Calories burned discrepancy...

shadow2soul

Okay so I've been using my HRM to track calories burned and I usually log only 80% of the calories it estimates, but today I got a copy of EA Active 2 and there is a big difference in the estimate.

My heart rate monitor is a Sportline Duo (has chest strap) for those who are curious.

For those who don't know EA Active 2 comes with a Heart rate monitor that goes on your arm right below the elbow. The game also asks for age, gender, weight, and height.

So the workout was:

Cardio Kick Start - Easy Workout 1
18 mins 19 secs
workout included cardio such as steps, high knees, and kickbacks as well as push ups, bicep curls and squats. There was other stuff to, but I forget what exactly. (my short term memory isn't all that great)

HRM says:
378 calories burned
So under normal circumstances I would log: 302

EA Active says:
Average HR 143bpm
Max HR 171
123.8 Calories burned

So which should I trust? Or should I take an average of the two?

Stumason2105

Take my opinion for what its worth, but with my experience using a HRM to track my calories, it is pretty spot on. Just curious what your HRM says was your average HR during that cardio kick start workout where it says you burned 378 kcals. Usually to stay honest, i take the average BPM my HRM says and plug it into a calorie burn calculator to see if they are pretty close to eachother. There are good phone apps to do this or a good website is

http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html

That takes your average HR, weight, age, exercise duration

shadow2soul

It said average was around 165 and It even got a peek of 190. I beginning to wonder if it's defective, because that seems really high.

edit: With that website, seems the EA Active is pretty accurate for the bpm it gave me. While the HRM is way off...way way off...according to the site I'd have to be averaging 260 bpm to get close to the calories burned the HRM gave me.

bearwith

HRM is more accurate.

concordancia

132 is probably closer for an 18 minute workout.

The EA heart monitors are cheapo and you will notice that they have stopped supporting that game, but in this case, over 300 calories burned in less than twenty minutes, on easy setting, for someone at or under 200 lbs seems a bit extreme.

It is also possible that the two HRMs were interfering with each other. Test each of them out. Wearing one at a time, take your own resting pulse and compare it to the HRM.

shadow2soul

132 is probably closer for an 18 minute workout.

The EA heart monitors are cheapo and you will notice that they have stopped supporting that game, but in this case, over 300 calories burned in less than twenty minutes, on easy setting, for someone at or under 200 lbs seems a bit extreme.

It is also possible that the two HRMs were interfering with each other. Test each of them out. Wearing one at a time, take your own resting pulse and compare it to the HRM.

My HRM frequently gives me around 200- 300+ calorie burns for around 20 mins of cardio. Yesterday it gave me burn counts of around 400 cals for 20 mins of Dance Central 2.

edit: I just put in an order for what I hope is a better heart rate monitor.

shayemimi

I just bought EA sports active 2 off ebay... I hope it's fun! I'm not worried about total calories burned, but I'd go somewhere in the middle of the two.

shadow2soul

I just bought EA sports active 2 off ebay... I hope it's fun! I'm not worried about total calories burned, but I'd go somewhere in the middle of the two.

I love it. The programs are pretty cool and if I remember correctly (I had it last year for the wii) it would give a different workouts for each day of the program. The programs are 4 days a week (3 days off).

concordancia

132 is probably closer for an 18 minute workout.

The EA heart monitors are cheapo and you will notice that they have stopped supporting that game, but in this case, over 300 calories burned in less than twenty minutes, on easy setting, for someone at or under 200 lbs seems a bit extreme.

It is also possible that the two HRMs were interfering with each other. Test each of them out. Wearing one at a time, take your own resting pulse and compare it to the HRM.

My HRM frequently gives me around 200- 300+ calorie burns for around 20 mins of cardio. Yesterday it gave me burn counts of around 400 cals for 20 mins of Dance Central 2.

edit: I just put in an order for what I hope is a better heart rate monitor.

The EA active workouts aren't straight cardio, they are more like circuit training.

bgelliott

I've never used a HRM to calculate calories burned. I alway use my bodybugg. It's 99% accurate all the time and my results have been dead on. I think in the 300's is a pretty high estimate for under 20 minutes of cardio but then again, I don't know you personally.

Mokey41

I have a Polar FT4 and it's usually very close to what I get with EA Active. The numbers from EA sound much more realistic.

shadow2soul

I have a Polar FT4 and it's usually very close to what I get with EA Active. The numbers from EA sound much more realistic.

Thats what I was thinking. I was already deducting 20% because it seemed way to high, but it looks like I should have been deducting more like 70%.

Even though it is set for female, it seems to be giving calculations similar to what I guy would burn. (used website, switched gender and there was only about a 20 cal difference between the website and what my HRM said I burned)