who to believe?

emilyastro
emilyastro Posts: 1
edited 3:02PM in Fitness and Exercise
My heart rate monitor (a new new balance one) says that my run burned 360 kcal. The machine I was on (more than a decade old) said 290 kcals. Do I average them? Do I believe the newer one? Do I go conservative and believe the lower one? I am conflicted.

How do others deal with this problem? Any advice would be appreciated.

Replies

  • howardheilweil
    howardheilweil Posts: 604 Member
    I always think its wise to go on the conservative side and use the lower number.
  • ken_hogan
    ken_hogan Posts: 854 Member
    I always think its wise to go on the conservative side and use the lower number.

    I agree...go with the lower.
  • invisibubble
    invisibubble Posts: 662 Member
    The HRM would be tailored to your stats, and it's likely the machine won't. Either way, if you've set up your HRM properly it should be fairly accurate, although nothing's 100%.
  • Faye_Anderson
    Faye_Anderson Posts: 1,495 Member
    In the grand scheme of things 70 calories is not a huge deal. I'd probably go with the HRM as it is set to your statistics :flowerforyou:
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    It's 70 calories. You're over thinking this
  • seventhfloordown
    seventhfloordown Posts: 6
    And over thinking fitness and nutrition is one of the greatest dangers, to be honest.
  • xxnellie146xx
    xxnellie146xx Posts: 996 Member
    Does your HRM have a chest strap? If so, I would go with that. If not average the 2 and call it a day. It's not a huge difference. I have a running app on my phone that tells me I burn about 300 calories more on a run than my HRM says. If you plan on eat back all of your exercise calories, going with the lower one would be a better idea.
  • donrdon
    donrdon Posts: 216 Member
    It's 70 calories. You're over thinking this

    This.
  • Ant_the_old_keith_lemon
    Ant_the_old_keith_lemon Posts: 272 Member
    Never use burn data as a gospel figure it is highly variable and is dependant on resitance, speeds, hyrdration etc etc..

    imagine

    you spin your legs at 100rpm on a bike and burn 100 cals with an ave HR of 150bpm
    v`s
    pushing your legs at 50 rpm on a bike and burn 100 cals in the same time with the same HR...


    it is believed the latter is better for endurane building, stronger legs, longevity of joints etc etc whereas the top example is only keeping your heart healthy.

    i use my burn data on my hrm only as a bench mark for myself and not for any food balancing.

    with my HRM only really use the instant heart rate to tell how hard i am working at that given point but listen more to the bad bad lactic!

    i use the Average heart rate to *kitten* my lactic tolerance improvements.
  • ihad
    ihad Posts: 7,463 Member
    Segal's Law comes to mind...
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    Seagal's Law comes to mind...

    the jury decides and he presides???

    :huh:
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • ihad
    ihad Posts: 7,463 Member
    Seagal's Law comes to mind...

    the jury decides and he presides???

    :huh:

    A man with one watch knows what time it is, but a man with two watches...
This discussion has been closed.

Categories