I liked exercise better BEFORE my hrm

heggleston921
heggleston921 Posts: 41 Member
edited November 12 in Fitness and Exercise
So, I used my Hrm (Polar FT4) for the first time today. I was disappointed in the number of calories it thinks I burned. It was so much less than I had been logging from the database. Is there a good reason for this? When I put it on initially, it calculated my "resting" heartrate (well, before I started the next exercise) at 99 or so. So when it only goes to 125 or 140 does it think that I just haven't raised it enough? Shouldn't it just know that a short little fatty like me had to put in a lot of effort to get it up to 140? Should I try to be completely rested before I start next time? Thanks for any help.

Replies

  • Phrak
    Phrak Posts: 353 Member
    Welcome to the reality of exercise. Most people burn a lot less than they think they do. The HRM is a better choice than the MFP estimates.
  • graysmom2005
    graysmom2005 Posts: 1,882 Member
    Be excited! Because you actually KNOW now what you're burning. 125-140 in general isn't extremely high...but I realize you're just starting and it will improve! :-) You'll get to that in NO time if you keep up with your routines. Even though they are now lower..they are accurate and you will have a much more successful time losing weight! Good luck!!!
  • reztib
    reztib Posts: 151 Member
    I agree with Phrak. It better to have an accurate number than one that makes us feel better. Lesson to be learned. It is easier to put on calories than take them off.
  • 970Mikaela1
    970Mikaela1 Posts: 2,013 Member
    I've found that with mine now certain things i did, like hiking for one were WAY off. I try to keep my hr between 115 and 135 to burn 100 cals every ten minutes(which is my goal for exercise) and yes i too agree that an accurate number of burnt calories is better than an inflated one that makes me feel better. Some days with it on im like f it im done cuz i dont want to put forth the effort needed to reach my goal. I also subtract my bmr from what the hrm says i burned also for an even better try for accuracy:) Its all about time invested and effort for me!
  • Emilia6909
    Emilia6909 Posts: 309 Member
    Welcome to the reality of exercise. Most people burn a lot less than they think they do. The HRM is a better choice than the MFP estimates.

    Absolutely!! I was logging SPINNING at over 700 calories burned in an hour..... then I got a HRM and have to accept that in reality, it was under 400!!
    BEST choice you've made in buying one of those..... make friends with it and kick butt! :flowerforyou:
  • zookeepersuzy
    zookeepersuzy Posts: 111
    I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "it calculated my "resting" heartrate (well, before I started the next exercise) ". The best way to get your resting heart rate is to take your pulse as soon as you wake up before getting out of bed.

    MFP's estimates are usually WAY off (on the high side), so it's good that you have the HRM now to tell you what is really going on, but don't let it ruin your fun. Sometimes I will keep running/cycling a little longer to reach a round number & I make a competition out of it with myself to stay motivated.
  • tageekly
    tageekly Posts: 3,755 Member
    Same realization here. MFP turned out to be about 30% too high compared to my HRM, but I started losing more consistently after the HRM because I was logging the correct calories burned.

    It's actually a good thing but I completely understand your frustration with the lower (real) numbers!

    Do another check on your RHR - after you've been truly resting (like after sitting down for about 20-30 minutes or so or when you wake up in the morning) to make sure that measurement is correct.
  • trkinsky
    trkinsky Posts: 63 Member
    I also made the jump to the HRM in early January because I was not experiencing the gains that I should have based on the MFP estimations. I purchased the FT80 and have found it to be very consistent in the calorie expended calculation. A great experiment is to track calories on your HRM while also tracking on the piece of equipment being used for the exercise. I have found that the calorie count for my treadmill and stationary bike are inflated, while my rowing machine is understated. I agree with the others that it is far better, and healthier, for you to face the reality of of your HRM recorded calorie burn. Once you get used to it the HRM will help guide you into more effective, efficient workouts. Give it a few weeks.
  • superstarcassie
    superstarcassie Posts: 296 Member
    Yes, but now you know what you are truly burning- or a better estimate. It will allow you to push harder and try and get those burns higher. I now know that burning 600-700 calories in an hour for me will take constant running at a high intensity. , where MFP might say I could burn that doing 45 mins on the elliptical.
  • Hollybot
    Hollybot Posts: 108 Member
    For me MFP was underestimating my calories burned. But I am also very over weight and new to exercise and have noticed that as the days and weeks go on my calories burned are going down. I think its maybe I'm just getting stronger?
  • MisterDubs303
    MisterDubs303 Posts: 1,216 Member
    If your resting heart rate is 99, put down the HRM and get to the doctor before you continue to exercise.
    If that thing calculated the calories based on the difference between resting heart rate (which was hopefully way off) and the exercise heart rates, it's no wonder it didn't show much of a burn. I think you cheated yourself out of some heart rate increase by not having a correct resting heart rate to begin with. Tomorrow morning, before you get out of bed, get a real resting heart rate and start over. You'll probably be a little more satisfied with the results the HRM gives you.
  • BaconMD
    BaconMD Posts: 1,165 Member
    This is why I did not log exercise before I got an HRM. I knew, just from looking at some of the figures in the MFP database, that there's no way they were accurate.

