HRM aahhhhaaaa!!!!!! Moment
Options
bikermike5094
Posts: 1,752 Member
So, i went to the gym last night after work with my brand new Polar FT7 HRM to try it out. Just did a light work out, 30 minutes on the treadmill with a variable incline and 3.0 mph pace.
The machine said I burned 295 calories....
MFP database said 237
Polar FT7 HRM said.......... 195 Calories!!!!
No WONDER I've been on a plateau for 5 weeks.. I've been eating back my calories based on my inputs but looks like I've been over on my cals.
Machine takes into account my weight but not age. The HRM does both.. so I'm guessing the HRM is more accurate.
The machine said I burned 295 calories....
MFP database said 237
Polar FT7 HRM said.......... 195 Calories!!!!
No WONDER I've been on a plateau for 5 weeks.. I've been eating back my calories based on my inputs but looks like I've been over on my cals.
Machine takes into account my weight but not age. The HRM does both.. so I'm guessing the HRM is more accurate.
0
Replies
-
I would definately go by the HRM--I love my Polar. I don't trust the MFP caloric estimates at all! They have been super high on almost everything that I enter!0
-
Isn't it great? I love the feedback on calories from my HRM.
) This morning I did a bootcamp style class at the gym and burned 430 calories in 45 minutes - MFP said 362 calories.
But I have also noticed on the machines I am always HALF what it says, not even close.0 -
I do agree that the HRM is more accurate. I'm seeing a difference from MFP, the machine and the HRM too.0
-
Thanks for sharing! I'm just now getting into exercise, but I'm so "worried" I'd count too many exercise calories that I've been researching a HRM. Stories like yours are VERY helpful. Thanks again!0
-
I absolutely LOVE my HRM because I get a much better information about my calorie burn. Sometimes it is much higher than the machine or MFP but most times it is actually lower. I can attribute each of my plateaus to some form of under tracking calories consumed and over tracking calories burned. This is actually one of my primary reasons for not eating back all my exercise calories burned.0
-
I've been considering getting one. It really would affect you intake if you're not burning as much. Now I have to go shopping so there'll be no more guess work.
0 -
Thanks for the post, i too am searching for a HRM, Polar Ft7 looks to be a good bet, has anyone tried it while swimming0
-
The same thing happened to me yesterday - definitely a RUDE awakening!
My HRM stated less that 50% less calories burned than the machine stated!
Very disappointed, but at least I relaized it now! Starting again! 0 -
How often does everybody re-set there HRM inputs ie: if you lose weight.. how often to you change your HRM settings? Weekly, monthly?0
-
So, i went to the gym last night after work with my brand new Polar FT7 HRM to try it out. Just did a light work out, 30 minutes on the treadmill with a variable incline and 3.0 mph pace.
The machine said I burned 295 calories....
MFP database said 237
Polar FT7 HRM said.......... 195 Calories!!!!
No WONDER I've been on a plateau for 5 weeks.. I've been eating back my calories based on my inputs but looks like I've been over on my cals.
Machine takes into account my weight but not age. The HRM does both.. so I'm guessing the HRM is more accurate.
So what did the HRM say your avg HR was during the workout?
That is indeed what the machine and MFP can't take into account. Age doesn't have as much of an effect compared to weight and HR. Those tables have to be built on some mighty big bell curves and assumptions.
And you got a good HRM that asks for all the needed details to get about as accurate as you are going to get. Age, gender, weight. And what's nice is you can do several tests to calculate more correctly your max HR, and then do training zones to really get the burn on.0 -
Thats why I did it. I'm getting ready to start P90x and wanted to get and accurate calorie count from the workouts. It seems the MFP strength training database is kind of all over the board.I've been considering getting one. It really would affect you intake if you're not burning as much. Now I have to go shopping so there'll be no more guess work.0 -
How often does everybody re-set there HRM inputs ie: if you lose weight.. how often to you change your HRM settings? Weekly, monthly?
When there is a 2lb difference, or I remember to look more likely, because knowing about a 2lb difference would imply I'm actually remembering what I put in there last.
So your method of weekly checks probably has some good merit to it, if you have decent weekly changes.0 -
This is the exact reason I LOVE my HRM! There are times, mainly on LIGHT SHORT walks, where my HRM is more than MFP, within 10-20 calories more.
Otherwise, MFP and the gym machines are GROSSLY over what my HRM says. Sometimes hundreds.
If you don't eat your calories back, I don't see where a HRM would be important. But if you are wanting to burn a certain amount of calories per week or eat some or all of your exercise calories, I would highly recommend HRM.
The first few weeks I had my HRM (Polar FT7) I constantly looked at it and wrote down numbers. My job is A LOT of sitting on my *kitten*. In general, for me, if I just sit and do my job and don't' go out for walks. I burn around 100 calories per hour...just breathing. We all burn something just by living, someone can correct me but I think its called a BMR. If you want to get very sticky about actual calories burned, you could subtract this base calorie burn from what you burn in a workout. If went for an hour walk and burned 400 based on my HRM, in reality I burned an extra 300 calories because 100 of those 400 are what I'd burn just by being alive. I probably sound crazy.
Maybe these insane caloric burns MFP puts out contribute to mental health? LOL. If I burned 1200 calories in an hour I'd feel damn good about myself too.0 -
108 Avg HR, max 114. Said I spent 26 minutes in fat burning mode.. and 4 minutes in cardio improvement mode. thats really a cool feature!!!So, i went to the gym last night after work with my brand new Polar FT7 HRM to try it out. Just did a light work out, 30 minutes on the treadmill with a variable incline and 3.0 mph pace.
The machine said I burned 295 calories....
MFP database said 237
Polar FT7 HRM said.......... 195 Calories!!!!
No WONDER I've been on a plateau for 5 weeks.. I've been eating back my calories based on my inputs but looks like I've been over on my cals.
Machine takes into account my weight but not age. The HRM does both.. so I'm guessing the HRM is more accurate.
So what did the HRM say your avg HR was during the workout?
That is indeed what the machine and MFP can't take into account. Age doesn't have as much of an effect compared to weight and HR. Those tables have to be built on some mighty big bell curves and assumptions.
And you got a good HRM that asks for all the needed details to get about as accurate as you are going to get. Age, gender, weight. And what's nice is you can do several tests to calculate more correctly your max HR, and then do training zones to really get the burn on.
I have a lot of heart disease in my family (dad had first heart attack at 38, died at 39 having bypass surgery) so I'm always worried about pushing my heart too much at my weight. was cool to be able to watch it while working out. And the really really cool thing was the treadmill also picked up the signal from the HRM and was showing on the screen my real time heart rate without having to touch the handles.. didnt know it could do that!!!0 -
Thrilled to see other people loving their new gadgets as much as me. I was beginning to think I was a very sad person to be obsessing about it as much as I was
I have tried out my brand new polar FT4 today - swimming and walking.
Burned WAY less than MFP wanted me to be recording, but still a fantastic workout, and gave me a mental edge to push myself that little bit further.
Absolutely love it! Will recommend it to anyone and everyone!!
*waits to be able to go swimming to play with it again*.......0 -
So, i went to the gym last night after work with my brand new Polar FT7 HRM to try it out. Just did a light work out, 30 minutes on the treadmill with a variable incline and 3.0 mph pace.
The machine said I burned 295 calories....
MFP database said 237
Polar FT7 HRM said.......... 195 Calories!!!!
No WONDER I've been on a plateau for 5 weeks.. I've been eating back my calories based on my inputs but looks like I've been over on my cals.
Machine takes into account my weight but not age. The HRM does both.. so I'm guessing the HRM is more accurate.
I just got the exact same HRM and had the exact same experience. I was on the elliptical for 35 minutes, and the machine said I had burned 372 calories, but the HRM said only 245. That's a huge difference when I'm working on such a small deficit already and am eating my exercise calories back!0 -
How often does everybody re-set there HRM inputs ie: if you lose weight.. how often to you change your HRM settings? Weekly, monthly?
