Polar heart rate monitor, calories bruned accuracy?

Options
erinmcf3
erinmcf3 Posts: 3
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi Everyone,
I have recently bought the polar ft4 heart rate monitor and was very excited about the calories burned function on it. I have notcied however that for a 60 min walk of 7 km an hour (3.5mh) it estimates I burn around 400 calories, however my fitness pal estimates i burn 220 calories. As this is a large discrelpency, which one do you think is more accurate? Those of you that have the polar watch, do you use this as your guide? Also do you eat back some of the clalories your burned doing exercise to meet your net calorie goals?

Sorry about akl the questions. Any help would be very much appreciated.

Regards
Erin

Replies

  • MeeshyBW
    MeeshyBW Posts: 382 Member
    Options
    Impossible to say without knowing your weight, height, sex, age etc
  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member
    Options
    Need your stats to really give you an answer...
  • reneecgc
    reneecgc Posts: 179 Member
    Options
    I would go with the HRM. It has your weight , age and your sex. It calculates your calorie burn by your HR. Myfitnesspal has no idea the intensity you put into a workout.
  • Yooperm35
    Yooperm35 Posts: 787 Member
    Options
    MFP is an estimate. I'd go with the Polar - how hard you push yourself makes a big difference on your exercise
  • tjfrisque
    tjfrisque Posts: 267 Member
    Options
    I have a polar fft4 and thats what I go by. MFP doesn't calculate all of your stats. Unfortunately I got into the habit of eating back my calories.

Categories