110bpm it becomes much less accurate at the calculations I get. If I did shorter workouts with lower heart rates it might not be as accurate for me. But keep in mind it's going to be different for everyone and it going to depend on brand, app, device, height, age, weight, fitness level, etc. Nobody's individual results with an HRM can dictate the results someone else will have.
Edit: Also I'm not sure where your 'real numbers' come from, but they are no more real to me than what my app gives me. I assume you're using a power meter to gauge power output for those readings, but you should know as well as anyone that no two people have the same strength. One person may be able to output more power with their muscles at a much lower heart rate than another. It's the same argument that is used to say HRM's are inaccurate, and it can be applied to power meters as well.
The only "steady state cardio" is on a treadmill or something similar. In the real world one must speed up and slow down and heart rate is constantly changing but lagging behind the effort the muscles are putting in.
You seem to be saying that because different people put out different power at different heart rates that power meters are inaccurate. That would beg the question by assuming that a HRM can tell you how many calories one is burning. When a power meter is used, heart rate isn't required in the calculation because both Watts and calories are measures of energy. The inaccuracy of power meters comes in because one person can produce power more efficiently than another. While a person will never burn fewer calories than is indicated by the power they produce over time, it isn't always know how many more calories they burn. A HRM will not give us that information.0 -
Yup but mine is implanted.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Spliner1969 wrote: »You'll find opinions widely varied, but for me, I find a HRM makes calorie burns more accurate rather than less. People that don't use them, or don't like them, tend to tell you they way overestimate your calorie burn because you can't base calorie burn on heart rate. While that is true, heart rate alone is not a good estimate of calorie burn, you can use heart rate (to estimate intensity) along with time, and type of activity to calculate calorie burns, and for some people it'll be more accurate.
I've been doing some tests on this. It's one thing for people to say "HRMs are super accurate" and other people to say "no they're not" but having real numbers is another thing entirely.
Test 1:
11.3 mile "steady state" bike ride, 55 minutes, 538 feet elevation gain, 147 bpm, 150 w, 493 measured calories, HRM estimated 704 calories, that's 43 % over
Test 2:
Warm up: 11:53, 125 bpm, 120 w, 85 kilo-Joules, 115 calories estimated from HR (35 % over)
HIIT: 10:48, ~160 bpm, ~450 w, 118 kilo-Joules, 145 calories estimated from HR (23 % over)
Cool down: 9:37, 129 bpm, 100 w, 57 kilo-Joules, 77 calories estimated from HR (35 % over)
Test 3:
36.5 mile "steady state" bike ride, 2 hours 46 minutes, 127 bpm, 127 w, 1,267 measured calories, 1,241 calories estimated by HRM (spot on)
The last one surprised me.
Until you repeat the tests several times, I wouldn't put too much stock in the numbers.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »You seem to be saying that because different people put out different power at different heart rates that power meters are inaccurate. That would beg the question by assuming that a HRM can tell you how many calories one is burning. When a power meter is used, heart rate isn't required in the calculation because both Watts and calories are measures of energy. The inaccuracy of power meters comes in because one person can produce power more efficiently than another. While a person will never burn fewer calories than is indicated by the power they produce over time, it isn't always know how many more calories they burn. A HRM will not give us that information.
I can't disagree on any particular point.
In my case, I used my HRM over a period of almost a year in maintenance doing a combination of Circuit Training, Body Weight Strength Training, Walking, Jogging, and HIIT (the activities I do change depending on weather). My app tells me I frequently burn 1000-1100 calories during a 90 minute session. I keep my heart rate between 120-155 during that 90 minute session. Yes, as you stated it goes down when switching from exercise to exercise so it's not true steady state, I simply don't allow rest periods more than 30 seconds between exercises. I work out 5 days a week 90 minutes at a time. I eat at about 700 calories over my calculated maintenance level per day 7 days a week (calculated without exercise). So 1100 x 5 = 5500, 5500/7 = 785 calories. Over the period of that year, going by those estimates using my app and HRM, for me it's 90% accurate. 90% of 785 calories is roughly 707 calories. My weight does not fluctuate beyond +/- 5 lbs. So, in my case, it works well and is roughly 90% accurate. But keep in mind, my app is using my heart rate as a way to judge how hard I'm working at the selected exercise (I use Endomondo) rather than just calculating X number of calories per minute as it does when a HRM is not connected. So it makes it more accurate (again, for me). I don't allow the exercise that is auto-logged to end up in my diary, I manually change it from 1000 or whatever to 1 calorie after it's logged and have my daily calories set at maintenance + 700 calories so I have the same calories and same macros every day. It works for me.
I don't know why it works so well for me, because honestly just about everyone in the forums tells me it shouldn't. Each and every time I post how well it does work for me it starts a heated debate about HRM's and their inaccuracy. I say if you want one, get it. Use it. Pair it with a good app, and watch your targeted weight loss or weight gain over a period of time as an indicator of accuracy, not opinions on this forum (including mine).
2 -
HRMs are for training purposes. The calorie burn estimate is just a marketing strategy, nothing more. Way to inconsistent to be all that meaningful.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions