HRM problem

Options
psb13
psb13 Posts: 629
in Fitness and Exercise
I purchased a HRM back in May soon after starting MFP. It wasn't either the cheapest or most expensive available but it was what I could afford. It's a Sportline wristwatch style that requires me to press a button for several seconds to get a reading. It has always read my heart rate accurately when verified with a manually checked HR. I normally either bicycle or use the elliptical for cardio and check my HR several times a minute for accuracy. I have been on a plateau for the past month and became concerned about the accuracy of the HRM so i purchased a different one-Garmin FR60 with a chest strap. For the past week I have been using both for comparison. They both give me the same HR readings. However, the Garmin has been calculating the calories burned much lower than the other one but the Sportline (wristwatch style) calculates much closer to the number that MFP does. If I have been logging too many calories burned and eating them back, that would explain the plateau, but MFP numbers are closer the the ones the older wristwatch style has recorded. I would really appreciate peoples opinions on this. Thanks in advance for your input.

Replies

  • K1Teacher
    K1Teacher Posts: 324 Member
    Options
    I think you found your problem. Go with the reading from the new HRM with chest strap. Definitely more accurate....
  • dancingdeer
    dancingdeer Posts: 379 Member
    Options
    I would trust the chest strap before what the wristband one, or MFP shows. I have a Polar with a chest strap....sometimes the calories burned are more than what MFP shows, and sometimes they're less.

    Try not eating back all of your calories. If you don't have a deficit, you might have a problem losing.

    Best of luck!
  • killagb
    killagb Posts: 3,280 Member
    Options
    Chest strap HRMs > HRMs without one and MFP's estimates.
  • Pickedlast4gym
    Pickedlast4gym Posts: 41
    Options
    I think that mfp waaaaay over estimates the number of calories......on your older watch, do you plug in your height, weight and age as you do with the garmin? I wear a polar, and have a garmin as well. Your calorie burn is dependent on your heart rate, the higher your heart rate the higher you burn. I have set both my polar and my garmin to my Goal weight.....and just use those calories if i must......i generally try to stay at 1200 per day! Also, older models, as well as the gym....generally calculate calories based on a higher level.....good luck...also, one more thing i just recalled!!!!! I was training for an endurance event....as I got better at the event, my heart rate was lower.....for example...running 11.9 mph... At first, i was closerto the estimate..but as our level of fitness increases, we burn less calories!!!!! So my friend....i would use the hrm to make sure you are in a good fat burning zone...and...strp it up a notch!!!!!!
  • donrdon
    donrdon Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    I have a garmin 405cx and I've also found that calorie numbers are quite a bit higher on MFP. Also the calories burned that most exercise machines give you are also high. I'd go with the count you get from your Garmin
  • Raf702
    Raf702 Posts: 196 Member
    Options
    I purchased a HRM back in May soon after starting MFP. It wasn't either the cheapest or most expensive available but it was what I could afford. It's a Sportline wristwatch style that requires me to press a button for several seconds to get a reading. It has always read my heart rate accurately when verified with a manually checked HR. I normally either bicycle or use the elliptical for cardio and check my HR several times a minute for accuracy. I have been on a plateau for the past month and became concerned about the accuracy of the HRM so i purchased a different one-Garmin FR60 with a chest strap. For the past week I have been using both for comparison. They both give me the same HR readings. However, the Garmin has been calculating the calories burned much lower than the other one but the Sportline (wristwatch style) calculates much closer to the number that MFP does. If I have been logging too many calories burned and eating them back, that would explain the plateau, but MFP numbers are closer the the ones the older wristwatch style has recorded. I would really appreciate peoples opinions on this. Thanks in advance for your input.

    The thing with calculators they all have calculate differently. Some off between 5-10, 10-15. What is your maximum heart if you know? Basic rule of thumb, 65-70% of your max heart rate will aid in fat loss, etc. But that just a base point to start with, and everyone is different. And all respond differently to exercise routines.

    How is your current calorie consumption? What's your maintenance calories? Reason why, is I don't follow heart rate monitors, I just follow my nutrition in order to determine how much weight I want to lose. But if you really want to monitor it electronically then by all means definitely use one for peace of mind. But I guarantee you, with out it and focusing on your calorie intake you will significantly drop weight. And you will overcome any plateau you have reached. And you can still continue to do your daily exercise routines, without having to stress about adjusting the intensity of it.
  • balancebean
    balancebean Posts: 96 Member
    Options
    How funny you post this today. Last week I bought the same one and just returned it today. I wanted to use the pedometer primarily, but it was simply not accurate (didn't walk 48 steps sitting in my car seat). I got a refund.

Categories