HRM-watch vs. chest

WrenLynn
WrenLynn Posts: 213
edited September 20 in Fitness and Exercise
I have read many posts regarding heart rate monitors and that to get more accurate readings you have to buy the one with a chest strap. Well I had already bought the watch and I like it so I am going to keep it. My question is how "off" is the readings with the watch. I wore my watch while I was on the treadmill and it said I burned 390 calories while the treadmill said I burned 207. Of course the treadmill doesn't know my age and gender like the watch does. It is a little annoying but I push the button every minute while walking. Anyone have a percentage the watch may be skewed on the calories burned? Is it not correct only when you are not updating it regularly like I did?

Replies

  • renaegry
    renaegry Posts: 1,256 Member
    I have a watch as well, a Motive Petite, and I love it. I take my heart rate often, and I believe it is quite acurate. I have around the same discrepency as you do with the treadmill.
  • kas1021
    kas1021 Posts: 92
    it really depends on your health. if your heart isnt in the best of shape the watch isnt going to be able to pick up the radial pulse as easily. or if you have irregular heart beats or a heart condition in general. the apical pulse is the most accurate. you can try taking your pulse in your chest then taking it on the thumb side of your wrist and counting for a minute to see what the differene is. but like i said, it depends on your health. (Theres a man I work with that has a heart condition that makes it so his radial pulse is only about half of what his apical pulse is. ) the watches work really well for a lot of people. I have one and its always been pretty accurate... i dont look at the calories burned, i just log it in mins. i really dont like to worry about cals burned when im working out. doesnt that make it seem so much harder? I just like to turn on my music and zone out for a while. I'm usually pleasantly surprised when im done and i look at the amount.
  • WrenLynn
    WrenLynn Posts: 213
    I just want to make sure I am not eating any "fake" exercise calories or make sure I am eating enough if I am really burning a whole lot more. I am going to consider the watch reading close enough since I frequently update it.
  • saz7
    saz7 Posts: 12 Member
    "burned 390 calories while the treadmill"

    Did you walk or run? How long were you on the treadmill? Seems a bit high for a treadmill.
  • WrenLynn
    WrenLynn Posts: 213
    I walked total of 24 minutes fast and ran 6 minutes for a total of 30 minutes. I was definitely working hard-I had sweat pouring off of me!
  • betskev
    betskev Posts: 7 Member
    I have both and I def prefer the chest band! I do not have to stop to push a button to see where my heart rate is at and sometimes it would take a few tries before it would show up. I believe the chest bands are more accurate, but that is me. It is easy to wear and not uncomfortable at all.
  • aerobicgirl
    aerobicgirl Posts: 354 Member
    ive never tried the watch by itself so i really couldn't tell you. but i love my polar 6 i think its pretty accurate. I work out to jillian michaels 30d shred and i get about 350 cal burned.
  • WrenLynn
    WrenLynn Posts: 213
    So I couldn't stand not knowing so I went out and bought a Polar 6 with chest strap. I did the same exact workout and it said I burned 275 calories. The watch alone had said 390! You can see this is quite a big difference. I am now very glad I bought the Polar 6 but very sad I am not burning more calories!
  • maurierose
    maurierose Posts: 574 Member
    At least now you KNOW - that is a definite benefit! Just keep up the great work, I have to say my HRM is one of my best investments into my health! I have a polar, too..... it's taught me a LOT!

    :smile: :flowerforyou:
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    So I couldn't stand not knowing so I went out and bought a Polar 6 with chest strap. I did the same exact workout and it said I burned 275 calories. The watch alone had said 390! You can see this is quite a big difference. I am now very glad I bought the Polar 6 but very sad I am not burning more calories!

    I wouldn't jump to that conclusion until you are sure you have set up the watch correctly. No HRM--even the Polars--is magic. They do not directly measure calories. If the watch is not set up properly, it may not be all that accurate either.

    The Polar F6 is a good HRM--much better than the one you had, but it still needs input from you.
  • jrobertson37
    jrobertson37 Posts: 90 Member
    I purchased the watch which i got at walmart. I do not like it even though it ask for all your info such as weight, age, etc. The reason i do not like it is bc it does not work well on hills and that is what i walk in my neighborhood. I walk for 2 hrs up/down hills and only burn barley 300 cals!!!! That cannot be correct so today i walked 5 miles on flat surface for 1.5 hrs and it said i burned over 500 cals. So you see the difference. Plus the ball that counts steps is to sensitive. So im going to go ahead and suck it up and get the polar. Like someone else posted i do not like having to stop to check my heart rate.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories