Orange Theory Heart Monitor.

fstrickl
fstrickl Posts: 883 Member
edited November 28 in Health and Weight Loss
Hi!

I’ve been going to Orange Theory for the past two weeks and I really like it. I like that you can use the heart monitor outside of the studio. I’ve done a few home workouts with it and I’m just wondering how accurate it is. It’s grossly higher than what my Fitbit Alta HR tells me, but I’ve always felt the Alta HR is a little low. Anyone heard anything or have any thoughts?

Replies

  • NextRightThing714
    NextRightThing714 Posts: 355 Member
    Do you have the chest strap or the arm band?
  • fstrickl
    fstrickl Posts: 883 Member
    Do you have the chest strap or the arm band?

    Good question. I have the chest strap.
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,259 Member
    The chest strap is more accurate. Fitbits are terrible for heart rate monitoring at higher heart rate levels (like workout levels).
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Some find the Fitbit to lose accuracy either over a certain line that may not be that high, or while at higher levels it'll just drop out for chunks of time.

    Some find it works just fine, or movement of wrist unit can improve things.

    But good comparison method with better chest strap. Now you know.

    Curious what the avgHR and maxHR said for the workout in both cases?
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    fstrickl wrote: »
    Hi!

    I’ve been going to Orange Theory for the past two weeks and I really like it. I like that you can use the heart monitor outside of the studio. I’ve done a few home workouts with it and I’m just wondering how accurate it is. It’s grossly higher than what my Fitbit Alta HR tells me, but I’ve always felt the Alta HR is a little low. Anyone heard anything or have any thoughts?

    Depends on what type of session you're doing, but in general in an OTF context you might as well throw a couple of dice. I suspect it's significantly overestimating.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Higher HR or higher in terms of calorie guestimates?

    You can just manually count your heartbeats to check HR accuracy, I find my neck easier than my wrist to pick up my pulse.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    The chest strap is more accurate. Fitbits are terrible for heart rate monitoring at higher heart rate levels (like workout levels).

    The issue with chest strap is more accurate statements is that the impact is negligible. Your talking about being within the margin for error.

    The issue is more about whether the activity is one where HR data has a meaningful relationship with energy expenditure. In OTF there isn't a strong correlation.

    A micrometer is more accurate than a steel rule, but that doesn't help you to determine the colour of the thing that you're touching.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,598 Member
    fstrickl wrote: »
    Hi!

    I’ve been going to Orange Theory for the past two weeks and I really like it. I like that you can use the heart monitor outside of the studio. I’ve done a few home workouts with it and I’m just wondering how accurate it is. It’s grossly higher than what my Fitbit Alta HR tells me, but I’ve always felt the Alta HR is a little low. Anyone heard anything or have any thoughts?

    Are you asking about heart rate measurement, or calorie estimation?

    If heart rate measurement accuracy is the question, I agree with the "check against your manually taken pulse" and "chest belt likely better than wrist" answers.

    If calorie estimation accuracy is the question, my answer is that neither would be accurate, and I'd probably use the lower of the two (or the most convenient) as a guess unless I had a better idea from elsewhere (comparing the MFP database estimate for circuit training would maybe give you a 3rd data point to consider, as possibly lower yet (who knows)). For calorie estimation purposes, just pick one, be consistent about how much you eat back (zero is usually a bad plan), track for 4-6 weeks, then adjust as necessary to get a healthy rate of weight loss (if loss is your goal).

    It would be a good plan to answer heybales' questions above, too, and see how he responds.
  • NextRightThing714
    NextRightThing714 Posts: 355 Member
    What she said. ^

    Also, I would make sure your stats (height, weight) are accurate in both the OTBeat app and Fitbit app.
  • fstrickl
    fstrickl Posts: 883 Member

    heybales wrote: »
    Some find the Fitbit to lose accuracy either over a certain line that may not be that high, or while at higher levels it'll just drop out for chunks of time.

    Some find it works just fine, or movement of wrist unit can improve things.

    But good comparison method with better chest strap. Now you know.

    Curious what the avgHR and maxHR said for the workout in both cases?

    I’m heading to OT this evening, I’ll remember to take a look at both and let you know. I’ve noticed, as you mentioned, that sometimes both heart rates are very similar, but then Fitbit will drop to like 99 when the chest strap says something way higher.

    For those wondering, I’m primarily concerned about calories burned. I’m trying to lose weight. And while I don’t plan to eat back all the calories, there’s no way I can’t eat back any. I’ll be a grouch-a-saurous if I don’t!

