calories burned expirement: MFP vs Polar vs Body Bugg

Options
13

Replies

  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    Options
    Trust Polar and nothing else. Polar uses your heart rate (cardio exertion), weight and age, as well as a fitness level/max heart rate measurement, to determine your calorie expenditure.

    That is the best measurement.

    BTW, in my experience, light cycling for 1 hour burns about 500 calories. Hard cycling for the same time is between 800 and 950, depending on how overweight and how fit I was at the time.

    Thank you! That's been my experience as well :)
  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    Options

    Only the Garmin 405cx and the Garmin 310xt use actual heart rate and fitness level to calculate calorie burn. All the other Garmin devices use a calculation based strictly on miles, weight, and height, which would account for the massive offset you see from the 705.

    Ah, well that is good to know :) Well, I suppose I shall stick to my Garmin for cadence training and mile tracking (and knowing where the heck I'm supposed to turn, lmao), the Polar for my caloric expenditure during training, and my BB to get a good idea of the calories I'm burning doing everything BUT working out.

    I'm still going to try placing my BB on my leg on tomorrow ride to see how the numbers compare to the Polar. I'll post the results :D
  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    Options
    OK guys, so I went for a neighborhood walk/jog with the kids tonight while they rode around on their bikes. Brought along the Polar and the BB. Results:

    Duration: 1:00:02
    Average HR: 55%
    Max HR: 81%

    Polar calories burned: 339
    BodyBugg calories burned: 360
    MFP calories burned: 352

    So you can see, in an event that ISN'T cycling, the Polar and the BB seem to match up pretty dang closely.

    I never did get a chance to call their tech support today, but I did poke around on the internet quite a bit last night and the general consensus from others who have called is that in order to get a more accurate cycling calories burned you have to wear the armband on your leg.

    I'll try to squeeze in a phone call tomorrow before my ride to get this information from their support first hand, but either way, I'm going to wear the BB on my leg as recommended, as well as wear the Polar and post my results tomorrow after the ride :)
  • jimmy_jenkins
    jimmy_jenkins Posts: 65
    Options
    but my strength training was getting me a LOT more credit than the MFP db. Part of that could be because I try to super set when the gym is pretty empty (using one machine for a set, going to a second for my next set with the only break being while moving between machines, and then alternating back and forth till i get three sets on each), so I wasn't taking rest periods, so my heart rate stayed up more.

    This blog explains why you should use your HRM for strengh training!

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/hrms-cannot-count-calories-during-strength-training-17698
  • imnotyourpal
    imnotyourpal Posts: 162 Member
    Options
    Hi! Yes, the fit test was built into my Polar. It's an F6. When I'm actually working out and taking care of myself (admittedly that hasn't been going on for quite some time), I run it once a month or so. Sadly, a couple years ago, I was "elite". Now it just throws a frown up on the screen and calls me a fattie. LMAO

    LMFAO!

    This IS really interesting, as I always use the numbers on the machines (I enter age and weight). I, like you, thought the BB was the most accurate and IF I were to ever get something like that, it would HAVE BEEN a BB.

    Thanks for doing this little experiment. :)
  • ilsie99
    ilsie99 Posts: 259
    Options

    Only the Garmin 405cx and the Garmin 310xt use actual heart rate and fitness level to calculate calorie burn. All the other Garmin devices use a calculation based strictly on miles, weight, and height, which would account for the massive offset you see from the 705.

    Ah, well that is good to know :) Well, I suppose I shall stick to my Garmin for cadence training and mile tracking (and knowing where the heck I'm supposed to turn, lmao), the Polar for my caloric expenditure during training, and my BB to get a good idea of the calories I'm burning doing everything BUT working out.

    I'm still going to try placing my BB on my leg on tomorrow ride to see how the numbers compare to the Polar. I'll post the results :D

    Hehe, it's frustrating in this day and age that you need 3 devices to do one job.
  • suzooz
    suzooz Posts: 720 Member
    Options
    Really interesting experiment -- I am very interested in hearing the results of the bike ride tomorrow night.

    I have a BodyBugg but not a heart rate monitor. I am also a techno-gadget geek! Not only do I need to know the numbers, but I am now tracking all of my data comparing the BodyBugg data to MFP for both exercise and calories "at rest", and then I put in my calories consumed, and look at my net calories for the week and dividing by 3500 to see how many "pounds" I should have lost that week. Believe it or not, the calculations were pretty darn close to my actual loss. I figure by doing this over a period of time, I will be able to identify a "water gain" vs. when it's time to make a change.

    Anyway -- this explains why I'm short on steps when I mow the lawn -- now I'm a little suspect that it might be under calculating my calorie burn for that "exercise". The funny thing is that Saturday I mowed the lawn for a little over 2 hours, and sweated my rear-end off. On Sunday, I did about 3 hours of shopping (new pants!) and ended up with the same calorie burn for the entire day. I was really confused -- why bother mowing the lawn when I could shop!

    Thanks for clarifying things!
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    Options
    I was really confused -- why bother mowing the lawn when I could shop!

    That made me LOL. I'm really interested in the results of this whole experiment. Thanks to the OP for this. :)
  • shar140
    shar140 Posts: 1,158 Member
    Options
    I was going to ask if the VO2 max settings were the same, but I wasn't familiar with how the BB worked - completely different, apparently.

    Also, keep in mind that as you become more fit, your VO2 max will change - your body will become more efficient. The VO2 max test that you mentioned - was that built-in to your Polar? Just curious, as mine is approaching 3 years old so it doesn't have all the new fancy programming! lol...Mine does have those user settings, but no fitness test. I've tried a couple VO2 max tests but can get vastly different results (though all the tests are just theoretical, I was hoping they would be somewhat similar!).

    I was always curious how the BB compared to Polar (I have an F6), so thank you for posting this!

    Hi! Yes, the fit test was built into my Polar. It's an F6. When I'm actually working out and taking care of myself (admittedly that hasn't been going on for quite some time), I run it once a month or so. Sadly, a couple years ago, I was "elite". Now it just throws a frown up on the screen and calls me a fattie. LMAO

    I re-read the manual for the F6, and I couldn't find anything relating to testing my VO2max, only the OwnZone. As I understand it, the OwnZone is for determining your target heart rate, or what intensity you are exercising at (or should be at), not related to VO2max. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here??

    BUT, I didn't even know about the OwnZone feature - I'm constantly learning more about what this thing can do! :laugh:
  • LauraMarie37
    LauraMarie37 Posts: 283 Member
    Options
    Bump for later - I'm interested to see more comparisons with various activities and MFP database, as I have neither a bb nor a HRM, and I'm not likely to have the disposable cash for either anytime soon!
  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    Options
    Hey Shar,check this out. It's the explanation straight from the Polar product support page ;)

    http://www.polar.fi/en/support/product_support?document=/gip/PKBStoGIP.nsf/LINK/xDFF4AF0211B9FC3F4225681F005FAE09?OpenDocument

    And if you want a less detailed description, this also came from the Polar product support page:

    Polar Fitness Test and OwnIndex

    The Polar Fitness Test resulting an OwnIndex is developed to measure aerobic (cardiovascular) fitness. It predicts maximal aerobic power (maximal oxygen uptake, VO2max in ml.min-1.kg-1). This indicates how many millilitres of oxygen your body is able to transport and use per each kilogram of your body weight in one minute.

    The test is targeted to healthy adults. It is fully automatic and can be performed at rest in less than five minutes. No other equipment such as treadmill is needed. It is an easy, safe and quick way to estimate your maximal aerobic power. It is as reliable as any other submaximal fitness test
  • cheri03
    cheri03 Posts: 172 Member
    Options
    I was advised by BodyMedia (same device as BodyBugg; different software) tech support that the device is not accurate for bike riding. In fact, they advised me to remove the device during bike rides, and just estimate the calories using an online calculator!! That's when I decided to send it back.

    I think the # on your polar is probably the closest to reality.
    I had a GWF (same as BB) and you cannot use it while biking. I am an avid biker, sold it on ebay. My polar HRM is all i use now, very accurate. Sorry MFP but you are way off caloriewise!
  • shar140
    shar140 Posts: 1,158 Member
    Options
    Hey Shar,check this out. It's the explanation straight from the Polar product support page ;)

    http://www.polar.fi/en/support/product_support?document=/gip/PKBStoGIP.nsf/LINK/xDFF4AF0211B9FC3F4225681F005FAE09?OpenDocument

    And if you want a less detailed description, this also came from the Polar product support page:

    Polar Fitness Test and OwnIndex

    The Polar Fitness Test resulting an OwnIndex is developed to measure aerobic (cardiovascular) fitness. It predicts maximal aerobic power (maximal oxygen uptake, VO2max in ml.min-1.kg-1). This indicates how many millilitres of oxygen your body is able to transport and use per each kilogram of your body weight in one minute.