I have never reset mine because at intervals it will re-calculate my goals automatically based on my resting test results and my overall weight loss/calorie burn. (yesterday it increased my goal from 5hr 45 min to 7 hrs a week)
I have a Polar FT60--
Polar FT60 Heart Rate Monitor Series
Heart Rate - Designed for Basic Fitness and Exercise
Features the STAR Training Program which tells you how much and how intensively to train. Creates a program based on your personal goals and sets new weekly training targets and gives feedback on the effect of your training. It also features the Fitness test that measures your aerobic fitness at rest and tells you your progress. Option GPS Sensor accurately calculates Speed, Distance and Pace.0 -
The first few weeks I had my HRM (Polar FT7) I constantly looked at it and wrote down numbers. My job is A LOT of sitting on my *kitten*. In general, for me, if I just sit and do my job and don't' go out for walks. I burn around 100 calories per hour...just breathing. We all burn something just by living, someone can correct me but I think its called a BMR. If you want to get very sticky about actual calories burned, you could subtract this base calorie burn from what you burn in a workout. If went for an hour walk and burned 400 based on my HRM, in reality I burned an extra 300 calories because 100 of those 400 are what I'd burn just by being alive. I probably sound crazy.
Studies have shown that using HR to try to calculate calorie burn is only valid as a straight line from about 90-150 bpm. Outside those ranges, the ability to use a calculation, and therefore your HRM, are very inaccurate.
At rest, the BMR calculators (you are correct on term) have been shown to be as accurate as you are going to get without lab work, or known thyroid issues, or lowered metabolism because of starving yourself.
Next above that is maintenance calories, where you selected your avg daily activity, which takes the BMR times some value. This is where the BodyBugg/BodyMedia/FitBit can improve accuracy. Instead of just 4 big ranges, infinite steps. (but they aren't as accurate for real exercise as HRM is).
So point is, don't use the HRM for non-exercise usage, hoping for any accuracy to make decisions on.0 -
108 Avg HR, max 114. Said I spent 26 minutes in fat burning mode.. and 4 minutes in cardio improvement mode. thats really a cool feature!!!So, i went to the gym last night after work with my brand new Polar FT7 HRM to try it out. Just did a light work out, 30 minutes on the treadmill with a variable incline and 3.0 mph pace.
The machine said I burned 295 calories....
MFP database said 237
Polar FT7 HRM said.......... 195 Calories!!!!
Just don't forget the monitor watch, because while the equipment will display the HR, it doesn't use it for any calculations. Not usually. Besides which, they don't have you enter enough info to be as accurate.
Your monitor's estimate of modes or zones is based on calculated max HR, which for you right now is probably way off, and even when in great shape, is a big bell curve and not accurate for a majority.
Ask the gym if any of the treadmills have a submaximal max HR test on them, you already have the HRM. Just have to know how to start it. If they say it'll cost you $25 or more, come back to me and I'll give you link to nice test you can do yourself for pretty decent accuracy to get that max HR to enter into your HRM, so the zones or modes are more correct.
Very nice to do at start of new program, so you can compare and see improvement later.
You will get faster, and find the HR can stand to go up without it feeling so bad. Then you'll keep getting faster, and HR will stay the same.
You are on beginning of road that actually will probably improve very quickly if you keep this up.
And a great way to see fast improvement.
Intervals. Very specific careful intervals.
Which for you might be to up the speed to 3.5 mph at an good incline, for about 30 seconds only. Then back it down again. Rest 4 min at slower pace now. Do that 5-7 times, 3 times a week. Start and end with 10 min total warmup/cooldown before/after doing the intervals.
Studies have shown that routine over just 2 weeks doubles the endurance or time to exhaustion of even moderately fit individuals.0 -
Santa brought me a Polar F11. I'm finding it records higher than the MFP database and it was higher than the count on my treadmill this morning. I did 30 min of intervals - 4 mph walk with 90 sec of 6mph running. The machine said 294 calories burned while the HRM said 331. Not a huge difference, but a difference none the less.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions