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

Options
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
    Options
    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: 3,143 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    I would say neither were accurate.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options

    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
    Options
    So pretty much estimated guessing is what to do?
  • lilpoindexter
    lilpoindexter Posts: 1,122 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    The HRM over calculates terribly.
  • falnangel1205
    falnangel1205 Posts: 16
    Options
    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
    Options
    My elliptical does the same. I just change the calories to what my elliptical says as it has a HRM.
  • newfette81
    newfette81 Posts: 185
    Options
    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

Categories