Calorie-burn confused

masterofktulu
masterofktulu Posts: 151 Member
edited November 12 in Health and Weight Loss
I bought a sportline HMR watch for 70 bucks and I did the elliptical for 30 minutes today on a good speed. My heart rate average was about 150. The machine which also reads heart rate indicated I burned 420 calories for the workout and my watch indicated I only burned about 160 calories. MFP also estimates I burned 470. Is my watch the one that is right and I only burned 150? I had a similar watch last year but I did not find it accurate as you needed to set tons of stuff on it. Opinions, or do I need to realize 150 calories is what I really burned?
«1

Replies

  • Karmael
    Karmael Posts: 12
    I would suggest that you use the figure the machine gives you, that is what I use.
  • inchestopinch
    inchestopinch Posts: 67 Member
    Does your HRM come with a chest strap? I found at first that I wasn't wetting the chest strap sensors and getting very inaccurate readings. But personally 150 seems lower then I would expect if you were going at a reasonable pace, and resistance. Best of luck!
  • jhp2007
    jhp2007 Posts: 6
    i would go by the machine shows or the information given on this site when you enter in your daily exercise...
  • LatinaGordita
    LatinaGordita Posts: 377 Member
    IF your HRM does not have a chest strap, then it is useless. Get a Polar or Garmin. They are accurate. Machines and MFP over estimate my calories burned by 2/3.
  • KaleidoscopeEyes1056
    KaleidoscopeEyes1056 Posts: 2,996 Member
    150 for 30 minutes seems way too low. Go with the machine.
  • rockerbabyy
    rockerbabyy Posts: 2,258 Member
    IF your HRM does not have a chest strap, then it is useless. Get a Polar or Garmin. They are accurate.
    ^ this
    if the machine asked for age/weight, etc id say go with that.
  • mdebbie1026
    mdebbie1026 Posts: 164 Member
    I have the Polar FT7 and it was very difficult to get used to the lower calorie burn numbers compared to the machines and especially MFP. But weight loss has been more consistant with it than it was before. Slow but going down! Hope that helps.
    However 150 seems extremely low for your settings.


    10100588.png
    Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Weight Loss Tools
  • tlynnweb
    tlynnweb Posts: 201 Member
    What they said above about the chest strap and also, do you have it set for your weight/age, etc? It could be set for a 100 lb female if not!!
  • ALH1981
    ALH1981 Posts: 538 Member
    i posted a smiler piece about my calorie burn - i DEFINATELY think that MFP and machines overestimate burn... you should use your HRM..

    I was thinking i was burning a lot more, and eating more to compensate - did not work well!!!
  • masterofktulu
    masterofktulu Posts: 151 Member
    Thank you for the quick responses!

    No this one does not have a chest strap, but i have no problem with returning it and getting the one with the chest strap which is actually ten dollars cheaper. Does wetting my wrist where the watch is matter, or does that only apply to the chest strap? I found it odd how I was getting a huge sweat and my heart rate climbed as high as 160 and i went non stop for 30 and my watch gave me such a discouraging low number of 150. I will invest in the one with the strap, and if it still doesn't work I will definitely get a more expensive reliable one.
  • joanthemom8
    joanthemom8 Posts: 375 Member
    I had a similar situation with the stationary bike at the gym - MFP says that at the vigorous rate, calories burned were over 400 (35 minutes) , but the bike at the gym had me pegged at around 250. At first I was recording the higher number, but then I decided I should go with the bike's number, because it was constantly measuring my heart rate, RPMs, etc. Good luck!
  • pinkgigi
    pinkgigi Posts: 693 Member
    My watch doesn't work properly when I'm on the elliptical because the chest strap is competing with the watch and the elliptical. Go with what the elliptical says if it is using your heart rate.

    GG
  • Loves418
    Loves418 Posts: 330 Member
    Love my polar with the chest strap and the machines at gym are way off. I am tired so my brain is fuzzy but today I did the elliptical for 17 mins on level 2 ( I missed a week of working out due to being out of town so I have to start over again) and I burned a 105 calories in that time.
  • Pebble321
    Pebble321 Posts: 6,423 Member
    That seems very low to me - I estimate about 10 cals/minute when I'm running and 4-5 for a decent paced walk.
    I would expect the elliptical would burn somewhere between those two figures.... of course they are only estimates but it gives me a good guideline to compare to when I'm trying something new (bear in mind that I'm female, 5'4" and around 155 pounds)

    So, 150 for a man on the elliptical for 30 mins - seems a bit low.
    I'd agree, get a chest strap and see how your results are from that.
    In the meantime I'd probably use the machine numbers
  • masterofktulu
    masterofktulu Posts: 151 Member
    What they said above about the chest strap and also, do you have it set for your weight/age, etc? It could be set for a 100 lb female if not!!

    I set the watch at my weight, age and current "stride" distance
  • blueandigo
    blueandigo Posts: 296
    Plug your age, weight and average heart rate, or HR, into the equation (-55.0969 + 0.6309 x HR + 0.1988 x weight + 0.2017 x age) / 4.184 to determine calories burned per minute for men and (-20.4022 + 0.4472 x HR - 0.1263 x weight + 0.074 x age) / 4.184 for women. Multiply the result by the duration of exercise in minutes to determine total caloric expenditure.


    With those calculations you burned 651 calories.
  • jomo1113
    jomo1113 Posts: 17 Member
    I currently use a MIO HRM without a chest strap, and I'm getting ready to purchase one with a chest strap. Even though I am able to check my heart rate constantly, I found that when doing an intense workout (boot camp) the sweat on my wrist somehow disables the watch's ability to check my rate. I'm picking up a new one with a chest strap this weekend.
  • TanyaCurtis
    TanyaCurtis Posts: 630
    I don't know about ur HRM, but I got a Polar FT40. On my elliptical I burn 1300 calories, and on my HRM I burn 500 calories. I definitely trust my HRM because I watch my heart rate most of the time, it's very accurate. It was a big slap in the face at first, but it's better to be completely honest on ur weight loss journey, instead of ignorant and believing what looks best haha :) It sucks, but urs sounds right too!!


    Does urs have the chest strap?? If not u should get one that does, that's the most accurate!
  • leomom72
    leomom72 Posts: 1,797 Member
    should buy one with a chest strap
  • LethaSue
    LethaSue Posts: 285 Member
    If it has a chest strap then it is most likly accurate. It is the only thing that is taking in all of your info and going from there. Age, gender, and it got the beats per minute no doupt. Can't argue with that.
  • 99cherrypie99
    99cherrypie99 Posts: 205 Member
    I agree with getting a HRM with the chest strap. It is the most accurate estimation of your burn. Machines and MFP waaaaaay, way, way overestimate...
  • thelittlefox
    thelittlefox Posts: 20
    Aaaand this is why I refuse to eat calories I've burned through exercise. I really have no idea how accurate any machine I use is, or what MFP says, so I just abstain. I can't really afford a reliable calorie counter.

    But yeah, neither of those readings sound accurate, although the watch is probably closer. You're better off playing it safe and going with the lower number until you get the chest strap. Hope that works out better for you! :)
  • jaymek92
    jaymek92 Posts: 309 Member
    based on this calculator: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx you burned about 450 calories.
  • dmoisson
    dmoisson Posts: 10 Member
    From what I have learned I can burn about 1000 calories/hour doing fairly vigorous exercise. (or there abouts)
    So 30 minutes for you would be about 450 or so I would guess. You would be a little less than me because it
    looks like I might weigh a bit more than you and weight a huge factor. If I only burned 300/hour doing
    vigorous exercise I would be in serious trouble! Just my .02
  • angieleighbyrd
    angieleighbyrd Posts: 989 Member
    Did you input your weight on the machine?
  • angimac
    angimac Posts: 145 Member
    Are you consistently checking your pulse rate with the button during your workout? I have a sportline HRM and that is the only way to get a fairly accurate reading. The paperwork says something along the lines of "the more often you check heart rate you get a more accurate calorie burn count"... on the model I have, that means pressing the infernal button several times during my workout. Which is a pain... I want a fitbit or body media. or at the very least, a HRM with chest strap

    Also, when I had to change the battery in my sportline, it hasn't worked properly since... if returning it is still an option, you might want to look into another brand
  • courtneymal17
    courtneymal17 Posts: 672 Member
    Ok first off...DONT just go with the machine/mfp because they're higher/you like the number better...those both only give you an estimation based on collected data for your height and weight. Especially MFP doesnt take into account HOW hard you actually worked out. For your HRM...first off, like they said...the chest straps are the biggest part...if it has one, make sure you're wetting the strap thoroughly and it stayed in place. Also make sure all of your stats are set up correctly. If you DO decide to go based on MFP/the machine I would not eat all of those exercise calories back.
  • kfayjay
    kfayjay Posts: 7
    I know a lot of ppl like the Polar brand...I am one that did not. It was too small for me to read and also the light was not bright enough and also had too many other bells and whistles on it that I would never use. I have the Sportline brand and I find it just as reliable as the Polars and cheaper! I have had the ones without the chest strap which were accurate and am now using the Sportline hrm with the strap. I do find the strap to be more accurate than without. The one I have is the Sportline Duo. You can check it out online and also may want to compare it with the Polar as to your personal needs. Also with your own make sure that all the stats are registered in it for you. Good Luck!
  • beautifullybold1
    beautifullybold1 Posts: 3 Member
    I say use the info from the machine it is probably the most accurate.
  • wordpainter09
    wordpainter09 Posts: 472 Member
    Machines are only good if you put in weight/age etc I think otherwise they overestimate or do the default numbers.

    150 sounds low but 470 for 30 mins might be high. I have a BodyMediaFit and I think it's the best, but it's a personal preference. Second the other posters re: the chest strap.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories