My HRM again

Options
aquamarinex
aquamarinex Posts: 42 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Still struggling with the differences between the reading on this and mfp calories burned for exercise figures. Just done 45 minute brisk walk and hrm says I burned 595 calories whereas MFP figures for walks have been much lower. Same goes for Zumba class. The HRM has my correct age and sex input in it - it it me, is it wrong or what please?

Replies

  • FrankiesSaysRelax
    FrankiesSaysRelax Posts: 403 Member
    Options
    595 calories seems like a lot for a walk, especially if you don't have much to lose (which it looks like you don't). I burn about 100 calories per mile I run.. if that gives you some perspective. I'm not sure how you could go about calibrating your HRM though. Are you wearing it correctly? Could that be an issue?
  • aquamarinex
    aquamarinex Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    Thank you that's what I wondered too - It is only a wrist one but I do make sure I press it regularly to do heart rate reading while exercising and I have keyed in my age and sex as I mentioned and theres nowhere to add my weight or other info. Wasn't sure if I should be deducting something for the fact that I would burn some calories just sitting on my bottom.
  • Blessedbythebest1
    Blessedbythebest1 Posts: 971 Member
    Options
    That does seem extremely high for a walk..maybe it's time to invest in another HRM. What kind do you have? Does it have a strap?
  • nicola1141
    nicola1141 Posts: 613 Member
    Options
    If it doesn't have a chest strap, it's not going to be very accurate.
  • FindMyInnerAthlete
    FindMyInnerAthlete Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    I use a Polar FT4 and it is pretty close to what MFP says. It's a band you wear right underneath your chest/sports bra and it calculates your HRM that is then transferred to your watch. I love it! It's a bit on the expensive side but it's pretty accurate. Here is a link if you would like to check it out. http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Heart-Rate-Monitor-Purple/dp/B005M1P85O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374765048&sr=8-1&keywords=pink+polar+ft4
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    To sanity check the numbers Runners World suggests the following formula for gross calories expended walking:

    .57 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles

    If you were walking 4 mph the distance traveled would be 3 miles, so if you weighed close to 350 lbs yes, you may have burned 595 cal . Realistically, way less than half of that.

    Any HRM that doesn't have a chest strap and doesn't allow you to enter your weight is useless (except for periodically checking your heart rate) and even then the better HRMs are an estimate.
  • aquamarinex
    aquamarinex Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    Thank you all of you :-) No it doesn't have a chest strap and at 139lbs the calorie burn is as Brian said going to be a lot lower. Guess that was a waste of £40 then.
  • Blessedbythebest1
    Blessedbythebest1 Posts: 971 Member
    Options
    Yes, throw that HRM monitor away! invest in a Polar! best purchase ever and worth every cent!

Categories