Accuracy of Heart Rate Monitor

Options
2»

Replies

  • MikeInAZ
    MikeInAZ Posts: 483 Member
    Options
    Return whatever you got and get a Polar.

    I use a Polar FT4. Today I worked out for 80 minutes doing running, weight lifting, and other gym activities. I burned over 800 calories according to my Polar. To me that seems about right.

    A normal person is going to do around 100 calories every 10 minutes or so. Give or take depending on a lot of factors.

    I highly recommend the Polar. It's cheap, easy to use. The chest strap is no big deal, and I don't even notice it's there. It's even waterproof. Also the Polar will show up on a lot treadmills and elliptical at the gym.

    Check it out: http://bit.ly/polarft4

    If you want a BlueTooth version to sync with different Apps, check out the Polar H7

    http://bit.ly/polarh7
  • Leigh_b
    Leigh_b Posts: 555 Member
    Options
    Because I don't trust the calorie burn computation of HRM's I use this equation to figure out my burn based on my average heart rate over the time I have worked out.

    (0.074 x age in years - 0.05741 x weight in pounds + 0.4472 x average heart rate - 20.4022) x time elapsed / 4.184.


    This one is specifically for women - it's different for men - but using your stats and the 170 bpm it would have been a burn of 288.8 calories. You would need to know what your average heart rate over the 21 minutes was to see the real burn - but it would be far less than what your HRM is telling you.

    I agree with everyone else, you should definitely get one with a chest strap. They are a bigger pain but worth the accuracy.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Because I don't trust the calorie burn computation of HRM's I use this equation to figure out my burn based on my average heart rate over the time I have worked out.

    (0.074 x age in years - 0.05741 x weight in pounds + 0.4472 x average heart rate - 20.4022) x time elapsed / 4.184.


    This one is specifically for women - it's different for men - but using your stats and the 170 bpm it would have been a burn of 288.8 calories. You would need to know what your average heart rate over the 21 minutes was to see the real burn - but it would be far less than what your HRM is telling you.

    I agree with everyone else, you should definitely get one with a chest strap. They are a bigger pain but worth the accuracy.

    Here's an easier way to to do that from the Polar funded study the formula came from. You can keep the web page up and just put in new minutes and avgHR.

    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    Problem there is it is still assuming a HRmax figure (220-age), and a VO2max figure if you don't have one to use.
    The study is at the site.
  • fatbegone85
    fatbegone85 Posts: 70
    Options
    Return whatever you got and get a Polar.

    I use a Polar FT4. Today I worked out for 80 minutes doing running, weight lifting, and other gym activities. I burned over 800 calories according to my Polar. To me that seems about right.

    A normal person is going to do around 100 calories every 10 minutes or so. Give or take depending on a lot of factors.

    I highly recommend the Polar. It's cheap, easy to use. The chest strap is no big deal, and I don't even notice it's there. It's even waterproof. Also the Polar will show up on a lot treadmills and elliptical at the gym.

    Check it out: http://bit.ly/polarft4

    If you want a BlueTooth version to sync with different Apps, check out the Polar H7

    http://bit.ly/polarh7

    Thank You. I did just that. Returned the LifeTrak and purchased a Polar FT4 since it seems to be getting very good reviews. Ill be trying it out for first time tonight. I'm excited. You know, buying gadgets like this actually makes me look forward to working out. Who'd a thunk it?
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    imo I find it funny that so many people refer to HRMs as super accurate but then always eat back only half of their estimated calorie burns to stay on track with their weight loss.

    In my personal experience I think HRMs tend to vastly overestimate caloric burn. They are only supposed to be accurate during steadystate cardio which means only when you are in a tight aerobic range. They are not accurate for anaerobic activities like weight lifting and they are not accurate for activities that spike your heartrate like HIIT.

    I have one, a polar with a chest-strap, but I don't trust it much. I generally go with the idea that the most I will ever burn is 10 calories a minute and that only if my heart is pounding out of my chest. I then just gauge my intensity based on my heartrate from the monitor or just on how difficult the workout is for me and either multiply each minute I'm in that intense range by 10 or if its less intense by a smaller number.

    I end up logging most 70 minute intense workout sessions as something like a 500 calorie burn as a 6' tall man because there is always a warm-up and a cool down which makes the 70 minutes more like 50 minutes of full on cardio. I eat 100% of that back. Now if I just asked my HRM to tell me it would tell me I burned 1000 calories which I think is B.S.

Categories