Polar HRM calories accuracy (numbers inside)?

mel4bee
mel4bee Posts: 225 Member
edited February 5 in Health and Weight Loss
Hi

I'm new to fitness and just bought my first HRM (Polar F4)

I did my workout today which is about 75-80 minutes of circuit training (with the warm up and cool down) (one 45 minute session, one 25 minute session)

According to my HRM I burned around 500 calories.

However I'm pretty small (5'3 and 116.5 pounds) and was wondering if it seems like a lot. If it sounds accurate then I was underestimating my burned calories before

Thanks you

I put my height, weight and info in the machine

Replies

  • lsorci919
    lsorci919 Posts: 772 Member
    I have quite a bit of weight to lose and when I work out, my bodymedia armband tells me I burn over 500 in a hour of good hard cardio. So, to me that sounds about right. Now if it was telling you that you were burning 1000 or more then I would have to say it's totally off. :) Hope that helps a little.
  • 1968samuel
    1968samuel Posts: 176 Member
    I just got a Polar F4 as well. I've only used it a couple of times but I think it's over estimating my calories burned as well. I am very happy with how it monitors my heart rate.
  • Leaping_Lemur
    Leaping_Lemur Posts: 121 Member
    You put your age, weight and gender into the settings first, right? So it takes account for that. It's an estimate, like anything else -- but as it's based on your heart rate it's generally more accurate than the MFP calculators.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    I'm about the same size as you and an hour of running burns about 600 calories for me so your numbers sound about right.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    For your size, to burn 500 calories would require running about 7 miles. If you can run 7 miles in 75 minutes, then your HRM is probably not far off. If you can't, you'll probably want to adjust the number downwards.
  • Nicolee_2014
    Nicolee_2014 Posts: 1,572 Member
    Sounds ok to me - if you think it might be a bit too much take off some calories
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    For your size, to burn 500 calories would require running about 7 miles. If you can run 7 miles in 75 minutes, then your HRM is probably not far off. If you can't, you'll probably want to adjust the number downwards.

    Wrong. I'm the same size and if I ran 7 miles I'd be closer to 1,000 calories. I burn between 300 and 400 running 3 miles and that takes me about 30 minutes so 7 in 75 is totally doable too.
  • WhyDelilah79
    WhyDelilah79 Posts: 54 Member
    Sounds about right to me.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    For your size, to burn 500 calories would require running about 7 miles. If you can run 7 miles in 75 minutes, then your HRM is probably not far off. If you can't, you'll probably want to adjust the number downwards.

    Wrong. I'm the same size and if I ran 7 miles I'd be closer to 1,000 calories. I burn between 300 and 400 running 3 miles and that takes me about 30 minutes so 7 in 75 is totally doable too.

    Sorry, wherever you're getting those numbers from, they are highly inflated.
  • janettebishop940
    janettebishop940 Posts: 88
    Bump
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    For your size, to burn 500 calories would require running about 7 miles. If you can run 7 miles in 75 minutes, then your HRM is probably not far off. If you can't, you'll probably want to adjust the number downwards.

    Wrong. I'm the same size and if I ran 7 miles I'd be closer to 1,000 calories. I burn between 300 and 400 running 3 miles and that takes me about 30 minutes so 7 in 75 is totally doable too.

    Sorry, wherever you're getting those numbers from, they are highly inflated.

    Not sure who died and left you in charge but those numbers are as correct as a Polar HRM can be and I've been running for 3 years so it isn't a random number I pulled out of my *kitten*.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories