Comparison of HRM and BMF
Kirkajuice
Posts: 311 Member
I've seen posts around by people saying their BMF is recording larger burns than their HRM but I was wondering if anybody had the opposite problem?
My BMF says 241 calories burnt, my HRM says 384 burnt in 44 minutes of activity.
I'm more inclined to go with BMF since it's a lower reading and I'd rather underestimate but I thought the burn would be closer than that.
My BMF says 241 calories burnt, my HRM says 384 burnt in 44 minutes of activity.
I'm more inclined to go with BMF since it's a lower reading and I'd rather underestimate but I thought the burn would be closer than that.
0
Replies
-
Some HRMs are more accurate than others, so may be a less accurate one. Also depends on what kind of exercise you were doing. Sometimes BodyMedia is off on some kinds of exercise, or if you are weight lifting or doing something else that's not cardio, your HRM numbers will be more off. I'd go with the lower number as well if you are planning to eat them back.0
-
It's a polar FT4 HRM, so it's not a completely crappy one but I did wonder before if it was over estimating sometimes, and the exercises I was doing was general cardio/calisthenics and I was working quite hard at them most of the time (over a 40 minute period).
I'm sort of going with the bmf site for deficits, I'll eat them back if I meet the target deficit but otherwise I probably wouldn't. It's a small deficit so it's pretty easy to make it normally.0
