Will a heart rate monitor tell me exactly how i burn
Replies
-
rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the AAC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
Actually, there's nothing really helpful about not giving someone the facts...I've worn a HRM all day...I was mostly sitting in my office and more or less sedentary when I got home...at the end of a 24 hour period it said I had burned around 11,000 calories.
Telling someone that something is not meant to be used the way they are proposing to use it is actually helpful...telling people just what they want to hear isn't helpful in the least...10 -
This content has been removed.
-
rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the ACC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
She'd probably have a lot less questions if people didn't keep giving her bad information just for funsies.7 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the AAC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
Actually, there's nothing really helpful about not giving someone the facts...I've worn a HRM all day...I was mostly sitting in my office and more or less sedentary when I got home...at the end of a 24 hour period it said I had burned around 11,000 calories.
Telling someone that something is not meant to be used the way they are proposing to use it is actually helpful...telling people just what they want to hear isn't helpful in the least...
I was giving credited facts about a chest strap. You posted about your experience, which is extremely helpful and answers what the OP was asking (more so than what I've given). She can take the information from all of us and do as she pleases with it.2 -
Great. So we’ve pretty conclusively established that a heart rate monitor can accurately monitor heart rate. Awesome.rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the ACC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
The problem is that heart rate doesn’t correspond to calorie expenditure with any degree of accuracy except under very specific circumstances. And the way the OP is intending to use it doesn’t fall under those circumstances, so wearing a HRM all day to determine her calorie expenditure is going to be useless.
10 -
This content has been removed.
-
Great. So we’ve pretty conclusively established that a heart rate monitor can accurately monitor heart rate. Awesome.rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the ACC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
The problem is that heart rate doesn’t correspond to calorie expenditure with any degree of accuracy except under very specific circumstances. And the way the OP is intending to use it doesn’t fall under those circumstances, so wearing a HRM all day to determine her calorie expenditure is going to be useless.
Thank you! This is what she was asking and got scrutinized. I was stating what I had learned, and with you and wolfman further clarifying, she learned something (I know I did). Expanding on my response as to why she shouldn't is extremely helpful...so thank you!1 -
Adding HR data to the other variables used to estimate calories burned increases the accuracy of the calculation. I have a Garmin that has a continuous HRM that I wear 24 hours a day that gives me reasonable active/inactive calories burned every day. To say that relying on a general table without any HR data is preferable to utilizing an HRM in the equation makes no sense, lol.2
-
rcarter420 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the AAC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
Actually, there's nothing really helpful about not giving someone the facts...I've worn a HRM all day...I was mostly sitting in my office and more or less sedentary when I got home...at the end of a 24 hour period it said I had burned around 11,000 calories.
Telling someone that something is not meant to be used the way they are proposing to use it is actually helpful...telling people just what they want to hear isn't helpful in the least...
I was giving credited facts about a chest strap. You posted about your experience, which is extremely helpful and answers what the OP was asking (more so than what I've given). She can take the information from all of us and do as she pleases with it.
If you were familiar with her posting history, you would probably have a different opinion!11 -
poonamsonii21 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the AAC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
Actually, there's nothing really helpful about not giving someone the facts...I've worn a HRM all day...I was mostly sitting in my office and more or less sedentary when I got home...at the end of a 24 hour period it said I had burned around 11,000 calories.
Telling someone that something is not meant to be used the way they are proposing to use it is actually helpful...telling people just what they want to hear isn't helpful in the least...
Did u really burned 10000 calories
*kitten* no...I was sitting at a desk all day and then went home and watched football and went to bed...
I "burn" around 2800-3000 per day depending.0 -
rcarter420 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the AAC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
Actually, there's nothing really helpful about not giving someone the facts...I've worn a HRM all day...I was mostly sitting in my office and more or less sedentary when I got home...at the end of a 24 hour period it said I had burned around 11,000 calories.
Telling someone that something is not meant to be used the way they are proposing to use it is actually helpful...telling people just what they want to hear isn't helpful in the least...
I was giving credited facts about a chest strap. You posted about your experience, which is extremely helpful and answers what the OP was asking (more so than what I've given). She can take the information from all of us and do as she pleases with it.
If you were familiar with her posting history, you would probably have a different opinion!
You may be correct, lol! I have been a MFP member for a very long time. I set up a new account to try start fresh after having my baby. So I am not a new poster, it just looks like it. Granted, I haven't looked at many community posts until the last couple of days.
Hopefully these responses will further clarify what the poster has asked as to why she shouldn't do it.2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »poonamsonii21 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the AAC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
Actually, there's nothing really helpful about not giving someone the facts...I've worn a HRM all day...I was mostly sitting in my office and more or less sedentary when I got home...at the end of a 24 hour period it said I had burned around 11,000 calories.
Telling someone that something is not meant to be used the way they are proposing to use it is actually helpful...telling people just what they want to hear isn't helpful in the least...
Did u really burned 10000 calories
*kitten* no...I was sitting at a desk all day and then went home and watched football and went to bed...
I "burn" around 2800-3000 per day depending.
Not all HRMs / fitness trackers are created equal. They range from $15 - $1,000 + and you get what you pay for.
Getting a bizarre result like burning 10,000 calories while sitting at a desk is indicative that your tracker was a less than a precision instrument, lol
My Garmin Fenix HR 3 (around $500 when I bought it) calculates my resting calories as about the same every day, around 2,100, with my active calories varying according to my activities. Below is a day that I didn't work out, but just worked a sedentary job and walked a few miles.
0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »poonamsonii21 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the AAC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
Actually, there's nothing really helpful about not giving someone the facts...I've worn a HRM all day...I was mostly sitting in my office and more or less sedentary when I got home...at the end of a 24 hour period it said I had burned around 11,000 calories.
Telling someone that something is not meant to be used the way they are proposing to use it is actually helpful...telling people just what they want to hear isn't helpful in the least...
Did u really burned 10000 calories
*kitten* no...I was sitting at a desk all day and then went home and watched football and went to bed...
I "burn" around 2800-3000 per day depending.
Not all HRMs / fitness trackers are created equal. They range from $15 - $1,000 + and you get what you pay for.
Getting a bizarre result like burning 10,000 calories while sitting at a desk is indicative that your tracker was a less than a precision instrument, lol
My Garmin Fenix HR 3 (around $500 when I bought it) calculates my resting calories as about the same every day, around 2,100, with my active calories varying according to my activities. Below is a day that I didn't work out, but just worked a sedentary job and walked a few miles.
I used a Polar FT7...it worked just fine for jogging and whatnot and those calorie estimates were in line with other formulas as well as my own results...it was not designed as an all day wearable...I somehow doubt the OP is using a $500+ activity tracker/HRM.
Getting 10,000 calories was indicative of the fact that the HRM was being used for an application for which it was not designed. Not to mention, at the time I had a RHR of around 110 bpm.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »poonamsonii21 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the AAC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
Actually, there's nothing really helpful about not giving someone the facts...I've worn a HRM all day...I was mostly sitting in my office and more or less sedentary when I got home...at the end of a 24 hour period it said I had burned around 11,000 calories.
Telling someone that something is not meant to be used the way they are proposing to use it is actually helpful...telling people just what they want to hear isn't helpful in the least...
Did u really burned 10000 calories
*kitten* no...I was sitting at a desk all day and then went home and watched football and went to bed...
I "burn" around 2800-3000 per day depending.
Not all HRMs / fitness trackers are created equal. They range from $15 - $1,000 + and you get what you pay for.
Getting a bizarre result like burning 10,000 calories while sitting at a desk is indicative that your tracker was a less than a precision instrument, lol
My Garmin Fenix HR 3 (around $500 when I bought it) calculates my resting calories as about the same every day, around 2,100, with my active calories varying according to my activities. Below is a day that I didn't work out, but just worked a sedentary job and walked a few miles.
