QUESTION: Fitness Tracker with HRM

nineteentwenty

Hi guys, I have a weird question for people that use heart rate monitors that sync with their fitness trackers. I use a Polar a300, it's served me very well and I'm quite happy with it.

I usually wear my HRM strap (chest) during cardio sessions. Earlier this morning, I watched a video where someone else was using one I I noticed that I had synced my device incorrectly! I set it up right, did my workout, and holy CRAP did I get different results. With the HRM, my a300 claims I had an insane burn with my usual workout, pictures are below (before first, after second).

Is this...right? I'm suspicious, to be honest. All of my body settings are correct, so that should be right. It just seems so high, I know I go hard enough to be panting and sweating, but I didn't think I was doing that much work. I get that heavier people have a higher burn but I only have a BMI of 19.4? HRMs are supposed to be more accurate, and I'm just plain confused. I thought it was going to give me a smaller burn, to be honest.

Thoughts, experience? Thanks for reading.

NorthCascades

Kkallisti wrote: »

I usually wear my HRM strap (chest) during cardio sessions. Earlier this morning, I watched a video where someone else was using one I I noticed that I had synced my device incorrectly! I set it up right, did my workout, and holy CRAP did I get different results. With the HRM, my a300 claims I had an insane burn with my usual workout, pictures are below (before first, after second).

What exactly did you do differently?

nineteentwenty

NorthCascades wrote: »

Kkallisti wrote: »

I usually wear my HRM strap (chest) during cardio sessions. Earlier this morning, I watched a video where someone else was using one I I noticed that I had synced my device incorrectly! I set it up right, did my workout, and holy CRAP did I get different results. With the HRM, my a300 claims I had an insane burn with my usual workout, pictures are below (before first, after second).

What exactly did you do differently?

It just straight up didn't sync at all the first time and I didn't even notice.

blues4miles

I see you are on a treadmill...how many miles did you cover in that hour and at what incline?

Can you tell us what your polar said was your average heart rate for that hour?

536 seems high but not horribly so. If you were running for 50 minutes, and are overweight, I'd expect 400-500. How much do you weigh? Even if you are healthy weight bigger/taller people will burn more.

nineteentwenty

-I did not look at the distance, I just went by the time. I was at incline level 8, but I don't run. I walk between 3.5-4mph.

-The average was 165bpm, but I spent a lot of time in the 170s and a few spikes into the 180s.

-I am 5'9" and 131, putting my BMI at 19.4. So tall, but not large.

blues4miles

165bpm is pretty darn good as is 8% incline (wow!) I would probably believe the 536 in absence of other info. At the very least, I think it likely it was 400 minimum for that level of effort. So whatever gave you 200 the first time might be grossly underestimating. It didn't know your incline and wasn't picking up heart rate, so was just guessing based on your weight and you doing an activity for an hour. You walking on a level surface at a moderate (but not necessarily challenging) pace for an hour would probably be around 200.

Personally I don't like to use things that give me more than 10 cals/minute, so I would have rounded that down to 500. But that's pretty common for a good intensity workout for me. Plenty of other folks on here use much higher estimates than I do and seem to have success. At the end of the day, you have to go with one "system" and try that for a couple of months and see if it's working for you.

rainbowbow

I think it's accurate if you were around that HR range for an extended period of time. i'm assuming before the A300 was just assuming you were walking and did not take into account the incline or the intensity of your heart rate.

I burn roughly 250-300 calories every 30 minutes when doing cardio and i stay in the 160-170 hr range. i'm also of similar height and weight.

nineteentwenty

Dang, that's crazy. Thanks, guys. Now I'm kind of proud of myself c: I've been underestimating myself for quite a while.

Jburlen2007

I would say the 500+ is accurate. Good, steady, high HR for an extended period of time. Kudos!

akjmart2002

FYI, you can use your average HR to estimate calories burned over a period of time, and then check that against what your HRM estimates.

Here are some good sources for that:
https://www.google.com/search?q=estimate+calories+average+HR&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

don9992

It looks to be in line with my A300. I did 32 minutes on an elliptical yesterday and I see 309 calories on mine.

abtriboy

Sounds right to me. I use hem and calorie tracking for a long time now