Exercise machines vs HRMs

GreenGettingLean
GreenGettingLean Posts: 252 Member
edited October 1 in Health and Weight Loss
How big is the difference between what a typical heart rate monitor says you burned and what the elliptical/treadmill says you burned? I have read that HRMs are obviously more accurate, but do they really make that big of a difference? I am in a plateau and think that maybe I'm not burning as many calories as I think I am. I've never used a HRM so any advice is appreciated!

Replies

  • JustMichelleB
    JustMichelleB Posts: 290
    I'm a 5'3" female, weight ~132#, and the treadmill says I burn 150-250 cal more than my HRM. I do not trust machines to tel lme how much i burn - they don't know my age/weight/sex/heartrate, so how could they be accurate, kwim?
  • bobbybdoe
    bobbybdoe Posts: 472 Member
    HRMs with chest straps are a lot more accurate.
  • Goal4Good
    Goal4Good Posts: 115
    As far as cardio such as running, jogging or walking goes, my HRM and the MFP site comes out roughly the same. The only exception is strength training. The MFP calculator comes in WAY low for me, on calorie burn in comparison to my HRM. That is probably because when I do strength training, I do NOT rest nor stop between sets. I move constanty cause I wanted to make it a cardio workout as well as a strength training session. So.....I started entering in "circuit training, general" when I do weights and then I get a more accurate figure that comes in line with the HRM.
  • GreenGettingLean
    GreenGettingLean Posts: 252 Member
    I'm a 5'3" female, weight ~132#, and the treadmill says I burn 150-250 cal more than my HRM. I do not trust machines to tel lme how much i burn - they don't know my age/weight/sex/heartrate, so how could they be accurate, kwim?

    Wow that's a pretty huge difference! We're almost the same size so I'm sure my calories are also overinflated...so THAT'S what I'm doing wrong! :grumble:
  • tigerblue
    tigerblue Posts: 1,526 Member
    I had the same issue before I got my HRM. I was slowly gaining while staying within my calorie limits (according to the machines). Then when I got my HRM I saw that the machines were at least 100 calories too high for a 30 minute workout.

    On the plus side--my HRM says I burn more than what the website figures for me!

    Moral of the story--get a good HRM as soon as you can afford one. Make sure it has a chest strap.
  • aimeeturner
    aimeeturner Posts: 225 Member
    In a typical 30 minute cardio session, the machine tells me that I burn roughly 400 calories but my Polar HRM says that I burn closer to 300. So, I always advise getting one if you can afford it. If not, maybe save up or request it as a birthday gift :) It is a great investment!
  • Goal4Good
    Goal4Good Posts: 115
    I was also in a plateau for 3 weeks. I stopped eating all the calories I burned during my daily workouts. (I like to eat so I used them all up every day.) Two days a week I continued exercising but did not eat ANY of my exercise calories burned. Three days a week I ate half of them and the remaining days I ate them all. The following week I lost 3 lbs in one week.
  • yeabby
    yeabby Posts: 643 Member
    Because I'm 4'11" and no where near the size of an average male (who I assume the machines are set for) the hrm is way more accurate for me. Machines are usually off by a couple hundred. That being said MFP is usually even more off.

    If accuracy is important to you invest in a decent hrm with chest strap, that asks for age, weight, height, gender, and preferably vo2max.
  • scottppa
    scottppa Posts: 31 Member
    HRM with chest strap all the way -- the difference in accuracy of measurement is significant. I started like you and went by the machines and wasn't losing. The machine estimate is usually way off for me.
  • happychix
    happychix Posts: 27 Member
    My HRM is always 100-200 calories less than the treadmill, ellptical or stationary bikes.
  • GreenGettingLean
    GreenGettingLean Posts: 252 Member
    okay so I will definitely be buying a heart rate monitor ASAP! what's the deal with the chest strap though - does that get uncomfortable?
  • EmBlazes
    EmBlazes Posts: 374 Member
    Hi

    Good question :smile:

    For me the difference is quite huge... the other day I did an hour with my personal trainer which I log as circuit training and my actual burn was 800 calories (on my HRM) but MFP had a calorie burn of over 1100 (which I over-typed). It's the same kind of thing with the gym machines although if you don't have a HRM then it's better than guessing.

    I think it depends on lots of things like how fit you already are and your age, weight, height etc. so it's good to use it as a guide.

    Perhaps experiment by not eating all of your exercise calories for a week and see if that helps?

    Emilie
  • EmBlazes
    EmBlazes Posts: 374 Member
    okay so I will definitely be buying a heart rate monitor ASAP! what's the deal with the chest strap though - does that get uncomfortable?

    It depends on the type of HRM. I have a Polar HRM with a chest strap and after the first few sessions you honestly don't know you are wearing a chest strap. I have a fairly generous bust :blushing: as well but I still haven't had any problems with the chest strap - it fits comfortably under my bra.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    I don't really think HRM's are any more accurate than any other method of calculating calorie burn. All they do is use your heart rate to estimate effort, and then use the same exact formula as any other calorie burn calculator. The treadmill uses speed and incline to estimate effort. Even the best HRM's have a 10% margin of error (that hundred calorie difference? Might not be different at all.) Also, HRM's are designed to track cardio, they are wholly inaccurate at tracking strength training burn, as you don't burn calories while strength training in the same way that you burn them with aerobic work.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    How big is the difference between what a typical heart rate monitor says you burned and what the elliptical/treadmill says you burned? I have read that HRMs are obviously more accurate, but do they really make that big of a difference? I am in a plateau and think that maybe I'm not burning as many calories as I think I am. I've never used a HRM so any advice is appreciated!
    Unless the machines are calibrated daily (because of the massive use) then the burns are going to be off. You could step on 2 identical machines and do the same exact workout and end up with different readings.
  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    It depends on the machine. The treadmill in our gym is fairly accurate as long as I'm doing a higher intensity workout like running or run/walk but if I'm just walking, it overestimates by 50-100 calories. The treadclimber and elliptical have about the same margin of error regardless of intensity. On the other hand, the stationary bikes tend to underestimate by about half for some reason. All of these variances on machines that ask for your weight and sometimes age too - and picking up my heart rate from the chest strap transmitter.

    Sure HRMs aren't 100% but they're about as accurate as you can get.
  • KateHubb
    KateHubb Posts: 366 Member
    Typically there is about a 20-30 calorie burn difference between what my elliptical says and my HRM, but I still go with my HRM.
  • bprague
    bprague Posts: 564 Member
    I actually found that my treadmill at the gym UNDER-estimated my calorie burn by about 100 calories in a 30 minute session. The bike overestimated my calories burn by 100 calories or so... and so on. So the moral of the story is that heart rate monitors with chest straps will probably be more accurate than the machines.
  • smadrigal04
    smadrigal04 Posts: 72
    I would trust my HRM to be more accurate than the machines...the machines numbers are never close to my HRM.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories