Timex sportline vs. Polar FT4 HRM Calories count...

wmjrigo

Ok…So I used both HRM brands above doing the same elliptical HIIT routine. Same Stats entered into both as far as age, height and what not. Yes, the contacts where wet.

Timex for 32 min was 672 calories
Polar for 32 min was 438 calories

Pretty big difference. Any thoughts or experiences? I’m tending to lean towards the Polar as being more accurate.

thegirl68

do they both have the chest strap? If only one has the chest strap, I would go with that one as being more accurate. good work out either way! :-)

wmjrigo

Yeah both with chest strap

crystal_sapphire

hmm. i have a timex sportline. that does worry me a bit but tbh i would just go by one of them or even take an average. i don't eat back all my exercise calories anyway so it doesn't worry me if it goes a bit high

KeyMasterOfGozer

I recently got a Polar FT40. I am getting very similar discrepancies between it and the built in HRM on my treadmill. I mean almost exactly the same numbers. I assumed that the Polar was more right, as it is brand new, but maybe not?

alison2429

Just bought a Polar FT7 and have been gutted that the cals are so low compared to my free app - guess there is a reason why it was free! Can't help with the comparison thing - although it is interesting!
Hope you get some more constructive responses..............sorry!

jamiesgotagun

Thats crazy, I have the Polar FT4, so interested in what others say.

austepants

I have read that Polar is the most accurate HRM but only the F6 and above. I have also heard Timex does not have as accurate of a calorie burn. I don't have one yet and this is why I haven't bought one yet... I'm so confused! This is the link I read all that from:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

rileysowner

I have heard that Timex really over estimates calories. I don't know if it is true or not. I know my Sportline (as far as I know it is not a Timex) is quite a bit lower than most of the online calorie calculators I have used to compare.

crystal_sapphire

I have heard that Timex really over estimates calories. I don't know if it is true or not. I know my Sportline (as far as I know it is not a Timex) is quite a bit lower than most of the online calorie calculators I have used to compare.

i thought Sportline is part of timex

CharlieJuliette

That's a worrying large discrepancy. I have a FT4, but have never had a different HRM.

CharlieJuliette

That's a worrying large discrepancy. I have a FT4, but have never had a different HRM.

crystal_sapphire

I have read that Polar is the most accurate HRM but only the F6 and above. I have also heard Timex does not have as accurate of a calorie burn. I don't have one yet and this is why I haven't bought one yet... I'm so confused! This is the link I read all that from:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

love this comment and i'm glad you included this link. i read it a while ago and forgot where it was. i agree with the person who wrote that in respects to saying that even if you don't have the latest polar where you can input V02, you can still use yours as a comparative tool anyway

wmjrigo

Bump

rileysowner

I have heard that Timex really over estimates calories. I don't know if it is true or not. I know my Sportline (as far as I know it is not a Timex) is quite a bit lower than most of the online calorie calculators I have used to compare.

i thought Sportline is part of timex

Neither the watch or any of the literature have Timex written anywhere on them.

david__1234

I also have both devices. I believe that Polar is more accurate. For example, various charts I've seen over the years estimate that a 150 pound person will burn about 100 calories per mile running. I weigh 153. Polar has me burning about 98 calories per mile. Timex gives me over 133 (it measured 400 calories burned on a 3 mile run).

I think that both devices will underestimate calorie burned when a highly fit person with a low resting heart rate does less intense exercise. My resting heart rate is in the mid 40s. If I go on a casual bike ride I believe the monitor thinks that I'm doing little more than sitting on the coach. I could be wrong about this. But from what I've read over the years, calories burned per mile (not per minute) were about half the rate for cycling as for running. So if you burn 100 calories per mile running it would be about half that, or 50 calories per mile, cycling. Polar has me burning about 100 per mile running but only 25 to 30 per mile cycling. I think that Timex greatly exaggerates calories burned running while underestimating calorie burn cycling. Timex gives me 133 running and about 35 to 40 per mile cycling.

jonnyedu

Look... calculate coloric expenditure out by hand, then compare. You will not burn calories based on weight alone. Your resting heart rate (RHR) indicates your fitness level and will be a key factor in the calculation. 150lbs of muscle burns more than 130lbs of muscle and 20lbs of fat. Get it? So...how efficiently you run also determines how many calories you burn. I would reccomend using the HR device to periodically check your HR at rest and to ensure you are in the desired zone during exercise. To determine your zone simply get the Karvonen formula and plug your numbers in. Now set your watch to your zone and go exercise. This is how I have used the watches successfully in my HE/PE classes.