Timex T5G971 HRM

Options
hpsnickers1
hpsnickers1 Posts: 2,783 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I'm still not sure on this Timex HRM. I did a one minute test - just to see. If I just sit here and breath to keep my heart rate down I burn 3 calories a minute. My resting heart rate is between 85-95. I'm 5'2" and 130 pounds. I know this isn't the same for every minute in the day but my average seems to be 3-4 per minute.

My HRM has a watch and a chest strap. What I put in is my weight, my maximum heart rate, and the target heart rate zone I want to be in when I exercise.

Now, MFP has calculated me at 1520 for calories with normal activity (1200 net of course). That calculates to around 1.06 per minute burned.

Should I be subtracting during exercise the 3 calories per minute or the 1.06 per minute? I am just soo confused with all these numbers. I know it's not an exact science but that's a big difference.

Edit: I'm 40 years old (just turned) and female.

Replies

  • becomingsara
    becomingsara Posts: 205
    Options
    I would like to hear both sides on this as well, as I calculated mine at 3 per min (at normal daily activites i.e. desk work); and I am 5'6 230 now (woop!) and 31 yrs old (f).

    GOOD QUESTION!!!
    ~ Sara
  • Mollydolly10
    Mollydolly10 Posts: 431 Member
    Options
    hmmm, that sound a bit much for resting heart rate, and 3 sounds like a lot to burn just "sitting there." My "sitting there" burn is 1.13, I think most people are around 1, but can be higher if you have more weight to lose.

    You're right though, that IS a huge difference, and would really add up. I would be interested to see what others say scientifically about which number you should choose.
  • hpsnickers1
    hpsnickers1 Posts: 2,783 Member
    Options
    hmmm, that sound a bit much for resting heart rate, and 3 sounds like a lot to burn just "sitting there." My "sitting there" burn is 1.13, I think most people are around 1, but can be higher if you have more weight to lose.

    You're right though, that IS a huge difference, and would really add up. I would be interested to see what others say scientifically about which number you should choose.

    I don't have more weight to lose. At 130 I'm in the upper 'healthy' range and I'm only 5'2". I probably should've went with a Polar HRM but I just didn't want to spend the money. I guess you get what you pay for.

    I'm using 1.06 per minute for my resting calories. I wonder - since it shows 3 calories per minute if I subtract using that number it could be considered more accurate.
  • hpsnickers1
    hpsnickers1 Posts: 2,783 Member
    Options
    I would like to hear both sides on this as well, as I calculated mine at 3 per min (at normal daily activites i.e. desk work); and I am 5'6 230 now (woop!) and 31 yrs old (f).

    GOOD QUESTION!!!
    ~ Sara

    My guess is that you would be burning more than me even at sitting. You have 3 inches and 100 pounds over me.

Categories