How accurate is the gym equipment...IF....it has built in HR

bruthacuervo
bruthacuervo Posts: 52 Member
edited October 5 in Fitness and Exercise
It has built in heart rate monitors, asks for your current weight, and your current age. The Elliptical machine has HRM pads where you grab the rails.

i do enter my weight and age, but i was wondering if anyone had any feedback on how accurate they are. I think its like a Precor machine? (That sounds right in my head anyway) I mean, i dunno if something like this requires recalibration or what.

Replies

  • jakejacobsen
    jakejacobsen Posts: 584 Member
    I found it to be not accurate, compared to my heart rate monitor
  • iamMaLisa
    iamMaLisa Posts: 278 Member
    I use a Hear rate monitor when i go, but i also input my weight and age into them, just to see, and i usualy see about a10- 20 calorie difference, Example the HRM will show 100 calories burned, and the Treadmill would show around 80-90 burned, so its not to far off, its been pretty consistant also each time i test it.
  • jakejacobsen
    jakejacobsen Posts: 584 Member
    Fri 11/11/11 10:38 AM
    I have been around for awhile, and using exercise amounts from MFP data base or the Machines I use at the gym.

    Now I got a Polar FT7 Heart rate monitor and I found out some good information but devastating news.

    My work out today:

    HRM
    45 min Walking 407
    20 min Biking 174
    20 min Eliptical 207
    Workout 788 cal

    Machine
    45min Walking 343
    20 min Biking 607
    20 min Eliptical 293
    Work out 1243 Difference of 455

    MFP
    45 min Walking (4mph) 483
    20 min Bike Moderate Effort 301
    20 min Eliptical 391
    Work out 1175 Difference 387

    My work out today would have been off by 387 cal based on the MFP data base not that big of a deal until you multiply it out by a week 2709 calories off that is like a day of calories off in just a week. The Machines would be off by 3185 cal for the week. I am glad I never ate back all my exercise calories. I do enjoy how I feel after a work out but I also loved being able to burn what I thought was 1200-2000 Calories a hour.
  • hnsaunde
    hnsaunde Posts: 757 Member
    It would be more accurate than a machine not asking for that information, but I still think that a heart rate monitor is the most accurate.
  • luppic8
    luppic8 Posts: 580 Member
    It's not accurate at all. I did a 50 minute workout on the elliptical (level 5) and the machine's readout stated I had burned 205 calories, however my heart rate monitor read 642! Now that's a huge difference! I was being ripped off before I got my HRM!
  • frugalmomsrock
    frugalmomsrock Posts: 1,123
    I have posted this before... I wear my chest strap, and the machine asks my weight and picks up the exact same HR as my HRM. I can do 40 minutes of elliptical and my HRM says about 385-395, and the machine (with the same average HR and age) says close to 700 calories burned!!


    *I have a stationary bike at home that has my full info: height/weight/age, and it came with a chest strap. I'll use my HRM here at home too, and even my bike consistently shows me burning more than my HRM does. Also, even though I feel that I am giving much more than moderate effort on my bike, if I enter my time in MFP's exercise on moderate effort (25 miles in 80-ish minutes on levels 4-7 seems more than moderate), it's about spot on with my HRM...

    I think it's all a guessing game anyway...
  • bruthacuervo
    bruthacuervo Posts: 52 Member
    good info.. right now rent and utilities taking priority over buying HRM im just trying to get a good ballpark idea for now so i can build me a "safe zone" will invest one of these days, but not TODAY.,,
  • nezi_s
    nezi_s Posts: 4
    It's not accurate at all. I did a 50 minute workout on the elliptical (level 5) and the machine's readout stated I had burned 205 calories, however my heart rate monitor read 642! Now that's a huge difference! I was being ripped off before I got my HRM!


    Could you please share waht kind of heart rate monitor you use.. :-)
  • summertime_girl
    summertime_girl Posts: 3,945 Member
    Way high, compared to my BodyBugg.
  • bruthacuervo
    bruthacuervo Posts: 52 Member
    Ijust realized.. tho , im seeing only calories burned in answers.. im actually just as interested in how it compared heart rate wise.. like it would say id get up to 155 on the heart rate, anyone compare heart rate to heart rate??
  • yeroc39
    yeroc39 Posts: 55
    I think I can help. I actually work for Polar. For the calories you see on a treadmill, the HRM is much more accurate. Even for the treadmills that have heart rate. The reason is those machines do not factor in heart rate because everyone wants to see their calories burned, but not everyone wants to wear a transmitter. So they want everyone to see calories. The best way to witness why its off is....just step off the machine for 1 minute and you will see it will still register calories burned...so who's burning them.

    For the accuracy of heart rate, many of the machines actually use Polar technology inside. You will see the Polar logo somewhere on the machine typically. It will even offer the telemetry hr (when you wear a transmitter) or the hand grip. They are typically accurate, except you may see that the machine will update slower. So when you pick up the pace, you will see your HRM respond right away, but you might see a little delay on the machine.
  • frugalmomsrock
    frugalmomsrock Posts: 1,123
    Ijust realized.. tho , im seeing only calories burned in answers.. im actually just as interested in how it compared heart rate wise.. like it would say id get up to 155 on the heart rate, anyone compare heart rate to heart rate??

    As far as heart rate, it's usually quite accurate, I think. I am in the same range now (with my HRM) as I was before I had it (going by the machines). I used to use this: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm and it's very close to what my HRM is.
  • withchaco
    withchaco Posts: 1,026 Member
    The cardio machine's HRM is there to simply monitor the heart rate. It does not take the heart rate into account when estimating the calorie burn.
  • bruthacuervo
    bruthacuervo Posts: 52 Member
    However until i can get free cash up for a HRM, I would think that recording the HR at set intervals, then average them, and using many of the availabile online calculators would give me a fairly reasonable ballpark calorie burn dont you think? (im fine with a swing of about 50 calories or so)

    i know i should get one, but holidays coming up and all its tight here.

    maybe Santa will get me one....
  • vanessaclarkgbr
    vanessaclarkgbr Posts: 731 Member
    Worth a mention that some HRMs don't count cals until the HR goes over 90 - my old Polar S210 for example. Machines count regardless as would MFP.
  • yeroc39
    yeroc39 Posts: 55
    The newer Polar models begin counting calories at lower heart rates now. The S210 is a 10 year old Polar model. Just an FYI
  • vanessaclarkgbr
    vanessaclarkgbr Posts: 731 Member
    The newer Polar models begin counting calories at lower heart rates now. The S210 is a 10 year old Polar model. Just an FYI

    I know - I'd like to put him into retirement really - he's done good service :-)
  • yeroc39
    yeroc39 Posts: 55
    Polar has a trade in policy. Go to their website and then you can call customer service and tell them what you have. They will then offer you a value for the old unit and give you an opportunity to upgrade.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories