Heart-rate monitors and calories burned....

Options
sadams977
sadams977 Posts: 27 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I just bought a SportLine S7 7 function ECG Heart rate watch monitor. Reading a lot of message board stuff about the great necessity for a heart rate monitor because of a gross over estimation of calories burned during work outs, I was expecting my calories burned to be LESS than what MFP was estimating it to be, but on the contrary it is more. I went to the park for 30 min, running on and off on "hilly" terrain, my hrm estimated my calories burned to be 474. MFP estimates (Under Running (jogging) 5mph) that 30 min would burn 377 calories.

notes-
I am heavier, 207 on my good days so I'm not a seasoned runner by any means
I did check my heart rate periodically through the 30 min ( as the instructions say to do, so it give you a more accurate estimation)


Any thoughts?

Replies

  • Eponine7
    Eponine7 Posts: 161
    Options
    My experience has been the same. I wear a Polar FT4 and it is always higher than MFP. I think this may be because we weigh more than the "standard" person MFP bases their data on.

    Good for you for running!
  • goldfinger88
    goldfinger88 Posts: 686 Member
    Options
    The heavier you are, the more you burn. At least that's my understanding. But more importantly, your HRM has a better feel for you as an individual and not using a generalization like the website does. Everyone burns at different rates. Two people can do the very same thing at the same intensity and burn a totally different number of calories. So what we have on the site is merely a rough estimate at best. Your HRM is what you should go by. I wish I could use one but I can't because of the meds I take that slow my heart.
  • bert16
    bert16 Posts: 725 Member
    Options
    This is an interesting thread... I'd like to hear what some others have to say about it. I run with a Garmin watch with an incorporated HRM; it knows my current weight and calculates my calories burned on each run (presumably using my HR, weight, and time?). According to that, my calorie burn is waaaaaaaaaaaay lower than estimated here in MFP. For example, I ran 16 miles yesterday at just under 9 min/mile; my Garmin said I burned 993 calories, while MFP tracked it at 1738 calores!

    I didn't even notice the delta until I saw this thread, so thanks for starting it!
  • bert16
    bert16 Posts: 725 Member
    Options
    bumping in the hopes that someone will come up with an informative reply...
  • ShannonMpls
    ShannonMpls Posts: 1,936 Member
    Options
    I did check my heart rate periodically through the 30 min ( as the instructions say to do, so it give you a more accurate estimation)

    Does this mean that the HRM was not constantly picking up your heartrate during your exercise?
  • Eponine7
    Eponine7 Posts: 161
    Options
    Bert16...16 miles at 9 mph? Wow...I can't even imagine....

    Anyhow--do you have access to a HRM with a chest strap? I've always heard that's far more accurate. Your Garmin does sound like it's on the low side...unless perhaps you are very tiny?
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Options
    Heres your problem.. You bought a sportline... which prob. means it doesn't have a chest strap and your touching the watch to get your heart rate. If your finger is not constantly on the sensor, then your not getting an accurate heart rate reading through out the whole run.. and thus it throws your calories off.

    My suggestion, take it back and get a Polar with a chest strap.. and You'll prob. see your calorie burn become more in line with MFP.
  • Schraudt814
    Schraudt814 Posts: 496 Member
    Options
    I had the same thing happen to me...before I got my hrm, mfp was saying I burned 333 calories in 60 minutes of zumba (dancing, aerobic)...when I wore my hrm to class the first time it said I burned 637!! that's a HUGE jump! Same thing when I was walking/jogging for 30-40 minutes a day...mfp said 200-300 calories...usually it's like 400! I don't have an hrm with a wristband, so like you I have to pause to get my hr every so often...I'm the chest strap is much more efficient but at this time with Christmas coming up, I certainly don't have the money! :)
  • bert16
    bert16 Posts: 725 Member
    Options
    Bert16...16 miles at 9 mph? Wow...I can't even imagine....

    Anyhow--do you have access to a HRM with a chest strap? I've always heard that's far more accurate. Your Garmin does sound like it's on the low side...unless perhaps you are very tiny?

    Well, I have never called myself "tiny"... I weigh ~140 lb, though, so am bigger than some and smaller than others. :smile: I do have a chest strap on my Garmin; and, in the past, an exercise physiologist I worked with seemed to think it was pretty accurate. I sent him a message yesterday to see if he still felt that way, based on my weight, max HR, etc. - if he says anything interesting in his reply, I'll post it here to see if I can help us decode the differences (though a chest strap does indeed seem as though it would be more accurate than anything else).

    P.S. I'm in the middle of training for my first marathon, hence the 16 mile run! 8 weeks to go... I'm trying to shed some of the extra pounds since every pound lost is one less pound I have to drag 26.2 miles on the course in January!
  • Meggles63
    Meggles63 Posts: 916 Member
    Options
    I have a Timex HRM with chest strap that I have entered my sex, age, weight, etc. and it shows much more burn than MFP. I've previously checked my heart rate manually, and it matches....I'm "older" and my rate tends to stay towards the max in the high intensity cardio I've been doing, so I think that makes the difference.
  • volrathdesign
    volrathdesign Posts: 43
    Options
    This is an interesting thread... I'd like to hear what some others have to say about it. I run with a Garmin watch with an incorporated HRM; it knows my current weight and calculates my calories burned on each run (presumably using my HR, weight, and time?). According to that, my calorie burn is waaaaaaaaaaaay lower than estimated here in MFP. For example, I ran 16 miles yesterday at just under 9 min/mile; my Garmin said I burned 993 calories, while MFP tracked it at 1738 calores!

    I didn't even notice the delta until I saw this thread, so thanks for starting it!

    Yeah that's way low at 16 miles at that speed you would have burned at a minimum 1400 calories. Definitely invest in a HRM with a chest strap.
  • volrathdesign
    volrathdesign Posts: 43
    Options
    On another note, how do people track their calories burned?

    I wear a HRM and when I'm finished with my workout and I wear it for another 15 minutes afterwards to get the "afterburn" calorie total as well.

    Is this correct?
  • yvonnecooper
    yvonnecooper Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    Heres your problem.. You bought a sportline... which prob. means it doesn't have a chest strap and your touching the watch to get your heart rate. If your finger is not constantly on the sensor, then your not getting an accurate heart rate reading through out the whole run.. and thus it throws your calories off.

    My suggestion, take it back and get a Polar with a chest strap.. and You'll prob. see your calorie burn become more in line with MFP.

    I LOVE my Polar HRM, F11. It's an old one now, but it is my favorite workout tool!
  • bizco
    bizco Posts: 1,949 Member
    Options
    Does it include a chest strap? If it's just a watch, it's not very accurate.
  • yvonnecooper
    yvonnecooper Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    Does it include a chest strap? If it's just a watch, it's not very accurate.
    My Polar F11 does have a chest strap. I cannot imagine how the others without the chest straps could be accurate enough to be helpful, do you?
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    Bert16...16 miles at 9 mph? Wow...I can't even imagine....

    Anyhow--do you have access to a HRM with a chest strap? I've always heard that's far more accurate. Your Garmin does sound like it's on the low side...unless perhaps you are very tiny?

    No they ran it at a 9 min/mile pace, 9 min/mile is not the same as 9 MPH, a 9 min mile is 6.7 MPH. 9MPH would be a 6min 40secod mile.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    Does it include a chest strap? If it's just a watch, it's not very accurate.
    My Polar F11 does have a chest strap. I cannot imagine how the others without the chest straps could be accurate enough to be helpful, do you?

    You would probably have to check the HR every 30 seconds or so to make sure it is accurate, any less than that I would not trust it as much as one with a chest strap.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    On another note, how do people track their calories burned?

    I wear a HRM and when I'm finished with my workout and I wear it for another 15 minutes afterwards to get the "afterburn" calorie total as well.

    Is this correct?

    No, you do get an after burn but it would be much less than what the HRM would say. As the HRM has a built in calculation that assumes a certain oxygen uptake that occurs during steady state cardio, not during recovery.
  • bert16
    bert16 Posts: 725 Member
    Options
    This is an interesting thread... I'd like to hear what some others have to say about it. I run with a Garmin watch with an incorporated HRM; it knows my current weight and calculates my calories burned on each run (presumably using my HR, weight, and time?). According to that, my calorie burn is waaaaaaaaaaaay lower than estimated here in MFP. For example, I ran 16 miles yesterday at just under 9 min/mile; my Garmin said I burned 993 calories, while MFP tracked it at 1738 calores!

    I didn't even notice the delta until I saw this thread, so thanks for starting it!

    Yeah that's way low at 16 miles at that speed you would have burned at a minimum 1400 calories. Definitely invest in a HRM with a chest strap.

    D'uh! :blushing: - I think I realized what the source of the discrepancy was. The settings on my Garmin (which has a chest strap, by the way) were incorrect... it was basing the calculation off a resting HR of 0 bpm! If my RHR hits 0 bpm, I'll have bigger concerns that the disparity between my Garmin and MFP! :laugh:

    So, of course, the source of the problem was user error! Ugh.

Categories