Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

TOPIC: Heart Rate Monitors- How accurate are the calories burned?

« Prev 1
« Prev 1
 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
August 31, 2011 7:41 AM
I got a heart rate monitor watch w/ chest strap, and it is telling me I only burn 400-ish calories in an hour of intense kickboxing. It just doesn't seem accurate to me. An hour of medium intensity on an elliptical machine, when I program in my weight/sex/age, it tells me that I burn closer to 800-1000 range. What's up with this? I am 5'6", 125#, female, 25 yo. How many calories should I be burning in an hour of intense cardio class??
August 31, 2011 7:42 AM
thing is those machines are never super accurate I would go with the HRM.

When I first started using mine I was really disappointed because it was so much lower then I realized I wasn't wetting it enough and so it wasn't reading throughout my entire workout and it jumped drastically!make sure your strap is dripping before you put it on!
  5965081
August 31, 2011 7:47 AM
QUOTE:

I got a heart rate monitor watch w/ chest strap, and it is telling me I only burn 400-ish calories in an hour of intense kickboxing. It just doesn't seem accurate to me. An hour of medium intensity on an elliptical machine, when I program in my weight/sex/age, it tells me that I burn closer to 800-1000 range. What's up with this? I am 5'6", 125#, female, 25 yo. How many calories should I be burning in an hour of intense cardio class??


most likely your HRM is a much better estimate than the elliptical. Next time you do the elliptical wear your HRM and program the machine, and you will see the HRM is much lower.
August 31, 2011 7:47 AM
The HRM Is definately More accurate than the Machines. the machines don't take into account your fitness level. they base it on the average person, which in todays society isn't very fit.
August 31, 2011 7:47 AM
As long as your HRM is programmed correctly to your stats, I'd go with that. Machines are inaccurate as I learned after getting my HRM - machines seem to overshoot.
August 31, 2011 7:48 AM
From what I understand, the less you weigh the less you burn. I'm currently 135 and an hour of Zumba (where I work quite hard) typically only nets me 500 & some calories burned. I use a Polar FT7 with a chest strap.
August 31, 2011 7:49 AM
This is from another source that is highly accurate.

Kick Boxing
Kick boxing is a high-impact cardio activity that engages all of your core muscle groups. Kick boxing movements may include roundhouse kicking, punching, twists and other fast-paced movements that build strength and endurance, and it can burn hundreds of calories per hour. This is typically a solo or partner activity, and it's a great way to get and stay in shape!

This activity burns approximately 658 calories per hour
  4849970
August 31, 2011 7:49 AM
If you have properly setup your HR Zones on your HR Monitor then it should be much more accurate than the machine. Like it's already been stated, the machine does not account for Genetics, Fitness Level, etc.
  10207017
August 31, 2011 7:50 AM
QUOTE:

I got a heart rate monitor watch w/ chest strap, and it is telling me I only burn 400-ish calories in an hour of intense kickboxing. It just doesn't seem accurate to me. An hour of medium intensity on an elliptical machine, when I program in my weight/sex/age, it tells me that I burn closer to 800-1000 range. What's up with this? I am 5'6", 125#, female, 25 yo. How many calories should I be burning in an hour of intense cardio class??

The better your fitness level, the less calories you will burn.
August 31, 2011 7:51 AM
400 cals seems low. When i do 1 hour of martial arts (and what i do is generally not super intense like kickboxing would be), that's close to what i burn. I would expect your kickboxing class to cause you to burn much more than 400. When i do boot camp style classes (which are likely comparable in terms of fitness level to your class, i'd guess), i burn any where from 900-1100 cals depending on the day. I'm 41 & 179 lbs so results may vary.

Sometimes the strap doesn't stay on so well for me if we're running or jumping, and my HRM can't get a read. Maybe that's happening? Have you entered all the data in to your HRM i.e. age, weight, etc?
  3260784
August 31, 2011 7:54 AM
just Clarifying that the MACHINES are off and not the HRM :)
  5965081
August 31, 2011 7:55 AM
Just recently I was at a standstill with my weight loss so I had a resting and exercise metabolic rate test done. I was SHOCKED at how little I actually burned in comparison to what the machines, mfp, and heart rate monitor was telling me. As it turns out I burn approximately 1/3 of what I thought!!! I was eating back what I THOUGHT I had been burning and subsequently eating too much. Now I'm back to losing weight by eating back the correct calories.

If you can't get an exercise metabolic test done, go with the heart rate monitor. You'll likely have better success. Of course, that's just my opinion.
August 31, 2011 7:55 AM
QUOTE:


most likely your HRM is a much better estimate than the elliptical. Next time you do the elliptical wear your HRM and program the machine, and you will see the HRM is much lower.


The cardio machines get your heart rate from your hands. This is not as accurate as the reading from the chest strap HRM as far as calories burned. I used to work with Polar, that is how I got this information.
  3995337
August 31, 2011 8:18 AM
What kind of HRM? If its a Polar, it should be pretty spot on. If it's just a sportline or timex, it will most likely be off calorie wise.
  6370231
August 31, 2011 8:20 AM
I'm still laughing at the "approximately 658 calories per hour"....
  3627003
August 31, 2011 9:05 AM
QUOTE:

I got a heart rate monitor watch w/ chest strap, and it is telling me I only burn 400-ish calories in an hour of intense kickboxing. It just doesn't seem accurate to me. An hour of medium intensity on an elliptical machine, when I program in my weight/sex/age, it tells me that I burn closer to 800-1000 range. What's up with this? I am 5'6", 125#, female, 25 yo. How many calories should I be burning in an hour of intense cardio class??