You're correct that not all HRMs/fitness trackers are created equal. There's a significant difference between a high-end Garmin unit such as yours, which is designed/intended for daily wear, has a multi-axis accelerometer and uses algorithms based upon your height, weight, age and activity level to calculate BMR, versus a cheap Polar HRM which is designed/intended to be used for steady state cardio and uses a simple algorithm to extrapolate calories burned from heart rate and time expended.1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »poonamsonii21 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the AAC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
Actually, there's nothing really helpful about not giving someone the facts...I've worn a HRM all day...I was mostly sitting in my office and more or less sedentary when I got home...at the end of a 24 hour period it said I had burned around 11,000 calories.
Telling someone that something is not meant to be used the way they are proposing to use it is actually helpful...telling people just what they want to hear isn't helpful in the least...
Did u really burned 10000 calories
*kitten* no...I was sitting at a desk all day and then went home and watched football and went to bed...
I "burn" around 2800-3000 per day depending.
Not all HRMs / fitness trackers are created equal. They range from $15 - $1,000 + and you get what you pay for.
Getting a bizarre result like burning 10,000 calories while sitting at a desk is indicative that your tracker was a less than a precision instrument, lol
My Garmin Fenix HR 3 (around $500 when I bought it) calculates my resting calories as about the same every day, around 2,100, with my active calories varying according to my activities. Below is a day that I didn't work out, but just worked a sedentary job and walked a few miles.
There's a significant difference between a high-end Garmin unit such as yours, which is designed/intended for daily wear, has a multi-axis accelerometer and uses algorithms based upon your height, weight, age and activity level to calculate BMR, versus a cheap Polar HRM which is designed/intended to be used for steady state cardio and uses a simple algorithm to extrapolate calories burned from heart rate and time expended.
I agree - I just posted because there was a lot of generalizing about HRMs, in general, being inaccurate and useless. If someone wants to invest in a reliable fitness tracker they can provide great results and be an integral part of your fitness regiment.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »poonamsonii21 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the AAC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
Actually, there's nothing really helpful about not giving someone the facts...I've worn a HRM all day...I was mostly sitting in my office and more or less sedentary when I got home...at the end of a 24 hour period it said I had burned around 11,000 calories.
Telling someone that something is not meant to be used the way they are proposing to use it is actually helpful...telling people just what they want to hear isn't helpful in the least...
Did u really burned 10000 calories
*kitten* no...I was sitting at a desk all day and then went home and watched football and went to bed...
I "burn" around 2800-3000 per day depending.
Not all HRMs / fitness trackers are created equal. They range from $15 - $1,000 + and you get what you pay for.
Getting a bizarre result like burning 10,000 calories while sitting at a desk is indicative that your tracker was a less than a precision instrument, lol
My Garmin Fenix HR 3 (around $500 when I bought it) calculates my resting calories as about the same every day, around 2,100, with my active calories varying according to my activities. Below is a day that I didn't work out, but just worked a sedentary job and walked a few miles.
There's a significant difference between a high-end Garmin unit such as yours, which is designed/intended for daily wear, has a multi-axis accelerometer and uses algorithms based upon your height, weight, age and activity level to calculate BMR, versus a cheap Polar HRM which is designed/intended to be used for steady state cardio and uses a simple algorithm to extrapolate calories burned from heart rate and time expended.
I agree - I just posted because there was a lot of generalizing about HRMs, in general, being inaccurate and useless. If someone wants to invest in a reliable fitness tracker they can provide great results and be an integral part of your fitness regiment.
I think people generalize based on the fact that the vast majority of people who are asking questions like this aren't looking into high end units...if they had one or they were looking into it, they would already have a pretty good grasp of things in this regard.
I have a nice Garmin bike computer that does a very good job of getting me pretty accurate expenditure estimates using a lot of different data, including my HR...but it's not particularly relevant to a question like this...4 -
Anvil and all, just want to point out that not all Polar products are cheap and low quality, the M430 I use is also meant for daily wear, and provides pretty accurate information. For actual training I throw on the chest strap and have had excellent results.
