How Accurate Are Heart Rate Monitors At Reading Calories?

JoanneLkinn
JoanneLkinn Posts: 9 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I replaced an old heart rate monitor I had with a new one were the strap goes around your chest..the one before was a watch you touched to read your heart rate. The old one said I burned almost twice as many calories. So which is the more accurate one? Thanks :-)

Replies

  • RepsnSets
    RepsnSets Posts: 805 Member
    I replaced an old heart rate monitor I had with a new one were the strap goes around your chest..the one before was a watch you touched to read your heart rate. The old one said I burned almost twice as many calories. So which is the more accurate one? Thanks :-)

    I would like to think that the one with the strap is more accurate (nothing is 100% accurate) but where the chest strap and transmitter are placed (closer to the heart) that would work better than the wrist watch
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    The one with the chest strap is far more accurate. The wrist ones are pretty useless.
  • iliveintheshire
    iliveintheshire Posts: 76
    Well, I have the polar FT7. My husband has the same one but the male version of it (bigger, more masculine looking). It has a chest strap.

    I am incredibly out of shape and my heart rate goes very high when I work out (often to the 190s and break 200 frequently). He is in great shape, so obviously his heart rate is much slower and has to work much harder to get his heart rate as high as mine. We did the same workout yesterday (ran/jogged/walked) for six miles for 90 minutes. I burned 1030 calories and he only burned 600 - even though he is taller, 11 years older and weighs 40 lbs more (the heart rate monitor takes all of this into consideration). So I feel like it is very accurate if you get one that it a good enough one.
  • Connie1979
    Connie1979 Posts: 77 Member
    I typically use the one that has the strap that goes around the chest. It makes since (to me) for that one to be more accurate..
    I do know the calorie counters on the machines are USELESS. You'll be setting yourself up for failure to use that as you guide to calories burned during a work out.
  • JoanneLkinn
    JoanneLkinn Posts: 9 Member
    My new heart rate monitor does :-)
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    The one with the chest strap is far more accurate. The wrist ones are pretty useless.

    Yup...I don't even know why they make the wrist ones.

    I find my Polar ft4 to be very accurate...I deduct about 20% of the burn to account for BMR calories.
  • jasonanson
    jasonanson Posts: 1
    Well, I'm sure this won't be the most popular answer or what you want to hear. But the truth is, there is no accuracy in measuring calories burned. Scientist simply cannot with accuracy tell you how many calories you burned. What we have are some people who have come up with calculations based on a series a variables in hope that they will solve the problem. However, none of them are peer-reviewed and validated sciences. None of the calculations in any of the heart-rate monitors have an accurate way to measure calories burned. The only measure of accuracy you have is to measure your calorie intake and do a minimum of 60 minutes of exercise per day. Use your heart-rate monitor to measure the actual physiological intensity of your workouts. Ie. avg. hr and max hr. The rest is simply a gimmick to get you to buy the watches.

Categories