Need help with my new HRM!!

the only thing i see that is different from my thinking is your target zone seems low for your age. but i dont think that would add calories to your burn lol. i was told to subtract my age from 220 to get my target hr.

Both machines and MFP drastically underestimate your burn - I know I was alarmed by how much higher my burn was when I got my HRM, but it is the most accurate reading. Just enjoy feeling like a beast when you're done with your workout and see how much you actually burned vs. an estimate that's based on only a few pieces of information!

Both machines and MFP drastically underestimate your burn - I know I was alarmed by how much higher my burn was when I got my HRM, but it is the most accurate reading. Just enjoy feeling like a beast when you're done with your workout and see how much you actually burned vs. an estimate that's based on only a few pieces of information!

Most people find it the exact opposite (HRM and machines typically overestimate 10-50%) This also depends on the HRM Polar and Garmin tend to be the more accurate models.

HRMs simply aren’t accurate for counting calorie expenditure. A HRM has absolutely no idea the work your muscles are doing (energy is defined as the ability to do work). It guestimates that based on your pulse and factors like your size and profiles of “average” users or users with similar fitness levels. I don’t know why HRMs tend to be generous with calories expenditure- they just do. It’s probably to make people like the HRM’s more.

let’s say last month I go on an elliptical or exercise bike for 30 mins at a specific rpm and resistance. Now today I do the exact same workout but I’m more acclimated to it so I’m not breathing as heavy and my pulse is less. Did I burn less calories? (Of course not)

Lets say tomorrow I have a few shots of espresso before working out so the pulse runs higher the whole time. Was the workout more intense? (of course not)

What about when the belt is a little loose but the HRM isn’t warning you about erratic or dropped measurements?

The calorie number from a HRM is good only as a general “intensity score” and should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Hi,

counting calories is fun, but there are many factors to consider against what algorithm is used. Quality of data, fitness of individual, metabolism, hydration, how many times you've exercised that day, what calculations are employed (partial or full data) etc...

My urge is to point you (as others have) to another website:-
http://www.livestrong.com/article/78365-estimate-calories-burned-heart-rate/

Another option is to swap with a friend's different branded HR monitor and see if you're both getting different results to what you'd expect!

The other option is, just choose the lowest, and follow the mirror test!
Jump up and down, if you're not happy with the view, eat less bad things, eat only good things and enjoy your exercise!

Lifestyle rules over diets and fads

Please give us some feed back on how you get on!

cheers

Somewhere, in the forums, I posted on this Saturday night, and got quite a few replys I will see if I can find it, and send you a link.

HRMs simply aren’t accurate for counting calorie expenditure. A HRM has absolutely no idea the work your muscles are doing (energy is defined as the ability to do work). It guestimates that based on your pulse and factors like your size and profiles of “average” users or users with similar fitness levels. I don’t know why HRMs tend to be generous with calories expenditure- they just do. It’s probably to make people like the HRM’s more.

let’s say last month I go on an elliptical or exercise bike for 30 mins at a specific rpm and resistance. Now today I do the exact same workout but I’m more acclimated to it so I’m not breathing as heavy and my pulse is less. Did I burn less calories? (Of course not)

Lets say tomorrow I have a few shots of espresso before working out so the pulse runs higher the whole time. Was the workout more intense? (of course not)

What about when the belt is a little loose but the HRM isn’t warning you about erratic or dropped measurements?

The calorie number from a HRM is good only as a general “intensity score” and should always be taken with a grain of salt.

HRMs use HR to estimate intensity, the more intense the more oxygen uptake the more cals burned. But like you said if your HR is elevated due to other reason or you have a higher max HR then the HRM thinks you do the more likely it would be to over estimate your burn.

In general they are still the best tool available to most people to estimate caloric burn.

9I have a New Balance HRM and I love it, I was totally underestimating my calories burned because of what other log in on MFP. As and example when I go the the gym and do 30 mins of the elliptical and then a round of weights I will burn almost 500 calories, then when I go home and make dinner, clean up, and get ids into bed (usually a 2+hour routine) by the end of the night my calories are up to like over 800 or 900.... so don't rely on machines or what other people say they burn.... your body is going to burn very differently. This is a device taking YOUR ACTUAL heart rate, I would say that's going to be most accurate.

i got a sportline duo with chest strap i love it and i feel it is accurate. I must be doing something right because I keep losing lol

HRMs simply aren’t accurate for counting calorie expenditure. A HRM has absolutely no idea the work your muscles are doing (energy is defined as the ability to do work). It guestimates that based on your pulse and factors like your size and profiles of “average” users or users with similar fitness levels. I don’t know why HRMs tend to be generous with calories expenditure- they just do. It’s probably to make people like the HRM’s more.

let’s say last month I go on an elliptical or exercise bike for 30 mins at a specific rpm and resistance. Now today I do the exact same workout but I’m more acclimated to it so I’m not breathing as heavy and my pulse is less. Did I burn less calories? (Of course not)

Lets say tomorrow I have a few shots of espresso before working out so the pulse runs higher the whole time. Was the workout more intense? (of course not)

What about when the belt is a little loose but the HRM isn’t warning you about erratic or dropped measurements?

The calorie number from a HRM is good only as a general “intensity score” and should always be taken with a grain of salt.

HRMs use HR to estimate intensity, the more intense the more oxygen uptake the more cals burned. But like you said if your HR is elevated due to other reason or you have a higher max HR then the HRM thinks you do the more likely it would be to over estimate your burn.

In general they are still the best tool available to most people to estimate caloric burn.

Actually it's guestimating oxygen uptake as well. In the first exercise bike example The amount of calories it takes to turn the wheel is trivial to calculate on the machine. That's the real energy output of the muscles (more or less). Are you metabolically more complex- perhaps. But think about the idea of acclimatization. The pulse could be less one month later because I have more red blood cells so the whole cardiovascular system is more efficient. The heart needs to pump less and I need to breathe less to deliver the same amount of oxygen to the muscles. The HRM has no idea of these changes that are happening to my body. This phenomena is even more obvious/exaggerated if I was doing high altitude training and then I came back to sea level.

My HRM requires:

Age
Weight
VO2Max
Max HR (it sets this on its own since I add in my age)

I have had a hard time finding my correct VO2Max. Since I have little kids, I can not just go the the track and run a mile. I did one step test and it came up with a VO2Max of 51. I am in good shape, but that did seem high.

So, I found another step test, it required double steps (44 instead of 22) and then that calculated 40. I think this is more accurate.

Does your HRM require you to enter a VO2Max?

This is good to mention. My HRM use VO2 Max also. Not all HRMs are equal and cheaper ones make more assumptions about the user and are often less accurate.

The only way to know VO2 Max is to get tested in a lab. Otherwise you are just guessing.

I would try this. Use the HRM only when doing high aerobics. Like karate, elliptical, running (not walking, ill explain why), boxing etc.

Not while using weights.

You should never use a HRM to calculate calories when doing weights ...except if you are doing circuits, super sets, or anything where you spend a lot of time lifting and very little time resting.

I want to re-read all of this again when my HRM arrives in the post later this week!

A few things. You're very young so avg HR of 137 is't super demanding. You're also very petite so you're BMR is significantly less than 2400cal (probably more like 1400). So you'd have to subtract significantly less than 200 cal. What variables does your HRM ask for? VO2 Max or fitness level? Weight? age? height? Max & resting heart rate?

I would think you should get the most accurate numbers if it uses a recent, reliable VO2 Max figure and the strap is nice and tight and you are always well rested, never dehydrated, and don't use stimulants of any kind. Your unit might be calibrated more for a taller male advanced athlete. If you think it's about 30% off, and you definitely can't change it, maybe just take 30% off when you log it. The important thing is it will tell you when it's safe to push harder, when you have to back off, and whether today's workout is more intense than last month's.

Everything you've done is good but the HRM still doesn't really know the efficiency of your cardiovascular system. It's trying to guess that to get in the general ballpark based on those variables you've given them. Things would be a lot better calibrated if you had a VO2Max performed recently at a good lab and had a more pricy unit that could use that value. I'm not sure that's really practical or ultimately all that important though.

I'm interested to hear how it compares to the machines in your gym. But because they're s all approximations I don't think it's surprising to see a 100-200 cal or greater difference in a 90 minute workout. I have and can't imagine we're the only ones.

I think the idea of subtracting a large number as a safety margin is basically correct (although it's no longer a real BMR figure). In the end you're going to want to view the calorie number from your HRM or machines at the gym more as an intensity score than real food calories. You're also going to have to come up with a safe range of calories you can eat when you exercise.

As an aside I think this is where MFP falls short. I understand the rationale of counting everything, trying to be precise, and sticking to a specific calorie deficit. The reality, though, is that any precision is an illusion. Some people find it easier to stay on track if they just try to eat a specific number of calories (plus or minus a narrow range) and just stick to a workout schedule without counting their exercise calories for their daily food budget. You have to experiment and see what works for you.