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    fstrickl wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    Some find the Fitbit to lose accuracy either over a certain line that may not be that high, or while at higher levels it'll just drop out for chunks of time.

    Some find it works just fine, or movement of wrist unit can improve things.

    But good comparison method with better chest strap. Now you know.

    Curious what the avgHR and maxHR said for the workout in both cases?

    I’m heading to OT this evening, I’ll remember to take a look at both and let you know. I’ve noticed, as you mentioned, that sometimes both heart rates are very similar, but then Fitbit will drop to like 99 when the chest strap says something way higher.

    For those wondering, I’m primarily concerned about calories burned. I’m trying to lose weight. And while I don’t plan to eat back all the calories, there’s no way I can’t eat back any. I’ll be a grouch-a-saurous if I don’t!

    Despite what OTF site says their calorie claims are led by their marketing department and not led by science.
    "Afterburn" and interval training effects are massively over-hyped and exaggerated.

    Take their calorie claims with a healthy dose of scepticism.
    Might be worth validating what you are actually able to do in an hour on a more reliable/believable piece of equipment (rower or power meter equipped bike) or running for example.
  • FireOpalCO
    FireOpalCO Posts: 641 Member
    edited September 2018
    sijomial wrote: »

    Despite what OTF site says their calorie claims are led by their marketing department and not led by science.
    "Afterburn" and interval training effects are massively over-hyped and exaggerated.

    Take their calorie claims with a healthy dose of scepticism.
    Might be worth validating what you are actually able to do in an hour on a more reliable/believable piece of equipment (rower or power meter equipped bike) or running for example .

    They have largely dropped claims about after burn. The calorie burn report after a workout are strictly for the workout itself, not any extra. Their formula for calorie burn is pretty standard. An hour combined of treadmill, rowing machine, and weights is burning about 450 calories on average for me, which is not high for my stats.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    fstrickl wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    Some find the Fitbit to lose accuracy either over a certain line that may not be that high, or while at higher levels it'll just drop out for chunks of time.

    Some find it works just fine, or movement of wrist unit can improve things.

    But good comparison method with better chest strap. Now you know.

    Curious what the avgHR and maxHR said for the workout in both cases?

    I’m heading to OT this evening, I’ll remember to take a look at both and let you know. I’ve noticed, as you mentioned, that sometimes both heart rates are very similar, but then Fitbit will drop to like 99 when the chest strap says something way higher.

    For those wondering, I’m primarily concerned about calories burned. I’m trying to lose weight. And while I don’t plan to eat back all the calories, there’s no way I can’t eat back any. I’ll be a grouch-a-saurous if I don’t!

    Just saw the reference to the fact they are doing interval type things (hence the prior marketing of after-burn).

    HR-based calorie burn formula are at best only valid for steady-state aerobic exercise with HR the same for 2-4 min at a time.
    The farther removed you get from that the more inflated the calorie burn math is.

    So like lifting is anaerobic and HR all over the place (if doing it right) - exact opposite.
    Intervals of cardio exercise - rowing, running, biking - that's moved away too and inflated.

    If a rowing machine has watts given for your total workout - you can get accurate calorie burn there.
    If treadmill gives time and distance - you can get accurate there.
    Weights - you can log circuit or traditional and get an idea there.

    Do that once and now you have decent calorie burn formula you wouldn't need to start at 50% for eat-back.
  • CricketClover
    CricketClover Posts: 388 Member
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »

    Despite what OTF site says their calorie claims are led by their marketing department and not led by science.
    "Afterburn" and interval training effects are massively over-hyped and exaggerated.

    Take their calorie claims with a healthy dose of scepticism.
    Might be worth validating what you are actually able to do in an hour on a more reliable/believable piece of equipment (rower or power meter equipped bike) or running for example .

    They have largely dropped claims about after burn. The calorie burn report after a workout are strictly for the workout itself, not any extra. Their formula for calorie burn is pretty standard. An hour combined of treadmill, rowing machine, and weights is burning about 450 calories on average for me, which is not high for my stats.

    I agree, I don't think the calories I burn during the actual workout to be way off base. I am normally between 500-600. One day when their system was down I just tracked with my watch and it was around the same amount. I don't put too much into the "after burn", but people do use the amount of time spent in certain zones to obtain that "after burn" as motivation to push harder and in my opinion, that isn't a bad thing.

    Now, on another note. They just updated the formula used to max HR and I am now spending a lot of time in the red zone, so I now how to ignore the color and just look at my actual HR so that I don't get scared and pull back. I don't like the new formula but I know it has helped others get out of the green zone more often.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »

    Despite what OTF site says their calorie claims are led by their marketing department and not led by science.
    "Afterburn" and interval training effects are massively over-hyped and exaggerated.

    Take their calorie claims with a healthy dose of scepticism.
    Might be worth validating what you are actually able to do in an hour on a more reliable/believable piece of equipment (rower or power meter equipped bike) or running for example .

    They have largely dropped claims about after burn. The calorie burn report after a workout are strictly for the workout itself, not any extra. Their formula for calorie burn is pretty standard. An hour combined of treadmill, rowing machine, and weights is burning about 450 calories on average for me, which is not high for my stats.

    Have they? Was it even worse before then? ;)
    This is still on their site....
    "HEART RATE BASED INTERVAL TRAINING
    Backed by the science of Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption (or EPOC), Orangetheory’s heart rate monitored training is designed to maintain a target zone that stimulates metabolism and increases energy. We call it the afterburn. Our members burn an estimated 500 to 1,000 calories in 60 minutes.* And keep burning calories for up to 36 hours."
  • mspris2u
    mspris2u Posts: 161 Member
    I got to OTF. I use their HRM on my arm but I have a Polar HRM with a chest strap that I've been using for years. They are usually pretty close calorie wise with the Polar HRM giving me maybe 10-15 more calories than the OTF one. I average around 450 calories per workout depending on what type of workout it is that day.
  • This content has been removed.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,598 Member
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »

    Despite what OTF site says their calorie claims are led by their marketing department and not led by science.
    "Afterburn" and interval training effects are massively over-hyped and exaggerated.

    Take their calorie claims with a healthy dose of scepticism.
    Might be worth validating what you are actually able to do in an hour on a more reliable/believable piece of equipment (rower or power meter equipped bike) or running for example .

    They have largely dropped claims about after burn. The calorie burn report after a workout are strictly for the workout itself, not any extra. Their formula for calorie burn is pretty standard. An hour combined of treadmill, rowing machine, and weights is burning about 450 calories on average for me, which is not high for my stats.

    I agree, I don't think the calories I burn during the actual workout to be way off base. I am normally between 500-600. One day when their system was down I just tracked with my watch and it was around the same amount. I don't put too much into the "after burn", but people do use the amount of time spent in certain zones to obtain that "after burn" as motivation to push harder and in my opinion, that isn't a bad thing.

    Now, on another note. They just updated the formula used to max HR and I am now spending a lot of time in the red zone, so I now how to ignore the color and just look at my actual HR so that I don't get scared and pull back. I don't like the new formula but I know it has helped others get out of the green zone more often.

    Have they done something to estimate your actual HRmax, or are they using age-estimated numbers?

    If age-estimated, odds are high that the colored zones are inaccurate for quite a few people. If age-estimated, comparing to the "talk test" may give you some idea if it's close for you, or not. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8vRWNb0suE - video starts with talking head, but quickly goes to demo example).

    If I used age-estimated ranges, I'd never get a decent workout: Age-estimated max is 20-some bpm below actual max. (It's just genetics, so this is not a self-congratulatory thing. ;) ).
  • I use the chest strap. I find it's very similar in terms of read out (of both HR and calories) to my Garmin, which I also wear. Usually the total read out is within 10-15 calories (ie OTF will say I burned 485 and my Garmin will say 470).

    OTF is a GREAT workout. The "after burn" thing is probably just marketing hype, but the actual workout is phenomenal and if you give it your all, you'll definitely see increases in speed, endurance and strength.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,563 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    If I used age-estimated ranges, I'd never get a decent workout: Age-estimated max is 20-some bpm below actual max. (It's just genetics, so this is not a self-congratulatory thing. ;) ).

    Same here. It used to freak me out when I started tracking my heartrate during cardio (moderate steady state was in the "max effort" zone) and I worried I would have a heart attack. The more I read up on it the more I realized that's "normal" for plenty of people, especially as we get older and stay fitter.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    If I used age-estimated ranges, I'd never get a decent workout: Age-estimated max is 20-some bpm below actual max. (It's just genetics, so this is not a self-congratulatory thing. ;) ).

    I'm the same, my age based MHR is lower than my lactate threshold HR. If I used the OTF ranges I'd barely be getting any training effect.
  • divcara
    divcara Posts: 357 Member
    I use the chest strap at OTF. My Fitbit Blaze and OTF heart rate is almost identical. But OTF always says I burned like 200 more calories than my Fitbit, which I tend to think is overestimated. Good luck with OTF! I've been taking over three years and lost 30 pounds and so much body fat. (As well as fueling my workouts with eating well, etc.)

    The biggest thing was the more conditioned I got, the harder it was (is) to get my heart rate up and get orange. So it's really about working your zones. Lift heavy and challenge yourself. I'm not sure about the whole after burn thing, but it definitely increased my level of fitness and helped motivate me to eat well to really fuel my workouts.

    I would also go by how your body feels - play around with different treadmill speeds and see how you feel, regardless of what either heart rate monitor says. You'll get to know your body and how much pushing you can do.
  • fstrickl
    fstrickl Posts: 883 Member
    Thanks for all your tips. Here’s my stats from my workout today (btw I’m 30 female, 5‘5 and 169 lbs).

    b0g7nr9kgyjm.png
    02vzovjxgtiy.png


    Clearly the Fitbit just picked up the treadmill portion of the workout. What I think I’ve gleaned from all your comments is to take the calories with a grain of salt. I never quite believed the afterburn was as good as they say (if it’s too good to be true...). But also that I know my body best, and that whether or not my HR was actually in the red zone (and at one point I thought I was going to fall off the treadmill so I’m pretty sure I was working hard) push myself the whole time and lift heavy. Same as everything really, think twice, have fun, and give it your all! (*insert motivational high five and cheeses grin here*)
  • divcara
    divcara Posts: 357 Member
    Graph looks really good @fstrickl! Looks like your average heart rate was almost the same on both HR monitors, And that's a great average heart rate for the majority of the workout! I think mine hits "orange" when my heart rate is 161 - but you only want to be in orange/red for 12-20 minutes of the workout, so that all looks perfect!

    Can you set your Fitbit for "Workout" instead of "Run" ? Then it should capture the entire workout, not just the treadmill portion. (Unless that is what you wanted to see of course!)
  • fstrickl
    fstrickl Posts: 883 Member
    Thanks @divcara ! I was tired but felt good after!

    I didn’t even think to track my workout, I just let it auto track. When I go on Thursday I’ll have to actually track it.
  • amyepdx
    amyepdx Posts: 750 Member
    edited September 2018
    gnjswnk4q338.png
    fstrickl wrote: »
    Thanks @divcara ! I was tired but felt good after!

    I didn’t even think to track my workout, I just let it auto track. When I go on Thursday I’ll have to actually track it.

    I let mine auto-track too. I assume the Fitbit calorie amount is the adjustment over my NEAT rather than the entire burn from OT.

    Here’s my chart from tonight.

    Interesting how even though I had more time in the orange, i burnt fewer cals (even though I weigh more) because my “max” heart rate is so much lower since I’m 59.

    My total adjustment for the day was 543 cals though because I had 6000 steps before my workout I guess.

    Edited - just looked at yours again and saw all the red zone time! I definitely can’t get there so that’s why your cals were higher - duh!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Yes the Fitbit cal adjustment is merely the daily total according to Fitbit less the NEAT MFP estimated you'd burn anyway.

    And yes - that calc of HRmax has a big effect on calorie burn estimate.

    If @fstrickl has a calculated HRmax that is actually lower than estimated, then she really spent more time in the red, and burned more calories than estimated.

    If your HRmax is actually higher genetically than calculated, then you would have burned less than estimated.

    So while the zone time does give a clue as to why it calculated more calorie burn - doesn't mean in reality more was burned.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,563 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    Yes the Fitbit cal adjustment is merely the daily total according to Fitbit less the NEAT MFP estimated you'd burn anyway.

    And yes - that calc of HRmax has a big effect on calorie burn estimate.

    If @fstrickl has a calculated HRmax that is actually lower than estimated, then she really spent more time in the red, and burned more calories than estimated.

    If your HRmax is actually higher genetically than calculated, then you would have burned less than estimated.

    So while the zone time does give a clue as to why it calculated more calorie burn - doesn't mean in reality more was burned.

    Thanks, this answers a question for me.
  • divcara
    divcara Posts: 357 Member
    @fstrickl, Oh yes, try setting the workout feature when you start the class and hit finish when it's over. Then you'll have a nice summary (and heart rate summary) of your entire workout, and can compare to your OTF stats. It's all the same amount of work and calories burned in the end, but it's kind of interesting to see and get a feel for how your body feels during different parts of the workout.
This discussion has been closed.