My daily activity may show as high, but I am an aircraft mechanic so I am moving most of my shift, a lot of climbing and carrying heavy crap around :P
It is all about knowing and using your training aids in the way they were designed for to give you the optimum benefit.
I wouldn't recommend the HRM method at all if you aren't willing to invest in quality equipment.
Others Mileage may vary but that is my take on it0 -
MatthewRuch wrote: »Anvil and all, just want to point out that not all Polar products are cheap and low quality, the M430 I use is also meant for daily wear, and provides pretty accurate information. For actual training I throw on the chest strap and have had excellent results.
My daily activity may show as high, but I am an aircraft mechanic so I am moving most of my shift, a lot of climbing and carrying heavy crap around :P
It is all about knowing and using your training aids in the way they were designed for to give you the optimum benefit.
I wouldn't recommend the HRM method at all if you aren't willing to invest in quality equipment.
Others Mileage may vary but that is my take on it
I'd wager that the % of people here who have higher end units are few and far between and that most of them/us have been into fitness for longer than a little bit...
I didn't invest in a higher end unit until much later in the game. My cheap FT7 worked fine for me when I was starting out and just doing some jogging and whatnot because I wanted to be able to eat a little more.
I don't think people who don't even know what exercise they should do and don't know what they want to do would be served well by investing in a high end unit. As per the OPs previous post history, she mostly walks...I don't think she needs a $500+ HRM for that. I'd wager that is more representative of the vast majority of MFP than folks who would benefit from a high end unit.5 -
MatthewRuch wrote: »Anvil and all, just want to point out that not all Polar products are cheap and low quality, the M430 I use is also meant for daily wear, and provides pretty accurate information. For actual training I throw on the chest strap and have had excellent results.
It is all about knowing and using your training aids in the way they were designed for to give you the optimum benefit.
I wouldn't recommend the HRM method at all if you aren't willing to invest in quality equipment.
Others Mileage may vary but that is my take on it
I just reread the thread. Has the OP considered linking her HRM to a 3rd party app? Something like Pulsometer, that is compatible with certain Polar HRMs, supports 24 hour HRM data, and will also calculate calories burned.0 -
rcarter420 wrote: »It has been proven that the chest strap monitors are nearly as accurate as having an EKG performed.
Accurate at measuring your heart rate. Not accurate for lottery numbers or calories.5 -
rcarter420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »A heart rate monitor can't even tell you how many calories you burn when you exercise let alone when you eat dinner. Besides, is every day in your life exactly the same?
This is false information. While exercising, a monitor with a chest strap is going to give you a very accurate calorie burn, as well as keep you in your targeted heart rate zone.
A heart rate monitor is like a speedometer. It doesn't keep you in a zone, you have to use the information it provides and actually do that yourself. Just like having a needle in your dashboard doesn't keep your car under the speed limit.
A heart rate monitor counts heart beats not calories. It's a fitness tool not a diet tool. Calorie estimates from heart rate are wildly inaccurate. It's not like a power meter.2 -
One other thing: you should know what you're talking about before you make definitive statements.3
-
rcarter420 wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »If you reread my post, you will see where I said, it's not going to hurt anything to try it, also stating it may not be 100% accurate. My point is that she will get a more accurate picture using a chest strap monitor because it is as close to wearing a EKG machine all day then she would be going off of MFP's calculations or trying to plug the calculations into an excel spreadsheet. Then she can say she tried it and it either worked or it didn't. No harm, no foul. I posted the link because many on here are saying the monitors are not accurate.
But your link doesn't say they are accurate for what OP is using it for. And when OP is eating thousands more calories than she's actually burning because of this experiment and continues to gain weight and then comes back to ask why and then we have to convince her AGAIN that it isn't accurate - it is a harm and foul.
From the ACC: "The chest strap monitor closely matched readings from the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is the gold standard for measuring the heart's activity (level of agreement with EKG, rc=.996; 1 being perfect agreement);"
We can argue about this all day...is it meant to be worn all day? NO! Can she try it and see? ABSOLUTELY!
