Bought a HRM, now more confused...

SpaceFanMomma
SpaceFanMomma Posts: 10
edited November 12 in Fitness and Exercise
I recently purchased a heart rate monitor that tracks calories since I was concerned that MFP overestimates the amount of calories burned from working out. However, I've had the opposite effect! My HRM calculated that I burned almost 80 calories more than MFP said. I always leave some leeway at the end of the day (except for cheat day), and I'm not trying get so critical it takes the fun out of my day, but I don't want to vastly overestimate the amount of calories I'm burning. Am I just being paranoid?

Replies

  • ScatteredThoughts
    ScatteredThoughts Posts: 3,562 Member
    The same happened with me. My HRM shows roughly twice the number of calories burned as MFP. I usually try to not to eat back all of my exercise calories, because even heart rate monitors are not 100% accurate. So far, I am still losing weight. You could try eating back half of your exercise calories and seeing what kind of progress you have after a week or two, then adjust based on those results.


    *edit*

    I have a Polar FT40, by the way.
  • KareninCanada
    KareninCanada Posts: 962 Member
    What kind did you get?
  • Cmh1211
    Cmh1211 Posts: 104
    HRM is more accurate, and the same thing happens to me. i burn more sometimes and others i burn less then what MFP says. its all in how hard ur working ur body that day. i do insanity, sometimes i burn less and sometimes i burn more during the same exact workout.
  • Graciecny
    Graciecny Posts: 302 Member
    Wow, my experience was totally the opposite! I've got a Polar FT7 and it always shows about 20-30% fewer calories burned than MFP. The only things that are super-close are walking 2.5 and 3.0mph. For everything else (treadmill, hill setting; elliptical) it's way off for me. I'm glad to know what I'm burning, because I would have been eating way too much and totally negating my caloric deficit! For you, it's the other way around - lucky you!!!
  • beachdiva2010
    beachdiva2010 Posts: 180 Member
    I was just about to ask the same question. There are several doing Jillian Michaels Body Revolution that I have befriended. I in NO way mean this next statement to offend anyone. However when I see people doing the same exercise, I see them posting about 100 or calories less than what my HRM says I'm burrning. Does this mean that my HRM is exaggerating my calories burned? I can honestly say that I'm giving it my all and am dripping when done. I just don't want to eat too much back if it's that far off?? Any comments welcome! Thanks!!
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    If you set it up properly with height, weight, age etc. The HRM is propbaly more accurate though I don't 100% trust anything. Overall I underlog exercise and try to log all food. I'll tend to nderlog exercise by 30% roughly. I also don't eat a huge deficit everyday. I am training fairly heavily with HIIT, Aerobic and strength and I've lost inches and that is more important to me (and I'd suggest it should be to most people). Down 2+ inches at the waist so I'm going in a good direction.
  • NateDad
    NateDad Posts: 55
    The heart rate monitor is a lot more likely to be accurate than online estimations, because the estimations online can't take into consideration your own personal fitness, which can make a big difference.

    Here's a good explanation of why the HRM is accurate: http://www.livestrong.com/article/496236-how-to-determine-calories-burned-knowing-the-heart-rate/
  • SpaceFanMomma
    SpaceFanMomma Posts: 10
    I have a Timex T5J941. I've only had it for a few days now, but I'm pretty pleased with it. I have a general distrust of technology (a love-hate relationship), but appreciate the value of using the HRM and MPF as a tool. I've been doing circuit training with moderate to heavy weight twice a week, cardio and abs three times a week, and mountain bking on the weekends. I've lost ten pounds since the first of the year, but have plateaued in my weight loss for the last weeks. That plateau is what drove me to buy a HRM and re-evaluate my diet. I know the "extras" snuck back in, so I've re-dedicated my self to sticking to what works, focusing on an overall lifestyle change, rather than a "diet." I can't live in a world where I can't enjoy an occasional beer, but finding the balance is tough.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Assuming it's a good HRM (with a chest strap), make sure it is setup properly and that you don't use it to track cals burned when lifting.

    Then stop thinking so much.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Timex are known for overestimating calories. Plus, it is not uncommon for females to have actual maximum heart rates that are notably higher than the age-based estimate that is the default setting on all HRMs. If your actual max heart rate is higher than the age-predicted estimate, then the HRM assumes you are working at a higher intensity than you are actually working and thus overestimates calories.

    HRMs do NOT measure calories. They estimate calories based on heart rate and a bunch of assumptions. An HRM is only as accurate as the setup data you provide and the estimating algorithms programmed into it. .
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Timex are known for overestimating calories. Plus, it is not uncommon for females to have actual maximum heart rates that are notably higher than the age-based estimate that is the default setting on all HRMs. If your actual max heart rate is higher than the age-predicted estimate, then the HRM assumes you are working at a higher intensity than you are actually working and thus overestimates calories.

    HRMs do NOT measure calories. They estimate calories based on heart rate and a bunch of assumptions. An HRM is only as accurate as the setup data you provide and the estimating algorithms programmed into it. .

    This!

    I was just about to type this but he beat me to it.

    My suggestion, get rid of the Timex... it really is crap. Get a Polar and make sure everything is set up correctly.. you'll be a lot happier!
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Timex are known for overestimating calories. Plus, it is not uncommon for females to have actual maximum heart rates that are notably higher than the age-based estimate that is the default setting on all HRMs. If your actual max heart rate is higher than the age-predicted estimate, then the HRM assumes you are working at a higher intensity than you are actually working and thus overestimates calories.

    HRMs do NOT measure calories. They estimate calories based on heart rate and a bunch of assumptions. An HRM is only as accurate as the setup data you provide and the estimating algorithms programmed into it. .

    This!

    I was just about to type this but he beat me to it.

    My suggestion, get rid of the Timex... it really is crap. Get a Polar and make sure everything is set up correctly.. you'll be a lot happier!

    With all due respect, I appreciate your brand loyalty but Timex HRMs get good on line reviews by independent reviewers and are not crap. They do however have a history of overestimating calorie burn for women. To the OP, I'm not familiar with the model you mentioned. Did it give you a choice of sex? If not, it's probably set up for a man and will overstate calorie for a woman. The Polar models are more user friendly for women. You may want to see if you can do a return or an exchange
  • rkgb
    rkgb Posts: 22
    My experience with all the stuff.
    I started with MFP about 5 weeks ago. I started at sedentary but felt tired and sick all the time so I moved to lightly active but that only gave my 20 more calories and I still felt like poop. Wanting to know my true exercise burn I bought a polar ft7. Love it. My calorie burn was much higher with the HRM then just using MFP estimates. Yea I thought but 3 weeks into my diet I hit a dead stop and couldn't figure out why so I bought a fitbit. I wanted to know what my activity level I was according to mfp. I consider myself lightly active (I am a stay home mom). After wearing my fitbit for over a week I have come to realize how wrong I was. I log on average 10,000 steps a day. At that level of activity I receive a daily average fitbit adjustment of 250 calories per day. I could change my activity level to very active and still have extra calories. I still consider myself lightly active but MFP does not. Since I now have a better idea of what my activity level really is and how much I burn during exercise I have been able to properly adjust my eating habits. I am no longer tired, I eat frequently, and started loosing again.
    Oh I forgot to add I now weigh and measure my food. Wow what a difference when you really know what a portion is. You need to weigh and measure.
    Now back to my strawberries!
  • KareninCanada
    KareninCanada Posts: 962 Member
    If you do a forum search for "Timex" you will find a LOT of posts from people who said their Timex HRM overestimated their calorie burn... something to do with the way their system calculates.
  • beachdiva2010
    beachdiva2010 Posts: 180 Member
    I have a Timex Health Touch HRM Watch. When I set it up , I did have to have to input all of my info, including age. Comments? Suggestions??
This discussion has been closed.

Categories