    Trust your HRM, it's likely as accurate as you're going to get.
  • tageekly
    tageekly Posts: 3,755 Member
    For me MFP was underestimating my calories burned. But I am also very over weight and new to exercise and have noticed that as the days and weeks go on my calories burned are going down. I think its maybe I'm just getting stronger?

    Yup - the more fit you are and the less you weigh (keep updating that setting in your HRM people!) the less you burn. It's sort of sad but it's a good thing because you're heart is getting stronger and you're in better shape. I probably burn about 10% less per hour, unless I'm going at super high intensity, than I did about 3 months ago. :grumble:
  • heggleston921
    heggleston921 Posts: 41 Member
    Thanks for letting me whine there for a minute. I guess it was a well-needed reality check. I will continue to use it and post accurate numbers.

    @Zookeeper: I meant that when I first put the watch on, it has to measure my current heart rate before I get started. No, that's not my actual "resting" heart rate (today's 99), but I don't know if the machine knows that or not, or if it even matters. That's all I was saying anyway.
  • BPayton27
    BPayton27 Posts: 626 Member
    I learned long ago that MFP's exercise estimations are incredibly inflated. I was also disappointed! Look at it in a positive light, though. You now know what you're actually burning while working out. This is going to help you better understand how much you should be eating. In the long run, that will help you lose weight a lot quicker.
  • Phrak
    Phrak Posts: 353 Member
    For me MFP was underestimating my calories burned. But I am also very over weight and new to exercise and have noticed that as the days and weeks go on my calories burned are going down. I think its maybe I'm just getting stronger?

    Yup - the more fit you are and the less you weigh (keep updating that setting in your HRM people!) the less you burn. It's sort of sad but it's a good thing because you're heart is getting stronger and you're in better shape. I probably burn about 10% less per hour, unless I'm going at super high intensity, than I did about 3 months ago. :grumble:

    Not true, the more fit you get the harder you should be able to push yourself and actually increase caloric expendature.
  • tageekly
    tageekly Posts: 3,755 Member
    For me MFP was underestimating my calories burned. But I am also very over weight and new to exercise and have noticed that as the days and weeks go on my calories burned are going down. I think its maybe I'm just getting stronger?

    Yup - the more fit you are and the less you weigh (keep updating that setting in your HRM people!) the less you burn. It's sort of sad but it's a good thing because you're heart is getting stronger and you're in better shape. I probably burn about 10% less per hour, unless I'm going at super high intensity, than I did about 3 months ago. :grumble:

    Not true, the more fit you get the harder you should be able to push yourself and actually increase caloric expendature.

    It is true. You are correct that you can push harder, and I do - I am doing more intense and longer workouts that I have before but if I do the same workout video or intensity on the elliptical I did a few months ago, my calorie burn - according to my HRM - is less.
  • emily356
    emily356 Posts: 318 Member
    Don't be afraid about the comment to go to the Dr. if your RHR is that high. Mine has always been in the 90s my whole adult life. Very fit or sedentary, it will go down a little, but not much. My fathers HR has always been really high, it is genetics. If your RHR is really in the 90s at rest, you'll have to get it up waaaaay higher than other people to really be working it hard.:)
  • JMarigold
    JMarigold Posts: 232 Member
    I don't know about your HRM moniter but on mine I had to set it up specifically for me . . . weight and VO2 max.

    I've learned that I burn more toward the end of my exercise than at the beginning because my heart rate stays higher at the end once I've already elevated it. Also interval training is particularly effective. If you give all out, gonna die, effort for a minute or so it will elevate your heart rate high enough so that even if you do the bare minimum during the minutes following that you are still getting a good burn b/c your heart rate is slowly coming down but remains much higher than when you started. Then you repeat the process--all out effort followed by a cool down in which you take advantage of the elevated heart rate.
  • Balice57
    Balice57 Posts: 125
    I agree, also having a fair amount of weight to lose, as we lose weight, we have to work harder to get the same results. I'm enjoying using the Endomondo app on my phone and just log in what it tells me I burned rather than taking mfp's estimates. I'm more interested in increasing my regular walking pace on Endomondo than in calories burned. Heck, at this point getting off my butt and out the door to move this body is a victory! I used to walk half as long as I wanted my walk to total, then turn around and walk back the same way. In this way, as I got stronger and faster I was walking farther in the same amount of time. Now with Endomondo, I can see my speed increase, and that makes me competitive with myself.
  • Phrak
    Phrak Posts: 353 Member
    A great article that fits this topic:

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/exercise-and-weightfat-loss-part-1.html
  • HotBodUnderConstruction
    HotBodUnderConstruction Posts: 420
    Haha :) I walked my dog for an hour today and only burned 150 calories
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    For me MFP was underestimating my calories burned. But I am also very over weight and new to exercise and have noticed that as the days and weeks go on my calories burned are going down. I think its maybe I'm just getting stronger?

    Yup - the more fit you are and the less you weigh (keep updating that setting in your HRM people!) the less you burn. It's sort of sad but it's a good thing because you're heart is getting stronger and you're in better shape. I probably burn about 10% less per hour, unless I'm going at super high intensity, than I did about 3 months ago. :grumble:

    You need to adjust the fitness level as well as the weight--although I'm not sure that's possible in all HRMs.

    It's not true that the "more fit you become, the fewer calories you burn". That's true if your weight decreases, but not if fitness level increases.

    It's true that the HRM will DISPLAY fewer calories, but that's because the HRM assumes your fitness level has not changed. But that's an HRM issue, not a calorie issue.
  • zookeepersuzy
    zookeepersuzy Posts: 111
    Thanks for letting me whine there for a minute. I guess it was a well-needed reality check. I will continue to use it and post accurate numbers.

    @Zookeeper: I meant that when I first put the watch on, it has to measure my current heart rate before I get started. No, that's not my actual "resting" heart rate (today's 99), but I don't know if the machine knows that or not, or if it even matters. That's all I was saying anyway.

    ah, ok. There should be somewhere that you can input your actual resting heart rate that you measure first thing in the morning. I don't have the same brand as you so sorry that I can't be more specific. I think this might make a difference for your calories burned, but either way don't be discouraged. Just find something you enjoy & let the calorie count land wherever it does. :)
  • Phrak
    Phrak Posts: 353 Member
    For me MFP was underestimating my calories burned. But I am also very over weight and new to exercise and have noticed that as the days and weeks go on my calories burned are going down. I think its maybe I'm just getting stronger?

    Yup - the more fit you are and the less you weigh (keep updating that setting in your HRM people!) the less you burn. It's sort of sad but it's a good thing because you're heart is getting stronger and you're in better shape. I probably burn about 10% less per hour, unless I'm going at super high intensity, than I did about 3 months ago. :grumble:

    You need to adjust the fitness level as well as the weight--although I'm not sure that's possible in all HRMs.

    It's not true that the "more fit you become, the fewer calories you burn". That's true if your weight decreases, but not if fitness level increases.

    It's true that the HRM will DISPLAY fewer calories, but that's because the HRM assumes your fitness level has not changed. But that's an HRM issue, not a calorie issue.

    And HRM dont factor in the muscle groups being used. I can raise my HR up by flailing my arms, but ill burn more calories doing squats.
  • calgarychick2012
    calgarychick2012 Posts: 65 Member
    Yup I relate, I got a FT 7 polar last week and it was the same thing, then I realized I was eating back calories I thought i burned so now I just increased my exercise time. and know exactly what i am burning. But I too was bummed for a couple days
This discussion has been closed.

Categories