She can always go back and re-evaluate. There are a million other users on here that are willing to assist her without getting disgruntled and annoyed. Just scroll along if you're tired of her questions.
It says as accurate for measuring heart rate. Doesn't say a word about calories. How many heart beats are there in a calorie?8 -
There is a dated thread back to August. So this past month and previous months data would have have given me enough data to figure out my daily calories burned via calories consumed, exercise calories and rate of loss by now.
OP and if you wanna use a formula for walking you can use this:
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »A heart rate monitor can't even tell you how many calories you burn when you exercise let alone when you eat dinner. Besides, is every day in your life exactly the same?
This is false information. While exercising, a monitor with a chest strap is going to give you a very accurate calorie burn, as well as keep you in your targeted heart rate zone.
A heart rate monitor is like a speedometer. It doesn't keep you in a zone, you have to use the information it provides and actually do that yourself. Just like having a needle in your dashboard doesn't keep your car under the speed limit.
A heart rate monitor counts heart beats not calories. It's a fitness tool not a diet tool. Calorie estimates from heart rate are wildly inaccurate. It's not like a power meter.
My birthday is coming up in two weeks...I'm hoping I get enough monetary contributions to get a power meter this year...2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »One other thing: you should know what you're talking about before you make definitive statements.
I did post what I knew about, and posted the facts. These other kind posters expanded and went further into the facts as to why it wouldn't work, where I was not knowledgeable. Between all of us, we posted facts...but thank you, I have noted your *opinion* of me and my credibility.
Have a wonderful day!
5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »A heart rate monitor can't even tell you how many calories you burn when you exercise let alone when you eat dinner. Besides, is every day in your life exactly the same?
This is false information. While exercising, a monitor with a chest strap is going to give you a very accurate calorie burn, as well as keep you in your targeted heart rate zone.
A heart rate monitor is like a speedometer. It doesn't keep you in a zone, you have to use the information it provides and actually do that yourself. Just like having a needle in your dashboard doesn't keep your car under the speed limit.
A heart rate monitor counts heart beats not calories. It's a fitness tool not a diet tool. Calorie estimates from heart rate are wildly inaccurate. It's not like a power meter.
That is why HR is just one variable among several used to calculate calorie estimations, along with age, sex, weight, etc.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »rcarter420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »A heart rate monitor can't even tell you how many calories you burn when you exercise let alone when you eat dinner. Besides, is every day in your life exactly the same?
This is false information. While exercising, a monitor with a chest strap is going to give you a very accurate calorie burn, as well as keep you in your targeted heart rate zone.
A heart rate monitor is like a speedometer. It doesn't keep you in a zone, you have to use the information it provides and actually do that yourself. Just like having a needle in your dashboard doesn't keep your car under the speed limit.
A heart rate monitor counts heart beats not calories. It's a fitness tool not a diet tool. Calorie estimates from heart rate are wildly inaccurate. It's not like a power meter.
My birthday is coming up in two weeks...I'm hoping I get enough monetary contributions to get a power meter this year...
Garmin Vector 3 just came out, you can get a really good price on 2. They work brilliantly. 0 -
I've asked this before, but I'll ask again...
Those people who wear a wrist based HR monitor such as the fitbit HR/charge 2 who only walk for exercise or do the odd jog, and say that it is incredibly accurate with the calorie burn so they are able to eat all/most of the calories fitbit awards them back, are either delusional or just got lucky??
I read these stories on here most everyday, and i also read that HR monitors are useless for calculating calorie burns . Who's right, who's wrong???1 -
I wear a Charge HR 2 and have been using it (or the Charge HR) since July of 2015 and eating my calories back.
I'm not sure if I qualify exactly as the type of person that you're looking for because I do run just about every day. I average about 18,000 steps a day because I tend to do a lot of walking besides running and I do eat all my calories back. It's never been a problem for me.
I completely believe that they're inaccurate for some people, but my results show that it's accurate for me.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions