Can anyone tell me, how accurate this is?

cocolo89

I found a website that calculates average heart rate to calories burned. Is it accurate? I bought an HRM and didn't realize before i won it that it was a polar FT1, not the FT4 and it doesn't calculate calories, but it does monitor your Heart-rate. So for those of you who have HRM, if you put your average HR, does it come out to about the amount of calories burned as your HRM says?

here is a link: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

kristarablue

ya, it was about right for me

rileysowner

It will give you a number, the problem with using average HR is that through a workout your heart rate changes many times as the intensity changes. I am guessing this sort of calculation is better than the one done by HRM without a chest strap (assuming your HRM has a chest strap) but not as accurate as one that bases the calculations on the current heart rate real time. Of course all this is a guess.

Elleinnz

I put in my ave HR from last night's session - according to my HRM I burned 566 calories - this site calculated it as 433 calories....

jnanof

Seems fairly accurate to me from my Insanity workouts. Although I think I think the formula does not work as well for interval training because the HR goes sky high and then down then back up. I think intervals burn more calories but this is a good enough estimate for calorie track purposes.
The HR monitor is more valuable to measure improvements in fitness level. When you are feeling good, your HR will get higher and stay higher longer but you still are feeling good. When you are too tired or over trained, you will feel winded and tired but your HR will be lower.

jhardenbergh

I just did this and entered in the data from todays workout, my HRM had me at 1308 and the website had me at 987. Seems a little off to me.

sleepytexan

yes, that's a good formula. If you can get your Vo2 max measured it will be most accurate, but HRMs are no more accurate than that -- they all use the formula, and they will all estimate your V02 max if you don't know it -- so there lies the reason for any discrepancies.

Many people mistakenly believe that HRMs are guaranteed to be correct; they are not.

edit: if you are more fit than the average bear, your estimated calories burned will likely read lower if you don't enter V02 max. Many gyms can assess your Vo2 max, or you can find websites that show how to do it, however, many of them use running as the test method. Since I only run when being chased by someone bad, it's a poor indicator for me

Any method is an estimate, but that's ok -- food consumption is largely estimated too. It all works out in the end; I never wear an HRM, with the exception of having worn it 3 times during different exercises so I could extrapolate from there. I have had no issues doing so.

blessings.

13hirteen

Just compared it to stats from my FT4.
The FT4 estimated a 38 minute hilly cycle ride at 335kcal, while your site estimated me at 317kcal, so not too far off.

It'll probably be more accurate for consistent exercise - my rides include a couple of hills that send my heart rate rocketing for a couple of minutes, some freewheeling and a few dead stops at lights and roundabouts, which may affect the HRM's estimate.

mark03264

For my bike ride this afternoon my HRM said I burned 337 calories and the web site said 382.

Riverofbeauty

I also read somewhere though that MFP subtracts your "sitting calories" from the exercise (i.e BMR), which you need to do with a HRM?

I don't own a HRM, so not too sure but I have read that in a few places. So could be why your HRM says more burned than MFP.

fromaquasar

I used to use that site! It's pretty accurate

cocolo89

thanks guys for the quick response. yes, my HRM has a chest strap. as long as the site doesn't give me more calories burned than an HRM would, i'm pretty satisfied with that. i would rather it say i'm burning less calories than thinking i'm burning more and end up overeating )