HRM vs GPS

datguy2011

Hey All,

I just started to run again, I decided to start with the c25k program on my android. The only problem is... I'm not sure if Im logging it correctly... It says on my hrm watch that during 47 minutes I did 130cals. On my gps phone that tracks my run.. says 235cals...

Now I'm not sure if my watch isn't picking up everything (since its walk/run/jog, etc)... or should I just log in between? My phone has never been wrong in the past... I just cant see how doing 1 day of c25k can only burn 130 cals... when im sweating buckets and its 106 outside.

Thoughts?

jmijaressf

Is your HRM one of the ones that comes with a chest strap? Which brand/model is it? Normally I'd say go with what the HRM says, but it depends on the model.

fredd500

Both of these seem really low for your current weight and time. I weigh a bit more than you (not much) and I have just used Runkeeper on my iphone to track a 50 minute walk at 3.0mph and it says I have burned 405 cals. I am waiting for my HRM to arrive so have nothing else to compare Runkeeper to, but I would check you have programmed your weight into both correctly (as your current weight will have a bearing on the cals burned). The HRM should be most accurate. The GPS app should take into account climbs and so forth (so better than MFP's calculation on its own) but if you are climbing, your heart rate should rise and this too will be reflected in your HRM readings.

datguy2011

I used my run keeper and its the one that said 200... it seems low but the first week of c25k is only 20-25 minutes a work.. so 230 seems like its the right number.. 137 on my hrm seems low.

It's a SMART HEALTH HRM (watch)...

thoughts?

dad106

I used my run keeper and its the one that said 200... it seems low but the first week of c25k is only 20-25 minutes a work.. so 230 seems like its the right number.. 137 on my hrm seems low.

It's a SMART HEALTH HRM (watch)...

thoughts?

If it doesn't have a chest strap then it won't be accurate. I'm also not sure how accurate the phone is either, seeing as it can't pick up your heart rate.. one of the most essential things to an accurate calorie burn.

I'd look into getting a Polar FT4 or FT7 HRM. Both are basic for tracking calories and heart rate..

datguy2011

But the watch works fine... and run keeper works based on gps... so its right most of the time.... hmm...

dad106

But the watch works fine... and run keeper works based on gps... so its right most of the time.... hmm...

It doesn't matter if the watch works fine or that run keeper works based on GPS... If it doesn't know how hard you're heart is working, then it can't be giving you an accurate calorie burn. I'm sure its fine for tracking milage but not for calories burned.

To get an accurate calorie count you need:
A chest strap
All of your info entered into the watch(Age, weight, height,gender)
Heart Rate
Vo2Max(if you're HRM allows for that)

Without these features, you will not be getting an accurate calorie burn.

Read this blog post.. it will support my claims.
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

datguy2011

I beleived you thanks for the input...

I'll try to go in between the two watch(gps)... its a difference of 40-50 cals... and I dont eat to the point where im close daily!