Recording Calories-HRM

Options
raindawg
raindawg Posts: 348 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Question for everyone. I bought a Polar FT7 a few months back and have been surprised at how different the calorie numbers are from the machine readings I used to use.

I'm 47 and weigh 167lbs. Today for example. Half hour walk on the treadmill (at an incline)l, my average heart rate was 115. The HRM says I burned 240 calories. the machine had me at 145. I ended up recording 200 in my tracking.

Does anyone else have big differences? Which do you record?

Replies

  • cantfail
    cantfail Posts: 169 Member
    Options
    The calorie estimates on cardio machines are notoriously inaccurate especially if they don't ask for you age and weight. I always log what my HRM says.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    I use my FT7 for all cardio in the gym and outdoors. It may or not be "right" but it should be at least consistent so I use my HRM numbers.

    A couple of years ago it would normally show either close to most machine's readings or just over, now it's consistently showing considerably less (c. 15%) than the various machines say. In that time my resting heart rate has dropped from around 60bpm to 48bpm and it takes much greater effort to elevate my heart rate. So now I can produce more power with less heartbeats - that's the problem with HRM calorie estimates, HRMs count heartbeats and not calories!

    If you are around average fitness it should be close enough to give you a useable estimate. If you really want more accuracy then a more expensive model with VO2 max setting would be better. But in the end as long as it's reasonably consistent that should be good enough.

    You could try comparing walking or running calculators against your FT7 reading if you want to get an idea of how similar the readings are. Or just accept that everything in this weight control game is an estimate!

Categories