Burning calories...accurately

twokute80
twokute80 Posts: 17 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi, all so I'm in the market for a watch that accurately calculates how many calories I burn. I sweat like crazy when I run & the treadmill just just doesn't seem accurate. Help Please

Replies

  • shooter560
    shooter560 Posts: 15
    Having done a lot of sport in the past, I used to use Polar heart rate watches, I've now gone back to them as a way of monitoring my exercise and calorie burning. My doctor and Gym both said the Polar system was as good as any.

    If you have a smart phone they even have a bluetooth chest strap that will link to the phone, rather than go down the watch route
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Suunto, Garmin and Polar all make good products, just find the one with the features you want.

    On a side note, even HRMs only estimate cals. There is no real way to accurately gauge how many cals you burn. EVERYTHING is an estimate.
  • tadlana
    tadlana Posts: 27 Member
    I bought the MIO Motiva at BJs but its also on Amazon.
    I like it alot
  • tryinghard71
    tryinghard71 Posts: 593
    Polar works great for me. You need one with a chest strap if you want it to be as accurate as possible.
  • tifftheneutron
    tifftheneutron Posts: 20
    I am obsessed with my bodyfit media. The treadmill was overestimating what I was doing even though I sweat like crazy. You wear it 23 hours a day. If you get the link version, you can sync up with an app on your phone to monitor your calories. I have had it since Friday and have already lost 2 pounds... I was overestimating my workouts, and so I was eating too much. You can even sync it to MFP for your food log.

    http://www.amazon.com/BodyMedia-Armband-Weight-Management-System/dp/B0049POHK6/ref=sr_1_1?s=hpc&ie=UTF8&qid=1360088639&sr=1-1&keywords=bodymedia

    They have made a lot of adjustments to get the bugs out of the system. If you sort the reviews by newest first, you will see everyone is happy with it.
  • Ermahgerd_Derpina
    Ermahgerd_Derpina Posts: 47
    I have the Polar FT4. I absolutely love it.
  • JustJennie1
    JustJennie1 Posts: 3,749 Member
    I have a real simple Timex HRM that works fine for me. No frills. Just calculates my HR, time in zone and calories burned.
  • daj150
    daj150 Posts: 815 Member
    Polar FT40 is amazing. Tested it out by doing the manual calculation for BMI, RMR, etc. Then wore the watch for a day. Almost spot on to calculations. It also knows when you are doing doing cardio versus weight lifting. But, as someone mentioned, in the end, it's never perfect...but it's pretty darn good none-the-less.

    My only gripe is that I can't do splits or laps; so if you are trying to do cardio training for things like running, then you may want to see if Polar has something similar that tracks laps. I use Runtastic, so I don't care that my FT40 doesn't have lap settings.
  • bsix3
    bsix3 Posts: 291
    Suunto, Garmin and Polar all make good products, just find the one with the features you want.

    On a side note, even HRMs only estimate cals. There is no real way to accurately gauge how many cals you burn. EVERYTHING is an estimate.


    ^^^^^^ agreed! EVERYTHING is an estimate. I'm a tech head so I use the BlueHR by Wahoo that connects to my iPhone.
  • faceoff4
    faceoff4 Posts: 1,599 Member
    I have used Polar for 10+ years and it works great and as close to accurate as you can be with other methods. Make sure to use a chest strap...the others are not there yet in my mind.
  • twokute80
    twokute80 Posts: 17 Member
    Thanks eveyone. These are great ideas...Please feel free to add me. Have a great Tuesday. p.s- I know they're estimations, I just wanted something a little closer to the truth
  • twokute80
    twokute80 Posts: 17 Member
    hmm....bj's huh? i will def check it out the next time i go
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Thanks eveyone. These are great ideas...Please feel free to add me. Have a great Tuesday. p.s- I know they're estimations, I just wanted something a little closer to the truth

    Why do you assume an HRM will be closer to the "truth"?
  • majope
    majope Posts: 1,325 Member
    Thanks eveyone. These are great ideas...Please feel free to add me. Have a great Tuesday. p.s- I know they're estimations, I just wanted something a little closer to the truth

    Why do you assume an HRM will be closer to the "truth"?
    Can't speak to the other devices, but Garmin models that use 2nd generation Firstbeat Algorithm are accurate within 10%, which is as good as you'll get without a lab. Older models that use the 1st gen are said to be only slightly less accurate than that.

    See DC Rainmaker for more on how it all works: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Thanks eveyone. These are great ideas...Please feel free to add me. Have a great Tuesday. p.s- I know they're estimations, I just wanted something a little closer to the truth

    Why do you assume an HRM will be closer to the "truth"?
    Can't speak to the other devices, but Garmin models that use 2nd generation Firstbeat Algorithm are accurate within 10%, which is as good as you'll get without a lab. Older models that use the 1st gen are said to be only slightly less accurate than that.

    See DC Rainmaker for more on how it all works: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html

    So you're saying that other devices are less accurate?
  • majope
    majope Posts: 1,325 Member
    Thanks eveyone. These are great ideas...Please feel free to add me. Have a great Tuesday. p.s- I know they're estimations, I just wanted something a little closer to the truth

    Why do you assume an HRM will be closer to the "truth"?
    Can't speak to the other devices, but Garmin models that use 2nd generation Firstbeat Algorithm are accurate within 10%, which is as good as you'll get without a lab. Older models that use the 1st gen are said to be only slightly less accurate than that.

    See DC Rainmaker for more on how it all works: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html

    So you're saying that other devices are less accurate?
    No, I don't know what, for instance, Polar uses. I have a Garmin so I looked up info about that specifically, and found that it's actually pretty close to the truth.
  • Mich4871
    Mich4871 Posts: 143 Member
    I recently got the Polar FT4 and love it! I use the bluetooth chest strap along with the App. I was very surprised at how different the machines were to what I was actually burning. The elipitical is always off by 150 calories (more) then what my HRM indicates. I've been using this with the the Polar Beat App and sharing the summaries with my trainer. It's helpful to him to because he can adjust my workouts accordingly.
  • allsturns
    allsturns Posts: 36 Member
    I've started getting more and more interested in this since joining the MFP community. I'm thinking of getting one soon...a treat to myself but actually want one that I can use calculate my non gym days too so that I can then accurately compare how much more I really do when I have a gym day.

    All interesting stuff.

    Think it'll be at least another month before I can justify treating myself though as we're moving next week and money is all going on decorating :(
  • dondimitri
    dondimitri Posts: 245 Member
    One positive about using a HRM for calorie burn is that even though there is likely some absolute error it removes the necessity to rely upon the cardio machine calculations when comparing one machine against the other.

    Those calculations often seem to diverge widely (and wildly) from each other for what appears to be similar effort over a given time.

    If you use a HRM then you can get a much truer picture about how each machine actually compares to the others in terms of calorie burn.

    The data may not be perfect in absolute terms but as a relative comparison it is quite useful and I’m just guessing that in that sense it would be pretty darn close.
  • daj150
    daj150 Posts: 815 Member
    I think it's more important to understand that it is just a tool that uses calculations that cannot take all variables into account. You cannot have blood work done before and after workouts and all sorts of monitoring devices hooked up to you when you work out. So, the idea is that with a HRM, you should be more concerned about tracking your heart rate fluctuations during workouts to understand your limits and zones and to track how your heart rate changes as you become more fit.

    The calorie calculation is a bonus and helps with calorie counting so that you can try and make sure you aren't overeating or under-eating based on your workouts. Besides, it's better than using the cardio machines or MFP default estimations.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    I think it's more important to understand that it is just a tool that uses calculations that cannot take all variables into account. You cannot have blood work done before and after workouts and all sorts of monitoring devices hooked up to you when you work out. So, the idea is that with a HRM, you should be more concerned about tracking your heart rate fluctuations during workouts to understand your limits and zones and to track how your heart rate changes as you become more fit.
    Why? I don't care about any of that stuff. I do agree that an HRM is just a tool that can't consider all variables though.


    The calorie calculation is a bonus and helps with calorie counting so that you can try and make sure you aren't overeating or under-eating based on your workouts. Besides, it's better than using the cardio machines or MFP default estimations.
    But that "bonus" is what most people on this site care most about. And no, HRMs are not always better (as in more accurate) than cardio machines.
  • daj150
    daj150 Posts: 815 Member
    If you only care about calories burned, that is fine. For weight loss, that is one of my main focuses as well. Once I get into maintenance, I won't really care about calories as much as other stats, because at that point I will be focused on fitness level. That was more my point I guess...didn't really phrase it right.
    The calorie calculation is a bonus and helps with calorie counting so that you can try and make sure you aren't overeating or under-eating based on your workouts. Besides, it's better than using the cardio machines or MFP default estimations.
    But that "bonus" is what most people on this site care most about. And no, HRMs are not always better (as in more accurate) than cardio machines.
    [/quote]

    Yes, you are correct. They are not "always" better...but the cardio machine will need to have the same things as your HRM...meaning, it will need to be able to sync with a HR monitor and you input your body info. Most machines still don't come standard with this type of functionality, and most that do are a bit costly...some are reasonable, but there are other issues with them. In addition, many cardio machines that are at the gym have issues with interference and many times, even if you try to input your info and sync with your HRM, the machine still has a good chance of losing signal.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    If you only care about calories burned, that is fine. For weight loss, that is one of my main focuses as well. Once I get into maintenance, I won't really care about calories as much as other stats, because at that point I will be focused on fitness level. That was more my point I guess...didn't really phrase it right.
    The calorie calculation is a bonus and helps with calorie counting so that you can try and make sure you aren't overeating or under-eating based on your workouts. Besides, it's better than using the cardio machines or MFP default estimations.
    But that "bonus" is what most people on this site care most about. And no, HRMs are not always better (as in more accurate) than cardio machines.

    Yes, you are correct. They are not "always" better...but the cardio machine will need to have the same things as your HRM...meaning, it will need to be able to sync with a HR monitor and you input your body info. Most machines still don't come standard with this type of functionality, and most that do are a bit costly...some are reasonable, but there are other issues with them. In addition, many cardio machines that are at the gym have issues with interference and many times, even if you try to input your info and sync with your HRM, the machine still has a good chance of losing signal.
    [/quote]
    You don't need HR to calculate calorie burn, and even if you have HR, it's no guarantee that the estimate is going to be any more accurate.

    Most good treadmills will give a more accurate number than even the best HRM, and all it needs is distance walked/run and the user's weight. HR is a non-factor.
  • twokute80
    twokute80 Posts: 17 Member
    Idk, I figure the machine are just generalizing. The only thing I put in the treadmill is my weight. I don't hold on, so it doesn't even have my heart rate
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Idk, I figure the machine are just generalizing. The only thing I put in the treadmill is my weight. I don't hold on, so it doesn't even have my heart rate

    You don't need HR. Calories are a measure of energy, which is based on workload. HR plays no role in it. On a treadmill there is a known workload (walking is walking, same for you, me, everyone). The only variable that matters is weight, which you enter. You walk a given distance at a given weight... you get a highly accurate calorie burn.

Categories