Calorie counter: worth the investment?

Hornsby

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Honestly, IMO, most people are better served by not having HRMs at all. Just go out for a 2 mile run to get a baseline fitness level, then scale using MET. Simple, and way less prone to the kinds of catastrophic errors we routinely see on MFP.

If you can't run 2 miles, you aren't fit enough to burn a meaningful amount anyway, so don't bother logging it until your fitness level improves.

Agreed, but unfortunately people like believing they burned 500 calories in 30 minutes doing a DVD or YouTube video.

Soundwave79

Hornsby wrote: »

Lapre79 wrote: »

Sure. And I get that for STEADY STATE CARDIO it's the most accurate. But for HIIT programs like Insanity and T25 you can still get a relatively reasonable ballpark figure to work with. If you have to double check it against a calculator or MFP then fine. Take the lessor of the three and log that minus a certain percentage you feel comfortable with. But to just trust MFP's numbers I certainly wouldn't recommend that.

Again for like the 5th time. I was giving the OP some ballpark numbers that my HRM was giving me just as a reference for her. Those numbers correlate well with the calculators as you have seen. I feel like if she wants a MORE ACCURATE number to work with she can attain one with an HRM if she is doing HIIT videos like me. That was the extent of my suggestion to her.

And again, I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. Seriously, if you end your paragraph with "for you" then it might be accurate, but you are assuming that it would work the same for everyone else. That's not the case. MFP numbers are actually closer to my burns than an HRM is (if I'm not doing steady state cardio). So how does that work for your "MORE ACCURATE" numbers?

At this point you are just arguing to argue. You do what works for you, I'll do what works for me, and she can take into account the suggestions and decide what works for her.

Hornsby

Lapre79 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

Lapre79 wrote: »

Sure. And I get that for STEADY STATE CARDIO it's the most accurate. But for HIIT programs like Insanity and T25 you can still get a relatively reasonable ballpark figure to work with. If you have to double check it against a calculator or MFP then fine. Take the lessor of the three and log that minus a certain percentage you feel comfortable with. But to just trust MFP's numbers I certainly wouldn't recommend that.

Again for like the 5th time. I was giving the OP some ballpark numbers that my HRM was giving me just as a reference for her. Those numbers correlate well with the calculators as you have seen. I feel like if she wants a MORE ACCURATE number to work with she can attain one with an HRM if she is doing HIIT videos like me. That was the extent of my suggestion to her.

And again, I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. Seriously, if you end your paragraph with "for you" then it might be accurate, but you are assuming that it would work the same for everyone else. That's not the case. MFP numbers are actually closer to my burns than an HRM is (if I'm not doing steady state cardio). So how does that work for your "MORE ACCURATE" numbers?

At this point you are just arguing to argue. You do what works for you, I'll do what works for me, and she can take into account the suggestions and decide what works for her.

I'm arguing for the sake of arguing? I am giving you facts that are common knowledge on this board. You are coming back with N=1 anecdotes and statements that just aren't right. I am telling you the same thing that HRM manufacturers as well as anyone who has done any research on HRMs would tell you..ie..facts. I would say you are the one arguing to just argue.

Soundwave79

Well those anecdotes and false statements are working just fine for me.

The OP asked for opinions on calorie trackers and I offered mine on the Polar and my results with it. It works well for me and I have found it to be pretty accurate. She's capable of Googling and researching the science behind them just as I did when I purchased mine. If she feels like it matches well with her activity then hey great. If not that's also great. I'm not even the only one who suggested the Polar. It's a pretty popular tool used across the home fitness crowd on here. I offered my experience, you offered yours. Let's move on.