Side by side comparison of HRM's

toots99

Has anyone ever done a comparison of two different brands of HRMs and seen a difference in readings when doing the same exercise for the same amount of time?

I'm curious to see or know about any comparisons.

AnaNotBanana

That's a good questions Toots. I'd be curious to see if anyone has ever did this and what results they got.

toots99

:flowerforyou:

tabbychiro

Ok, I saw this a couple days ago and it made me curious so yesterday I tried it.

I have a Garmin Forerunner 305 and a Polar FT7. Last night I put them both on. Once I got the straps placed properly both were very close in HR readings, usually the same or just off by 1 beat. I wore them both for almost 20 minutes and just walked slowly on the treadmill.

Garmin results:
Avg HR: 108
Max HR: 116
Calories: 60

Polar FT7:
Avg HR: 108
Max HR; 117
Calories: 87

I'm assuming that the Garmin has less calories burned because I had a New Leaf metabolic assessment done, which gave me a profile that I could put in the Garmin. The assessment also told me what my HR zones are. The assessment was done on a treadmill with a mask so I think it must make the Garmin more accurate with the calorie calculations.

jane77

:flowerforyou: I've been thinking of trying this if I can get my polar to stay on I'll try it a couple time this week and get back to you

toots99

Ok, I saw this a couple days ago and it made me curious so yesterday I tried it.

I have a Garmin Forerunner 305 and a Polar FT7. Last night I put them both on. Once I got the straps placed properly both were very close in HR readings, usually the same or just off by 1 beat. I wore them both for almost 20 minutes and just walked slowly on the treadmill.

Garmin results:
Avg HR: 108
Max HR: 116
Calories: 60

Polar FT7:
Avg HR: 108
Max HR; 117
Calories: 87

I'm assuming that the Garmin has less calories burned because I had a New Leaf metabolic assessment done, which gave me a profile that I could put in the Garmin. The assessment also told me what my HR zones are. The assessment was done on a treadmill with a mask so I think it must make the Garmin more accurate with the calorie calculations.

Thanks!

jane77

Ok just to confuse things more. I jogged today with my polar FT4 and my Timex Ironman zone train and my run keeper app I than also put my numbers into a few web sites. yes both HRM are set up right and for me Yes the Timex is way wrong in their formula and I have know that since the first time I put it on. ANd no I don't jogg fast, slow and steady. I use to run 5 days a week had some foot problems, now go once a week on my rest day from P90X, which by the way has really helped my feet and made me a stronger jogger. BLAH BLAH BLAH anyway here's the info
Polar 1:29:22 Time Calories 741 Average HR 154 Max 185 In Zone 1:08:09

Timex 1:29:35 Time Calories 1373 Average HR 153 Max 176 In Zone 1:02:00

Run Keeper gives me this 6.30 miles 13:38 min miles 809 cal

WWW.triathlontraning gives me 922 cal info they wanted age 47, weight 155, Gender F , Average HR, Duration.V02 I Use 35

MFP could only put 5mph Its really 4.25 coldn't fine a way to do that 834 calories burned

Health Status web site (say best calcultor) only asked for age and duration 731 cal

Run the Plant web sites two way to calculate Weight and distance 638 calories Speed and miles per hour 876 Calories

So what do it all mean I dont know and either does anyone else But my general thought we cant get to caught up in the numbers
because the power that be are still trying to figure them out. (side note my timex zone trainer I have alway know to 1/2 my numbers but there may be people out there that dont and Timex should be ashamed)

toots99

Thanks for the comparison! :drinker:

Interesting how different some of them are.

toots99

Thanks for the comparison! :drinker:

Interesting how different some of them are.