HRM vs Runtastic. Is either accurate?

Options
AtlantaBob
AtlantaBob Posts: 129 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
OK. I just finished a long walk and runtastic says I burned 1,027 calories. My Polar FT7 says I burned 1,646.

I prefer to believe the Polar (of course). But, 620 cals difference?


Anyone know if the FT7 is more accurate since it actually measures heart rate?

Replies

  • rassha01
    rassha01 Posts: 534 Member
    Options
    Must of been one heak of a walk!!! Only thing I can think of is that Runtastic may not figure in the calories you would've burned being sedentary, but that thought would only work if it was maybe a 6-8 hour walk.... I'll wait to hear the correct answer :laugh:
  • bannedword
    bannedword Posts: 299 Member
    Options
    What? That seems crazy.

    I have to run about 15 miles to get that kind of burn.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    Options
    I would really consider resetting your HRM. It's going to be more accurate than a generic application, but something is way off. Did you set your HRM and follow everything when you first bought it? using a chest strap? etc... ?
  • AtlantaBob
    AtlantaBob Posts: 129 Member
    Options
    yes. Set up the HRM this morning. Weight, height, etc. Chest strap - yes.

    11 miles in 3hrs 7 min. Averaged about 3.54 mph.

    and yes....I am ready to keel over :)
  • AtlantaBob
    AtlantaBob Posts: 129 Member
    Options
    The more you weigh the more calories burned. So my calories burned will be higher bannedworld.
  • toutmonpossible
    toutmonpossible Posts: 1,580 Member
    Options
    OK. I just finished a long walk and runtastic says I burned 1,027 calories. My Polar FT7 says I burned 1,646.

    I prefer to believe the Polar (of course). But, 620 cals difference?


    Anyone know if the FT7 is more accurate since it actually measures heart rate?

    I only use heart rate monitors for their primary purpose: To see how fast my heart is beating during exercise and to observe how fast my recovery is after I stop. I ignore the calorie estimates because they may be based on data drawn from groups, for example, young or middle-aged men, and aren't accurate for me.
  • LaceyAnderson
    LaceyAnderson Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    Bump. I'll also being waiting to hear an answer on this one.
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    Options
    The more you weigh the more calories burned. So my calories burned will be higher bannedworld.

    true.

    both the app and the HRM are going to be based on averages.. but it's still going to be closer for the HRM than the app. If you're still worried, take an average between the two.
  • crista_b
    crista_b Posts: 1,192 Member
    Options
    yes. Set up the HRM this morning. Weight, height, etc. Chest strap - yes.

    11 miles in 3hrs 7 min. Averaged about 3.54 mph.

    and yes....I am ready to keel over :)
    I'd go with the HRM, but that's personal preference.

    Also, way to go on that walk!!! :flowerforyou: I think I'd collapse! :laugh:
  • StraightFlint
    StraightFlint Posts: 1
    Options
    Food for thought: the additional data point ( heart rate ) allows your hrm to fall more inline with your particular workout intensity, although still estimates I think you are right to believe the numbers from the hrm are more accurate.

    Happy training.
  • AtlantaBob
    AtlantaBob Posts: 129 Member
    Options
    thanks guys. always appreciate input from fellow travelers
  • JenAndSome
    JenAndSome Posts: 1,893 Member
    Options
    I walk on my lunch hour nearly daily. I use the FT4 and in 60 minutes I burn between 420-500+ calories. If I walked for 3 1/2 hours I would be closer to the 1600. I am 5' 4" 131 lbs. I would say the FT7 is more accurate.
  • JenAndSome
    JenAndSome Posts: 1,893 Member
    Options
    OK. I just finished a long walk and runtastic says I burned 1,027 calories. My Polar FT7 says I burned 1,646.

    I prefer to believe the Polar (of course). But, 620 cals difference?


    Anyone know if the FT7 is more accurate since it actually measures heart rate?

    I only use heart rate monitors for their primary purpose: To see how fast my heart is beating during exercise and to observe how fast my recovery is after I stop. I ignore the calorie estimates because they may be based on data drawn from groups, for example, young or middle-aged men, and aren't accurate for me.

    The Polar HRM line allows you to put in data such as age and whether you are female or male so that it can more accurately estimate the calories burned during exercise.
  • bannedword
    bannedword Posts: 299 Member
    Options
    1,027 calories for an 11 mile walk seems just about right.
  • nickgarner6
    nickgarner6 Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    If it helps any, when I use Runtastic I pair my HRM with the app. The app should take HR into account when calculating caloric expenditure. Although I now prefer Digifit.
  • AtlantaBob
    AtlantaBob Posts: 129 Member
    Options
    If it helps any, when I use Runtastic I pair my HRM with the app. The app should take HR into account when calculating caloric expenditure. Although I now prefer Digifit.


    Thanks - I will look into digifit and pairing the HRM

Categories