I think my HRM lied to me...

RemiLynn79
RemiLynn79 Posts: 81 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I bought a Heart Rate Monitor at Wal-Mart. It is a watch-type one. I also bought a Belly Dance video. I did it this morning and my HRM said I burned 1378 after doing the belly dance and 2 miles of a Leslie Sansone Walking Video.
Does that sound feasible at all? I think it is way off.

Does anyone have any advice or ideas on how to enter this into my exercise?

Thanks in advance!

Replies

  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Doesn't sound accurate at all. Those inexpensive watch type are not even close to being accurate. Even one with a chest strap and set up right is only an estimate. A close estimate but no dead accurate. I'd return that thing if you still can. They are useless.
  • neacail
    neacail Posts: 228 Member
    Absolutely way off.

    While there are some fabulous benefits to belly dance (especially for one's core), it is not intensive at a beginner level. Even the pros, who might occasionally break a sweat, aren't burning anywhere near that many calories.

    How long was the video?

    For a beginner, my guestimate would be somewhere between 250 and 300 calories an hour for actual dancing at a beginner level. That excludes instruction time.

    I'm not sure about the walking, but you should be able to figure that our pretty easily based on distance and time.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,337 Member
    If your HRM does not have a chest strap, take it back. The ones that just measure HR when you touch them are completely useless for calculation of calorie estimates since they don't have a constant HR number.
  • SweetestLibby
    SweetestLibby Posts: 607 Member
    How many times did you check your pulse? I had a watch one before I bought my polar ft4 with the chest strap and it only took a new heart rate reading when I pressed my fingertips to the pulse point on the face of the watch.

    The watch type does not continually monitor changes in your heart rate so the calories burn will be off if you do not frequently check/update it.
  • xxnellie146xx
    xxnellie146xx Posts: 996 Member
    If your HRM does not have a chest strap, take it back.

    Agreed
  • NutellaAddict
    NutellaAddict Posts: 1,258 Member
    Return it and get a Polar FT4 or FT7
  • Energizer06
    Energizer06 Posts: 311 Member
    Two words.
    Chest strap

    The wrist ones don't monitor accurately enough. Even the chest strap types are OK, But their the best out there right now for continuous monitoring.
  • VoodooLuLu
    VoodooLuLu Posts: 636 Member
    my cal counter is supposed to count steps,cals,miles in the beginning i was burning alot according to it. Now i can workout for 2 hours and its saying i burned a total of 86 cals you get what you pay for.....
  • WDEvy
    WDEvy Posts: 814 Member
    No way. Last time I did the 2 miles walk with my Polar FT7 the burn was about 200 ish and I'm not a skinny person.
  • Amberonamission
    Amberonamission Posts: 836 Member
    That is way to high. I owned a wrist watch type of hrm that was equally as accurate as my new polar chest strap kind. The problem I had with it was that you could not change the battery.

    Make sure you have your info entered correctly. Age, sex, loca..... Oops weight
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Without a chest strap it's all just a wild guess. Not worth the money or effort.
  • darwinforyou
    darwinforyou Posts: 988 Member
    I have a watch type - and I have found it to be pretty accurate overall especially in comparison to chest straps and also general calorie burns of exercises on MFP. Though it monitors my heart rate pretty consistently but also allows for easy updates if I want it to.

    But that doesn't sound right at all - Your average cardio with a slightly elevated heart rate would be a few hundred calories for an hour - I literally have to be dripping sweat and falling on the floor in exhaustion in order to even hit the 1,000 calorie mark. If you're not feeling like that - I would say that your hrm is not correct at all.

Categories