My exercise bike posts 1/2 the amount of calories then HRM?

tobeftmom
tobeftmom Posts: 52
in Health and Weight Loss
I just got this HRM and it posts 1/2 the amount of calories burnt then my exercise bike posts, is that possible,
or is something wrong with it?
«1

Replies

  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    If it is a quality HRM and it is set up properly it is the more accurate estimate. What brand and what model and is it set up properly?
  • Crochetluvr
    Crochetluvr Posts: 3,328 Member
    Mine doesnt show twice the amount but a couple hundred more calories than the bike. I wondered about the difference myself.
  • now_or_never12
    now_or_never12 Posts: 849 Member
    Does your HRM have a strap? The ones that don't aren't too accurate as it only bases your calories burnt off the most recent HR check.
  • tobeftmom
    tobeftmom Posts: 52
    If it is a quality HRM and it is set up properly it is the more accurate estimate. What brand and what model and is it set up properly?

    My HRM is a mio drive watch and it seems to be set up right. The only thing I'm questioning about it is if the resting heart rate effects the calories burned?
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    If it is a quality HRM and it is set up properly it is the more accurate estimate. What brand and what model and is it set up properly?

    My HRM is a mio drive watch and it seems to be set up right. The only thing I'm questioning about it is if the resting heart rate effects the calories burned?

    RHR is usually factored into the algorithym for calories burned. Does it have a chest strap. Most that don't and it seems that some models of this make don't, they are far less accurate.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    If it is a quality HRM and it is set up properly it is the more accurate estimate. What brand and what model and is it set up properly?

    My HRM is a mio drive watch and it seems to be set up right. The only thing I'm questioning about it is if the resting heart rate effects the calories burned?

    I wouldn't trust either one of those.

    RHR is rarely used in calorie calc's, but it is used for better HR zone setup, along with the HRmax stat.
    Now that is the stat calories burned has a huge basis on.
    If you can't adjust that HRmax stat, the HRM is doing it for you based on age (probably 220-age), and that could be way off.

    Shoot, for women, the gold standard Polar can be 30% off if you go for default values on a version that even allows the extra stats. Hate to think how far off the MIO is.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
  • tobeftmom
    tobeftmom Posts: 52
    If it is a quality HRM and it is set up properly it is the more accurate estimate. What brand and what model and is it set up properly?

    My HRM is a mio drive watch and it seems to be set up right. The only thing I'm questioning about it is if the resting heart rate effects the calories burned?

    RHR is usually factored into the algorithym for calories burned. Does it have a chest strap. Most that don't and it seems that some models of this make don't, they are far less accurate.

    No chest strap. I have to check heart rate every once in awhile to calculate calories burned. Half the amount just seems like a big difference.
  • anberlingasm
    anberlingasm Posts: 177
    My exercise bike usually posts around half the calories of my HRM too; I tend to think this is a combination of a) the HRM overestimating a bit; and b) the exercise bike has no way of knowing how hard I'm actually working. It doesn't know how fit I am, how heavy I am, how much my heart is DYING pushing those pedals around etc. Realistically, I'm going to be burning more calories per 10 mins on that bike than someone at their goal weight, therefore, how can that bike realistically estimate my calorie burn? It's probably a bit of both.
  • beccarockslife
    beccarockslife Posts: 816 Member
    I would say neither were accurate.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member

    RHR is rarely used in calorie calc's, but it is used for better HR zone setup, along with the HRmax stat.

    My bad! I thought they did but I defer to Heybales superior knowlegde and experience.
  • tobeftmom
    tobeftmom Posts: 52
    So pretty much estimated guessing is what to do?
  • lilpoindexter
    lilpoindexter Posts: 1,122 Member
    My bike has a calorie meter, that doesn't agree with mfp for the same bike ride. My bikes computer has inputs for my weight and age...I used to take the average of the two, but now I'm taking the lower of the two (MFP in most cases) as I feel it will give me the best results.
    Curiously MFP gives me a much higher total for calories burned on the elyptical machine, compared to what the elyptical says.
  • tobeftmom
    tobeftmom Posts: 52
    I think it had to do with my rhr being to high as soon as I adjusted it the calories ran higher and closer to the bike calories.
  • Healthymom207
    Healthymom207 Posts: 67 Member
    Count your pulse for 10 seconds and times that count by 6, that should give you your answer. Compare that amount to your HRM and the bike monitor and see which is more accurate.
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    If it is a quality HRM and it is set up properly it is the more accurate estimate. What brand and what model and is it set up properly?

    My HRM is a mio drive watch and it seems to be set up right. The only thing I'm questioning about it is if the resting heart rate effects the calories burned?

    RHR is usually factored into the algorithym for calories burned. Does it have a chest strap. Most that don't and it seems that some models of this make don't, they are far less accurate.

    No chest strap. I have to check heart rate every once in awhile to calculate calories burned. Half the amount just seems like a big difference.

    Thats your problem right there.. it doesn't have a chest strap.

    Non chest strap watches are not accurate in the slightest.

    Return it ASAP and get one with a strap.. preferably a Polar.
  • kimad
    kimad Posts: 3,010 Member
    The trainers at my gym said that the calories burned that shows up on the exercise equipment is only 70-80% accurate. I think a reliable HRM is the only way to know forsure.
  • goldfinger88
    goldfinger88 Posts: 686 Member
    The HRM over calculates terribly.
  • falnangel1205
    falnangel1205 Posts: 16
    my nutritionist and cardiologist both said HRM are far more accurate than the machines or bikes..and the most accurate HRM are the ones with the chest strap, cuz its actually reading from your chest right over your heart. I find that my HRM shows im burning more than the machines do, and more than the amounts that come up in MFP. So i always put in what the HRM says. Prior to getting an HRM, i wasnt losing, so my guess is that my HRM correct. Mine is a New Balance one.
  • dewhomeschooling
    dewhomeschooling Posts: 11 Member
    My elliptical does the same. I just change the calories to what my elliptical says as it has a HRM.
  • newfette81
    newfette81 Posts: 185
    I find a difference between the bike and my HRM as well.

    the Bike I use doesn't ask for weight so its clearly just ball-parking whatever average setting that it was programmed with. I weight quite a bit more than that so obviously my HRM is gonna be a lot more accurate
  • Sheila_Ann
    Sheila_Ann Posts: 365 Member
    If it is a quality HRM and it is set up properly it is the more accurate estimate. What brand and what model and is it set up properly?

    My HRM is a mio drive watch and it seems to be set up right. The only thing I'm questioning about it is if the resting heart rate effects the calories burned?

    RHR is usually factored into the algorithym for calories burned. Does it have a chest strap. Most that don't and it seems that some models of this make don't, they are far less accurate.

    No chest strap. I have to check heart rate every once in awhile to calculate calories burned. Half the amount just seems like a big difference.

    Thats your problem right there.. it doesn't have a chest strap.

    Non chest strap watches are not accurate in the slightest.

    Return it ASAP and get one with a strap.. preferably a Polar.

    ^^^ that! def get one with a chest strap!
  • Meikmeika
    Meikmeika Posts: 108 Member
    Everytime I come across a post on HRMs I get more confused......sigh....
  • twotall1s
    twotall1s Posts: 2 Member
    I would believe the HRM with a chest strap. I went and got a Garmin HRM and I looked up how accurate it was. According to the website they have very accurate calulations with the chest strap and that the calorie calulations have been tested in labs and stuff. I've been using it since April and have dropped lots of weight (32 lbs so far) so i tend to believe it. Get the chest strap! Awkward at first but well worth the investment as it gives me peace of mind. I can even see my heart rate drop or rise as I'm working out, very cool(unless I'm dogging it).
  • hollyNhollywood
    hollyNhollywood Posts: 426 Member
    I think it had to do with my rhr being to high as soon as I adjusted it the calories ran higher and closer to the bike calories.

    It definitely sounds like its the RHR setting. As this does affect your calories burned. I also currently have a Mio, not sure if mine is a 'Drive' (its a "petite" version). I figured this out when I noticed that all of a sudden I wasn't getting anywhere the same amount of calories burned as I had been.
    I scrolled thru the info and saw that somehow my RHR reset itself up to about 90, when it had been about 62. So the very next morning, I did my RHR again (this time 59) and it is now tracking what seems to be accurate calories.

    I just ordered the Polar FT4 just because I can't stand constantly checking my heart rate during my exercise DVDs, and worse, when I am on my Trikke (which requires both hands to be on the handlebars, constantly shifting weight/direction to keep myself propelling forward). And I'm finding myself checking it constantly to get as accurate of a reading as I can.

    *Just checked- mine is also a Mio Drive :-)
  • tobeftmom
    tobeftmom Posts: 52
    I think it had to do with my rhr being to high as soon as I adjusted it the calories ran higher and closer to the bike calories.

    It definitely sounds like its the RHR setting. As this does affect your calories burned. I also currently have a Mio, not sure if mine is a 'Drive' (its a "petite" version). I figured this out when I noticed that all of a sudden I wasn't getting anywhere the same amount of calories burned as I had been.
    I scrolled thru the info and saw that somehow my RHR reset itself up to about 90, when it had been about 62. So the very next morning, I did my RHR again (this time 59) and it is now tracking what seems to be accurate calories.

    I just ordered the Polar FT4 just because I can't stand constantly checking my heart rate during my exercise DVDs, and worse, when I am on my Trikke (which requires both hands to be on the handlebars, constantly shifting weight/direction to keep myself propelling forward). And I'm finding myself checking it constantly to get as accurate of a reading as I can.

    *Just checked- mine is also a Mio Drive :-)

    I wish I had bought another one. I didn't know you had to keep checking HR constantly.:sad:
  • tobeftmom
    tobeftmom Posts: 52
    So if you're heart rate is high does that mean you have to work twice as hard to get higher calories?
  • Athena413
    Athena413 Posts: 1,709 Member
    So if you're heart rate is high does that mean you have to work twice as hard to get higher calories?

    1. Never trust the calculation on the machines. They're typically pre-programmed for a 150# man. If you're not a man, and you're not 150#, it's going to be way off.

    2. The higher your heart rate is, the more calories you burn, but you don't want to get it too high.

    3. Chest strap.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    So if you're heart rate is high does that mean you have to work twice as hard to get higher calories?

    If your HR is high you ARE getting more calories than at lower HR.

    As you improve, you will indeed be working harder to maintain that same high HR.

    Same way you walk fast up a flight of stairs and get out of breath. Keep doing it at same pace and that stops. Not as much effort once in shape.

    Higher HR also means more carb calories at that.

    Which may be fine if these are short workouts, 30 min. If these are 60 min every day almost, make sure you are eating back enough carb calories before the next workout. If those energy stores aren't available, muscle will be used.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    It definitely sounds like its the RHR setting. As this does affect your calories burned. I also currently have a Mio, not sure if mine is a 'Drive' (its a "petite" version). I figured this out when I noticed that all of a sudden I wasn't getting anywhere the same amount of calories burned as I had been.
    I scrolled thru the info and saw that somehow my RHR reset itself up to about 90, when it had been about 62. So the very next morning, I did my RHR again (this time 59) and it is now tracking what seems to be accurate calories.

    That is wild, in all my research of HRM, never saw a study that used RHR is calorie burn algorithms.

    You'll find the Polar does NOT.

    That Mio must be doing a straight line estimate from RHR to MHR, bringing in your age and weight hopefully. That has been shown to be very inaccurate in several studies.
    It's not a straight line from RHR, but only in the aerobic range is it decently straight.
  • tobeftmom
    tobeftmom Posts: 52
    Thanks for the help. I ended up returning the mio and am getting a polar :-)

Categories