HRM calories burned seems too high

Options
faedreamer1
faedreamer1 Posts: 47 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I really want to be sure I'm doing this properly, so I got a HRM to track calories burned, to be accurate since I work out at home and don't have the machines to tell me my average calories burned. I got a Timex T5J031 and input all my stats and did the max hear rate tests to set the right zone and everything. Except I tried it for the first time today and it told me my 15 minutes of Jillian Michaels 30 minutes shred (15 minutes was all I could handle lol) burned 268 calories. !!! That seems super high.

To maybe help somebody help me figure out what I'm doing wrong or if this is right, my stats are: 37 yo, 267lbs, 5'4". MHR calculated at 175 which the monitor says makes my target zone between 103 and 122. Average heart rate during the workout was 131 for most of the 15 minutes. I mean, I'm ridiculously out of shape, but that calories burned number just doesn't seem right. But if it's not then ugh, I just wasted 100 bucks on a HRM that doesn't record my HR properly, so I dunno.

Does anyone have any idea what I ought to do or if it's right? I'm so confused and I don't want to over-estimate and end up disappointed on the scale because my monitor is fibbing to me lol.
«1

Replies

  • japruzze
    japruzze Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    Given your weight, height and heart rate I'm guessing it's pretty accurate. I don't know the monitor you're using. Is there a chest strap? The HRMs with a chest strap are much more accurate than the watch type.
  • faedreamer1
    faedreamer1 Posts: 47 Member
    Options
    It does have a chest strap, yes. It's a really well-rated HRM on Amazon. Huh, the 268 just seemed really high for only 15 minutes work. But I have no idea about anything, which is why I wanted to ask lol. I was hoping I was wrong and it sounds like I might be. Thank you!
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    Options
    See what MFP says you would burn for 15 minutes of "circuit training, general". I've heard it's normally pretty accurate for the Jillian workout. If the numbers are similar, your HRM is probably fine!
  • bjz82much
    bjz82much Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    I use a Polar FT4 HRM and average about 230 calories on 30DS level one. Burn was higher the first few days, but seems to have settled at 230. My stats are about the same as yours, give or take, except I'm about 10 years older. Hope that helps.
  • PennStateChick
    PennStateChick Posts: 327 Member
    Options
    I agree. Sounds pretty accurate with your stats.
  • gymshoe42
    gymshoe42 Posts: 97 Member
    Options
    10 calories a minute for fairly moderate exercise seems to be my normal. If I go all out for 15 minutes .. 268 seems possible.
    Did you start the HRM at the same time you started the workout and stopped the HRM right when you finished? I usually let my hrm keep counting till my heart rate is back down to resting heart rate.
  • jaxxie
    jaxxie Posts: 576 Member
    Options
    I just started using my FT7 and was blown away when I finished Day 3 of the 30 DS. It said that I completed 396 calories in the 30 minutes. I thought that was way high too but it has been accurate with my other cardio, so I think it's probably bang on. The FT4 and FT7 have been the most recommended after doing research so that's what I went with. I am going to do it again tomorrow and really hope it's right! Keep us posted with yours and see if it's consistent. Good luck!
  • faedreamer1
    faedreamer1 Posts: 47 Member
    Options
    I did check it against the MFP for circuit training and yep, it's pretty much the same thing, less ten calories. So it seems my HRM is accurate! Thank you all so much, I didn't want to over-estimate, even though I don't plan to eat my calories back. :) You guys are super awesome.
  • monikki39
    monikki39 Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    I just got the same HRM and I also think it is abnormally high in counting calories. It seems to be saying I burn about 200 calories more in everything I do than I thought before, like if I compare it to the elliptical machine. Yesterday I tried it in my interval training class and a cardio class. I compared my results to a few others in the classes and they were all fairly close in their calorie counts with each other, but mine was really high compared to all of theirs. I have been searching on the internet trying to find why, if I need to exchange this. I want to know my HR but I also want the correct calorie count (or at least close)!
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Options
    Honestly, return the Timex ASAP.. They are known for over-calculating calories.. ESP for women.

    The reason why is Timex does not take all info needed(age, weight, height gender and Vo2max) and because of that I suspect it assumes you are a male and thus gives off the calorie reading of one.

    Polar is a much better and more reliable brand... i've had both a FT7 and now the FT60, and my calorie estimations seem pretty spot on.
  • monikki39
    monikki39 Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    Honestly, return the Timex ASAP.. They are known for over-calculating calories.. ESP for women.

    The reason why is Timex does not take all info needed(age, weight, height gender and Vo2max) and because of that I suspect it assumes you are a male and thus gives off the calorie reading of one.

    Polar is a much better and more reliable brand... i've had both a FT7 and now the FT60, and my calorie estimations seem pretty spot on.

    Thank you! I think I will follow your advice and return it for a Polar! :)
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    Timex are notorious for having a higher calorie burn then most other HRMs (the calculation they use is different then Polar and/or Garmin). the Timex may leave the V02Max portion blank as stated below blank is the same as using a high value (higher then most)

    You may want to double check the burn with these sites:
    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm (but don't put 0 or leave V02Max blank, put in 30-40 instead, blank or 0 defaults to the same output as around 60 which is really high)
    http://www.gersic.com/calories/index.php?daAge=32&daRHR=52&daAHR=148&daMinutes=27&daSeconds=0&Submit=Submit&action=1
  • pukekolive
    pukekolive Posts: 237 Member
    Options
    Check your burn on these 2 calculators - this is how I decide how much to log

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

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

    I have a Suunto M4 HRM and am around the same weight as you but only 5ft 3in - I believe my HRM is quite accurate but like to do a rough check before I log as ther can be quite a big difference between the HRM and MFP.

    The HRM is more likely to be correct as it is working from your actual heartrate but a quick check does not hurt.
  • sarah44254
    sarah44254 Posts: 3,078 Member
    Options
    It looks accurate to me. You will burn less as your body becomes more efficient (aka: losing weight drops calorie burn, so you have to work harder to get the same cals burned at lower weights)
  • monocot
    monocot Posts: 475 Member
    Options
    for 30 Minutes of Jillian Micheal's. I burn 550.
  • tananichelle
    tananichelle Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    I have the Polar FT4, and I LOVE it. Made especially for women. :love:
  • BeLightYear
    BeLightYear Posts: 1,550 Member
    Options
    Honestly, return the Timex ASAP.. They are known for over-calculating calories.. ESP for women.

    This^

    I had a timex hrm that totally overestimated my calories, boy was I surprised when I got my Bodymedia armband! The timex was just about doubling the actual burn!
  • KXanthos
    KXanthos Posts: 189 Member
    Options
    I worry that mine shows way too few calories burned. 300 for 45 miinutes of elliptical trainer with an average heart rate of 150 or so just seems way too low. Mine was also highly rated on amazon, but I'm on the verge of returning it.
  • sgtlittle
    sgtlittle Posts: 258 Member
    Options
    Timex are notorious for having a higher calorie burn then most other HRMs (the calculation they use is different then Polar and/or Garmin). the Timex may leave the V02Max portion blank as stated below blank is the same as using a high value (higher then most)

    You may want to double check the burn with these sites:
    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm (but don't put 0 or leave V02Max blank, put in 30-40 instead, blank or 0 defaults to the same output as around 60 which is really high)
    http://www.gersic.com/calories/index.php?daAge=32&daRHR=52&daAHR=148&daMinutes=27&daSeconds=0&Submit=Submit&action=1

    ^^^^This! I have a timex and it tells me that I burn 1100 calories for a 4 mile run, but shapesense.com puts me at around 900 calories.
  • salsera_barbie
    salsera_barbie Posts: 270 Member
    Options
    http://www.briancalkins.com/HeartRate.htm

    The one thing I noticed what that your HR zone is a what I think a little too low.

    Check this website for a better formula to calculate your zone.

Categories