Calories: Heart rate monitor data -V- Gym Equipment data

catch88

Hi hoping someone can explain this to me.

I have a Nike heart rate monitor/watch which comes with a strap that fits under my bust. I have entered all my data into it:

female 27
57kg
5'3

I enter the same info into eg. Octane cross trainer at the gym (excludes height)

The rate at which i supposedly burn calories is different from the gym equip. to my heart rate monitor.

So my heart rate monitor says i burn 100 cals in 14 minutes where as the cross trainer says i do it in 8 mins 30 secs. Its a bit of a difference.

Do the people here generally ignore the gym equip data?

j@utis

same here. my hr monitor says 100kcal after 10mins on xtrainer, when xtrainer 'hits' 100kcal in 7mins I do believe my hr monitor and ignore equipment readings cause the later is wayyy too high (on all cardio machines).
I would have to push myself to nearly 100% of HR max all the time for those two readings to match or at least be close to each other.

rubadub

In both your cases the equpiment says more than the 3rd party monitor. This is to be expected, the gym equipment manufacturers have a vested interest to overestimate their calorie burning readouts. So you go "oh, that brand of rowing machine is great, I burn wayyy more calories on it than the other brand, but I feel the same after."

It is the opposite of car manufacturers boasting about low mile per gallons, when in reality they can be higher, it is very easy to skew results to favour one thing or another. They are all eastimates, use them as scores like a computer game, try and beat your high score next time.

cowzerp

The heart rate monitor will base your calorie burning by your weight height sex and most importantly heart rate level!

the gym machine will only base it on weight and the speed you set, sometimes sex too but its a set calorie burn for everyone,

therefore the heart rate monitor will be more accurate as its basing the burn on your actual work judged from your heart rate and the other guidelines!