Confused by HRM

I use "DE Dt ³ h / 4 p" or "Dx Dp ³ h / 4 p" to determine my fuzziness.

A particularly important postscript to the above is that the fuzziness of the uncertainty -- in the form of the greater than or equal to aspect of the equation -- may no longer be quite so fuzzy. (As in Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair. Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn’t so fussy, was he?)

THis makes me curious. I always heard that the HRM is the final answer but it does seem really high. However you're big guy. Bigger people burn more and men burn more. It also depends on how fast you were going and what your heart rate was. If you were tearing it up you will obviously burn a ton more than if you were walking at a medium pace. I didn't answer your question but you have to look at all the factors too. I'll keep an eye on the thread as I am looking to get an HRM. I can't find my old one.

I'm super curious too. I run outside sometimes so I was looking to get a HRM to track. The treadmill @ the gym has my heart rate at anywhere from 140s warming up - into the 160s when I run/jog - which is where it should be I think. Maybe I should just get one and compare but I hate parting with $$ especially on something I'm iffy about.

I burnt 460 cal in an hour last night - my husb burns about 800, he's got about 50 pds on me though and runs a lot faster.
I think you have approx 100 pds on him so... it's possible your HRM is right? Now I want one more to compare!

I'm confused...

I went to the Gym today and spent 50 minutes on the treadmill...

The treadmill told me that I had burned ~550 calories
My HRM told me that I had burned 1362 calories
MFP seems to estimate between 450 and 600 calories depending on the exercise...

Now I've heard that the HRM is the most accurate method of estimating calories burned, but 1300+ calories seems a bit excessive.

Any suggestions on what I should use as an estimate????

Too many unknown factors to give advice... how fast where you walking? Did you add incline? How much do you weigh? Do you have a chest strap with your HRM? Do you have your weight inputted in the watch of the HRM?

I honestly don't think that's high if you were walking at 4mph with a 5-7% incline, weighing in at 240 lbs (thats just a guesstimate from your ticker) for 50 minutes... if you kept your heart rate in your zone... you burn calories!

1300 sounds high, unless you were really running on the treadmill.
If you were walking or light jog, then I would guess it's WAY under that.

What was your average BPM?

it could have also been reading someone next to you-if you don't have a dual-coded HRM where you can switch channels while exercising in a gym (where others are wearing HRM's) just a thought

After reading all your responses, I'm now wondering about my own calorie burn...

I am 6'5", and currently 249 pounds...

I workout on the eliptical for 30 minutes at 65-70 rpm, and 3-4 on the resistance. My HRM indicates my pulse ranges from about 148-152, peaking at about 161 for the last 8 minutes or so.

My eliptical indicates I burned about 382 calories. Does this seem right to you?

Ok, I'm 37, 290lbs and when I hit the treadmill, my average is about 147-150.
In 60 minutes, I burn 1047 calories with that average.

As your body becomes more efficient it takes more work to burn those calories. I have noticed this in my own workouts.

I bought a Timex Personal Trainer HRM with chest strap. I hate it. My calorie burns were always high. Im a big guy so I know my burn are going to be higher than a lot of people but this seemed extreme. At the gym I decided to program all of my stats: weight, age etc.. into the treadmill and wear my HRM also to get a comparison. The HRM had me burning about 250 more calories than the treadmill. Also, it freezes all the time. I will be at a 7.0 sprint and look down to check my HR and the Timex tells me its 74.... It will just freeze on a number for a couple minutes then kick back in. I decided to try my wifes Polar F6. Ive been wearing it around the house just to see if it keep a constant HR and so far it hasnt froze at all. Im going to break down and wear it to the gym (even though its pink. lol) and see what kind of burn it tells me.

The simple answer may be that the Timex does a lousy job of approximating your calories. You can test it by using a calculator like this:

http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/calculators/calories-burned-calculator-based-on-average-heart-rate/

and your average heart rate over your exercise period (a measurement that HRMs usually do very well).

Then you'll have an idea of how much to discount your HRM's calorie burn approximations.

For the record, I've compared this calculator with the results of my HRM (a Polar FT7) and the numbers generally agree very well.

I have a timex HRM and I've compared it's readouts on 2 and 4 mile runs. Both times, compared with various manual calculation methods, I found the timex to be high by all most exactly 1/3..... so for logging purposes I've been logging 2/3 of what it shows. Somewhat frustrating. I've been meaning to give those guys an earful.

ygglove, HRMs can be useful. The only advice I can really give you is dont go for the cheap one. The Timex that I have was like $99 and it stinks. I bought my wife a Polar F6 and its awesome. It ran about $170 or so but that was 3 years ago. If you can afford to buy a really good one do it, or save up for it. if you cant afford it right now, I wouldnt bother with one cause it will drive you nuts. My Timex would just stop in mid workout. it got to the point where I was constantly checking my HRM to make sure it was still working and it was hurting my workouts cause I was too focused on my HRM instead of just doing the workout. I wore my wifes Polar and it never stopped once. Im going to hope someone gets me one for Christmas cause hers is pink and its a little weird wearing a pink watch into the gym to lift weights..

Timex HRMs are not very accurate to begin with when it comes to estimating calories--based on what I have read from others.

In your case that is compounded by the fact that your HRM is almost certainly set up incorrectly. According to the TM (assuming you entered your weight), your average intensity was about 5 METS. That is consistently with the speed/elevation numbers you reported.

And either there was some interference that gave you an erratic HR reading, or your actual HRmax is higher than your age-predicted HRmax. According to your avg HR, your HR avg for the entire 50 min was 86% of your age-predicted HRmax.

Not likely. However, the HRM assumes your HRmax is the age-predicted number (~170). I don't know exactly how the Timex models work, but all HRMs must have some estimate of your aerobic fitness capacity. Your HRM calories probably come from a combination of the HRM overestimating both your HR intensity and your aerobic fitness level.

I don't have time to go into more details, but that is almost certainly the issue (and your TM numbers are likely the accurate ones).

If i RUN my *kitten* off,( heart rate over 160 ) for a 5K distance in 35 minutes I burn about 350. That's it ! I weigh 125 lbs. I recently ran a huge bridge 5K run and that was 450, but my heart rate was offthe map....When I do A Turbo Fire 45 I burn about 300 and when I do JM30DS I burn about 275. I wish I could eat more :-(