HRM that doesn't include Age as basic setting

VirkingHard
VirkingHard Posts: 26 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi Pals,

I've just bought a Heart Rate Monitor from Amazon.

I was looking for a decent one at a reasonable price until the purse strings are loosened somewhat.

The one I bought was a Beurer PM25, which came up on a list of the UK's top 10 HRM's.

Upon receiving it I've set it up in true bloke style (no manuals needed)

I have noticed that it does not require me to enter my Age as one of my base settings, with Weight & Height)

I'm just wondering how accurate the Calories burnt will be if the Age is not taken into consideration?
I did see a blog somewhere that said it will be the same irrespective of age.
If that is the case why did my old Polar HRM ask for it.

I've seen other reviews of the HRM reporting that it doesn't give an accurate Heart Rate but mine seems to be fine as the resting heart rate is congruent to previous readings and also is the same as a manual check.

Another, the MAIN reason I ask about the accuracy is because I was playing with the kids & their cousins in the park in the park this afternoon over a couple of hours and the Kcals burnt read 1135 which seemed a little excessive.

What do we think?

Thanks in Advance Pals

VH

Replies

  • VirkingHard
    VirkingHard Posts: 26 Member
    I've had a search online and if what I've found during my unscientific research is anything to go by it does appear that Age doesn't have the affect on Kcals burnt as I originally assumed.

    I've found a number of Kcals burnt calculators and the calories burnt does not change for similar ages
    e.g. Age 45 is the same as Age 35 if age is the only factore in the calculation that has been changed.

    I've also found it only seems to change at significant age difference;
    e.g. there is a change when Age 45 is altered to Age 20.

    As I say not exactly scientific evidence.

    Does anybody else have any thoughts or scientific input to this investigation?

    Thanks,

    VH
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    I don't really know about the age factor.

    But I think it would be a mistake to log 1135 cals for playing in the park with your kids and eat them back. I don't necessarily think that's the HRM's fault though- they only work as calorie estimators within the limited scope of cardiovascular exercise....they're not going to be accurate during rest or during high intensity exercise, so for stop-and-go activity like playing with the kids (unless it really was constant exercise) all the rest time is going to give you falsely high numbers.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Age doesn't impact calories burned. However, some formulas may use it to help estimate cals burned. I wouldn't worry too much about whether or not your HRM uses it.

    That does seem a little high to me, at least for what I consider to be playing in the park. Ultimately it's just an estimate, so who knows for sure?

    The best thing you can do is pick a way of estimating cals burned (HRM, HRM - 20%, MFP, whatever)... use that for a month, then compare you actual results with your expected results. If they are reasonably close, then keep doing what you're doing. If not, then tweak accordingly.

    Some trial and error is necessary when getting going.
  • VirkingHard
    VirkingHard Posts: 26 Member
    Thanks for your reply.

    I thought the same when I saw the reading.
    If I work HARD in the gym for 60-90 minutes I burn that much.

    Luckily I didn't eat all the readings calories.
    We had family over so expected to go over my daily total.
    I was 700 over not including the 1000+ calories the HRM reported.

    Will get a better gauge when I go to the gym and see how it compares to my old HRM

Categories