    The test is targeted to healthy adults. It is fully automatic and can be performed at rest in less than five minutes. No other equipment such as treadmill is needed. It is an easy, safe and quick way to estimate your maximal aerobic power. It is as reliable as any other submaximal fitness test

    Ok - looks like it is only on the FT40, FT60, & FT80 models, that is why I don't see it for mine. Now I wish I had one of those!!

    Edit: looks like it might be on some other, newer models, but I haven't found anything on Polar's website yet about this feature being available on the F6...but I'll keep looking. Thanks!
  • StuAblett
    StuAblett Posts: 1,141 Member
    Options
    OK, I have to add to this :bigsmile:

    I have a CatEye HRM, it kind of sucks, sometimes it says my heart rate is WAY higher than it can be, I mean if my HR was at 240 bpm, I think I just might notice :huh:

    last Tuesday I did some intense interval training, a total of 60 minutes, at a real avg speed of 16.8 MPH. MFP says:

    "Bicycling 16-20 MPH" for 60 minutes I burned 1317 calories
    The CatEye HRM says I burned 970 calories

    Now I'm just on the cusp of 16-20 MPH, so let's knock that down to the "Bicycling 14-16 MPH" and that nets me 1098 calories burned. Much closer.
    With the CatEye unit you enter your age, sex weight, and activity or fitness level.

    I still think this is too much.

    I just bought a Polar CS200 CAD cycling computer/HRM with the cadence option on it, I've not had a chance to try it out yet, I'll do the same route as the last time I did a ride with the CatEye and compare the amount of calories burned, should be interesting :bigsmile:

    Cheers!
  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    Options

    Ok - looks like it is only on the FT40, FT60, & FT80 models, that is why I don't see it for mine. Now I wish I had one of those!!

    Shoot.....I thought I had a Polar F6. It doesn't have the model number on it so I googled "women's pink polar HRM" and the F6 looked like what I have. Turns out, I should have kept looking. What I actually have is the women's polar F11. Derrrrrr!!!!!! LOL
  • shar140
    shar140 Posts: 1,158 Member
    Options
    The model of my Polar is engraved on the back of the watch. Intuitively I always look at the face to find it, but it's not there!

    So I think it is time to send mine in for a replacement battery - so do I spend the $60+ (depending on what needs replaced, I do think I need a new elastic strap too. Plus add shipping cost!), or invest that into a newer model?? Perhaps this is for a different/new thread!
  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    Options
    So, I just got off the horn with BB tech support and they said they 'would never' advise to wear on the leg. I was like dude, I saw the email..... LOL He said the person doling out the advice to wear it on the leg for cycling was giving incorrect advice and said I should either:

    1) wear it lower on the arm, 2" above my left elbow or
    2) take it off while I'm riding my bike

    He said taking it off while I'm riding my bike and editing my caloric burn off body will be very accurate, more accurate than going to some website and plunking in my personal data to get the calories burned, because the unit is recording my data all day long and has an idea of how efficiently I burn calories and will use this data when estimating how many calories I've burned on my bike ride, even if I wasnt wearing the unit during the ride. He also said the more often you wear your unit, the better the accuracy when editing the off-body exercise.

    I dunno...sounds kinda fishy to me. I'm going to call again tomorrow morning to see what the next person has to say. LOL




    And shar, I'd just get a new one, but that's me. I love to shop, LMAO
  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    Options
    Back from another ride. Stats:

    Duration: 1:06
    Average HR: 71%
    Max HR: 86%

    Calories burned-

    MFP: 1157
    BB (off body): 871
    Polar:707

    LOL So that is interesting. The BB was closer to the Polar, even tho it was sitting on the front seat of my mini cooper while I was out riding. LMAO

    Since the BB folks discouraged me from trying it out on my leg, I decided to see how the off body edit compared. Next ride I shall bring the BB with me and try it out on the leg as others have suggested here (at the recommendation of other BB tech support folks who advised them to do so, lol)

    I also intend to do the comparison with a strength training circuit. I've just been doing so much riding and running around the neighborhood with the kids that I havent had a chance yet! Poor Chalean Extreme ain't gettin no love
  • YellowStrawberry
    YellowStrawberry Posts: 89 Member
    Options
    Wait.. so the BB gave you a reading when you were not even wearing it?

    loved reading all the info!! :)
  • StuAblett
    StuAblett Posts: 1,141 Member
    Options
    Keep the info coming!

    I can't wait to try my new Polar C200 Cad and find out how it compares to my CatEye HRM and MFP :bigsmile:

Categories