distance vs time

Is there anywhere out there a source for calories burned over distance vs over time? For example, I am on a dragon boat team that during practice, paddles (not rows) with varying effort, for varied distances. This AM we went over 4000 meters but took instruction breaks. Our pace was steady. Other days we might do 200-500 pieces at a much higher tempo. I've been recording 'canoeing/rowing' stats for X#minutes, but would be interested in what happens when we are actually moving. I can wear my monitor every time, but it's a pain and still not accurate... Thanks

An HRM is, generally speaking, more accurate than a formula so, unless it's very annoying, you can make an argument to wear the HRM. One point to remember is that an HRM consists of hardware (to track your HR) and software. The software contains the same types of formulas that are used by MFP. They're not the same exact formulas but they are similar algorithms that have been either developed by the manufacturer or licensed from a third party. Given that, the

Having said that, and also having spent the time and money to get the hardware and software needed to get calorie estimates within 10%, I can also recommend that you toss the HRM and go with the estimates from MFP's formulas.

Why would I recommend one approach when I'm doing something that's the opposite?

Simple - they're both a means to an end.

As I see it tracking our calories should not be the goal — weight control is the goal and tracking calories is just a way to make "course corrections". The goal is to get to the number on the scale and the difference between MFP's formulas and an HRM are numerically insignificant when compared to the number that rolls up on the scale.

In sum, you can make is a goal to get "accurate" reading from an HRM (remember - they are about 15% +/- inaccurate with a standard, HR-based HRM) but the bottom line isn't in something that we see on the HRM, it's that one eyed monster that stares up at us every morning…the scale.