HRM - overestimating calories burned?

celeste_xo
celeste_xo Posts: 88
edited October 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
Is it possible for the heart rate monitor to overestimate the calories you burn? I just got this HRM as a birthday present from the boyfriend, and it said i burnt 1458 calories in 1 hour and 48 minutes. Is this possible? Has anyone else had this happen? My heart rate average was about 175, so I was working pretty hard but I didn't think I would burn quite that many calories, and I'm not sure whether I should log it. Any thoughts?

Replies

  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,338 Member
    What sort of HRM? Does it have a chest strap? An hour and 48 minutes of doing what?

    I have heard Timex ones overestimate.

    My experience with not using the chest strap is the calorie calculation is completely wrong.

    Most HRMs can experience interference from other electronic devices and can then give very high HR numbers. I clipped my Gymboss timer near my HRM watch band once and I was getting HR in the 200s. Took me a while to figure that out.
  • celeste_xo
    celeste_xo Posts: 88
    My average HR was about 175 throughout my workout, which is about average for me as I take it time to time. My HRM does have a chest strap, and it's a Timex. Maybe it's true that Timex does overestimate lol.
  • celeste_xo
    celeste_xo Posts: 88
    and it was an hour and 48 minutes of various stuff: an hour of doing the stair machine at pretty high resistance/intensity, and about 15 minutes of the treadmill then some weight lifting.
  • gashinshotan
    gashinshotan Posts: 749 Member
    Yeah.... I had one on order then cancelled it for that reason :(.... too bad cuz the Timex has a lot of features for the $$$.
    My average HR was about 175 throughout my workout, which is about average for me as I take it time to time. My HRM does have a chest strap, and it's a Timex. Maybe it's true that Timex does overestimate lol.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,338 Member
    That might be it. It really depends on the exercise type. I can burn that and more cross country skiing through varied terrain which includes hills, but burn less than that cycling.
  • CMmrsfloyd
    CMmrsfloyd Posts: 2,380 Member
    That's about 13.5 calories per minute, I'd say that's completely possible if your average heartrate really was 175. I average between 8-9 calories per minute in my workouts (30 day shred) but my heartrate does not average that high - it does GET that high but it doesn't stay there for long. My average heartrate is usually closer to 130-140 during that workout b/c of the 'recovery' times built into the workout where your heartrate comes down for awhile.
  • AZTrailRunner
    AZTrailRunner Posts: 1,199 Member
    I've burned those numbers before at a lower HR, but I also weigh much more than you.

    I read a lot of mixed reviews about the Times, so avoided it and went with Polar, the original HRM people.
  • celeste_xo
    celeste_xo Posts: 88
    Well, I guess for now I'll just be cautious with it and see if it does this in the future... Like I said, it's the first time I've used it so we'll see if it give me any crazy high numbers in the future!
  • Real_Cool_Hand
    Real_Cool_Hand Posts: 58
    If you were wearing it during lifting, its probably counted too high and isn't accurate. They're intended for aerobic monitoring so they calculate strength training too high.
  • AZTrailRunner
    AZTrailRunner Posts: 1,199 Member
    Is it set up for your height, weight, age, and gender?
  • Jedibeau
    Jedibeau Posts: 38
    I have a Polar FT7. I average about 10 calories/minute when my heart rate averages about 160. So I would think that the reading could be correct.
  • seasonalvoodoo
    seasonalvoodoo Posts: 380 Member
    Hmm, that seems a little on the high side. For instance, today I ran 5.25 miles in 1 hr 35 minutes and my average HR was 165 and I burned 847 calories according to my Sportline 1060 Duo HRM.
  • celeste_xo
    celeste_xo Posts: 88
    Yep, the first thing I did when I got it was input all of my information! Maybe it was because I was wearing it while doing weights... maybe next time I'll take it off after I'm finished with my aerobic exercise. Though, if it was averaging about 13.5 calories/min it might not be super off because the machines at the gym give me a similar number after I input my weight, age, and use the HRM that's attached to it. Hmm.
  • engineman312
    engineman312 Posts: 3,450 Member
    well, if you are comparing that to the numbers MFP gave you, then they will be different. my HRM is way higher then what i was being given. also, i really really push myself to keep my heart rate up. i ran 5 miles the other day, in 45 minutes, and i burned about 1100 calories.
    Is it set up for your height, weight, age, and gender?

    check for this. also, if you've lost weight, you need to change the weight.
  • AZTrailRunner
    AZTrailRunner Posts: 1,199 Member
    Yep, the first thing I did when I got it was input all of my information! Maybe it was because I was wearing it while doing weights... maybe next time I'll take it off after I'm finished with my aerobic exercise. Though, if it was averaging about 13.5 calories/min it might not be super off because the machines at the gym give me a similar number after I input my weight, age, and use the HRM that's attached to it. Hmm.

    I wear my HRM while doing aerobic AND lifting. I don't rest much during lifting, so I may as well count those calories too.
  • jturnerx
    jturnerx Posts: 325 Member
    and it was an hour and 48 minutes of various stuff: an hour of doing the stair machine at pretty high resistance/intensity, and about 15 minutes of the treadmill then some weight lifting.

    I would just include the portions of the workout that have an aerobic component.

    See Azdak's blog post about why HRM estimates don't apply for strength training: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698
This discussion has been closed.

Categories