For those of you that have heart monitors....

i do even when the gym machines sync to the hrm they still record more for me then the hrm and thats with age and height put in too

Oh yeah. I even find that when I input my weight, they are still off. Even the ones that pick up my HRM signal. I still go with my HRM numbers. They may not be 100% accurate, but since its right next to my chest, it'll be a bit more accurate.

I do not go to the gym but I do find that my actual HRM numbers are quite different than what is estimated by MFP.

i dont use any gym machines, but my HRM says 25-50% less cals burned than MFP and other online calculators. I guess that means i am not working as hard as average, but i sure feel like i am!

Any recommendations on monitors? I would love to get one, but there's so many I'm confused (And I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars...).

You can pretty much always assume that the machines in the gym are greatly overestimating. For instance, when I run six miles on a treadmill, the readout says I burn about 1000 calories. At my height, weight, and speed, there is no way that is happening, as pretty much every calculator ever says it's far less than that.

By comparison, MFP would give me a burn of about 740 for that, while my heart rate monitor gives me a burn of about 600.

I've found that MFP's calculations for running and walking overestimate, but are generally pretty close... All the other activities like "dancing, general" and so on are very rough estimates, and generally erring on the high side on this site, since they have less quantifiable elements like speed that MFP can use to calculate.

Trust your heart rate monitor -- it's the closest estimate you have, as long as it is using an algorithm that also takes into consideration your age, weight, etc. For instance, I do P90x. You might log that kind of thing here as "calisthenics, general" if you're doing a workout that would include a lot of push-ups. On MFP, that would give me a calculated burn of around 400 or so, but in real life, according to my MFP, it's probably a lot closer to 275.

If you're eating back part or all of your exercise calories, a miscalculation of a couple hundred could make a huge difference in your weight loss (or lack thereof).

Any recommendations on monitors? I would love to get one, but there's so many I'm confused (And I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars...).

Polar FT4 is well regarded and it's the least expensive one that does a good job of estimating calories.

They are all a man made and programed device trying to monitor a living thing. You have a HRM so it is not worth the worry to diecide which one is correct. Go with your HRM, it is consistant......even if it is consistantly wrong. Record the data it gives you, factor that into your calorie intake. If you eat your base calories and all of your workout calories and your weight trend maintains then you know it is accurate for you. If you lose weight it is reading you short, if you gain weight it is reading extra. Thats why record keeping and trending is important.

I have a Polar FT4 and like it (but I've only had it a week).

I just compared my HRM to a machine for the first time yesterday (I just got my HRM) and the machine said I burned about 200 more cals than my HRM said I did.