At 125 lbs, you don't burn a lot of calories. 400 calories/hour at your weight would indicate an intensity of 7-8 METs, which is appropriate for an hour of kickboxing. "Intensity" can be a relative term when it comes to group exercise. The ability to generate a level of intensity is affected not only by fitness level, but by choreography, skill at executing the movements, ability to push oneself both at a high effort and a sustained, continuous effort, etc.

Not all exercise machines are inaccurate, but most ellipticals are.
August 31, 2011 9:08 AM
QUOTE:

The HRM Is definately More accurate than the Machines. the machines don't take into account your fitness level. they base it on the average person, which in todays society isn't very fit.


Fitness level has little or no effect on the calories burned at any comparable intensity level.

If a 60 yr old who weighs 150 lbs and an Olympic runner who weighs 150lb run at 6 mph, they will both burn roughly the same number of calories. It will feel much easier to one than the other, but it's the "absolute" intensity that determines calorie burn, not the "relative" intensity.
August 31, 2011 9:11 AM
QUOTE:

This is from another source that is highly accurate.

Kick Boxing
Kick boxing is a high-impact cardio activity that engages all of your core muscle groups. Kick boxing movements may include roundhouse kicking, punching, twists and other fast-paced movements that build strength and endurance, and it can burn hundreds of calories per hour. This is typically a solo or partner activity, and it's a great way to get and stay in shape!

This activity burns approximately 658 calories per hour


No one can state that an activity burns "XXX" amount of calories for everyone. Caloric burn is dependent on weight .

When it comes to a group exercise class such as kickboxing, any "general" estimate is even more suspect, since class structure and ability will vary.
August 31, 2011 9:13 AM
QUOTE:

If you have properly setup your HR Zones on your HR Monitor then it should be much more accurate than the machine. Like it's already been stated, the machine does not account for Genetics, Fitness Level, etc.


Heart rate "zones" do not play any role in how many calories you burn--other than the fact that working harder burns more calories.

Genetics--at least not for the average person-- and fitness level don't really factor in either.
August 31, 2011 9:17 AM
I hate how everyone says kickboxing is a high calorie burning workout. I have been taking kickboxing classes for two years now and sometimes we practice self defense which is obviously not going to burn as many calories as doing 2 minutes of consecutive roundhouses off each leg! Sometimes we do slow, non impact movements to make sure the technique is right. You can't generalise the calorie burn! I always put my calories down as thai chi if we are using the slower movements
August 31, 2011 9:21 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:


most likely your HRM is a much better estimate than the elliptical. Next time you do the elliptical wear your HRM and program the machine, and you will see the HRM is much lower.


The cardio machines get your heart rate from your hands. This is not as accurate as the reading from the chest strap HRM as far as calories burned. I used to work with Polar, that is how I got this information.


Hand sensor readings can be affected by quality of contact -- things like perspiration, hand cream, etc, can affect the signal.
With an unaffected signal, handrail sensors are just as accurate as chest straps--both signals are transmitted to the console display by the same Polar receiver module plugged into the console.

In any case, machines do not rely on heart rate to estimate calories burned. That's because they measure the actual workload that is being performed. The reason why so many machines (not all) inaccurately estimate calories is that they are lazy and sloppy about the equations they use to translate the measured workload into an aerobic intensity. It's no different than what cheap HRM manufacturers do. Some manufacturers -- Life Fitness for example -- put a lot of research and effort into developing machine-specific algorithms and thus their calorie estimates tend to be the most accurate in the business--often more accurate than an HRM.
August 31, 2011 9:46 AM
I have a new HRM and using it this morning it registered about the same as MFP would for the walk I had. I am 64 and I weigh 135 lbs. I cannot walk as fast as a younger person. But , I walked 30 min. and it registered 109 calories burned.Mfp has it at 100. So, I was very pleased with that number. My resting rate is about 57 ( I know it seems low but its been like that for several yrs) and at its peak is about 110. Don't know if that is normal or not.... I'm loving my HRM more every day....
  4350941
August 31, 2011 9:49 AM
I have a Garmin 310XT. I use it to time intervals, gauge pace and measure distance. I don't use it for any activity that doesn't have a steady state aerobic component to it like lifting, yoga or sitting on my couch watching television. Even then, for the steady state stuff the calorie burn is an interesting number to kind of see but I just always end up going with the ACSM metabolic calcs when logging. At my weight (115 lbs) and my typical training pace (6 mph) it rounds down to 500 calories an hour (~10 METs). It's an easy to remember number and if I go a little faster or a little slower the difference isn't huge so I just go with that and call it a day.
August 31, 2011 9:56 AM
I'm 142 lb, 5'5", and I burn ~600 calories an hour when doing a sparring class in Tae Kwon Do, and ~330 calories per hour in a normal technique class, as per my HRM. So, your numbers sound pretty reasonable to me.

I burn about 450 calories an hour on an elliptical, working on the difficulty setting of 15 out of 20 at about 10-11 km/h.
Edited by kunibob On August 31, 2011 9:57 AM
August 31, 2011 10:15 AM
it is really frustrating to put that much effort and intensity into an hour of my life, and only get 400 extra calories from it. grr!!!!explode

Reply

Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.