Timex HRM Help with Calories burned!!!

juday3
juday3 Posts: 78 Member
edited September 22 in Fitness and Exercise
My husband just got me a Timex HRM Zone Trainer. According to reviews that we've found on the internet the watch and chest band seem fairly accurate. I tried it out this morning while working out to the 30 Day Shred level 1. According to the HRM, I burned 652 calories during the 26 min duration. Is this even accurate??? I am 26, weigh 240lbs, and had a peak heart rate of 185 during the workout. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Replies

  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    My husband just got me a Timex HRM Zone Trainer. According to reviews that we've found on the internet the watch and chest band seem fairly accurate. I tried it out this morning while working out to the 30 Day Shred level 1. According to the HRM, I burned 652 calories during the 26 min duration. Is this even accurate??? I am 26, weigh 240lbs, and had a peak heart rate of 185 during the workout. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

    It is probably accurate but you will have to back out the calories you would have burned at rest to get the extra calories burned from exercise as some of those 652 you would have burned at rest.

    To do this take your Maintenance calories divide by 24 to get cals per hour then divide by 60 to get cals per minute then multiply by the number of minutes exercised. so if your maintenance calories are 2000 this would give you 1.39 cals/min (2000/24/60) so over 26 minutes you would have burned 36 calories at rest (1.39*26) so you should enter 626 in MFP not the full 652. this 36 would already be accounted for in your daily caloric goal on MFP. If your maintenance calories are even higher than you would deduct even more from the total.
  • fasttrack27
    fasttrack27 Posts: 324
    It's possible, maybe a little high though. That's an average of 1500 cal per hour. I weigh less but when I do a really hard kickboxing class my high HR hits 185 (my max is supposed to be 175-180) and average 150+ for 45 minutes and my monitor says around 800-850 cal's (1,000-1,100/hour). The same intensity with your additional weight would likely make your calorie count higher than mine so it could be pretty close (assuming mine is accurate). Nice burn, keep it up!!
  • juday3
    juday3 Posts: 78 Member
    erickirb,

    Thank you very much! I guess I burned around 610 calories. :drinker:
  • juday3
    juday3 Posts: 78 Member
    It's possible, maybe a little high though. That's an average of 1500 cal per hour. I weigh less but when I do a really hard kickboxing class my high HR hits 185 (my max is supposed to be 175-180) and average 150+ for 45 minutes and my monitor says around 800-850 cal's (1,000-1,100/hour). The same intensity with your additional weight would likely make your calorie count higher than mine so it could be pretty close (assuming mine is accurate). Nice burn, keep it up!!

    Thanks! :smile:
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    No, it is not accurate at all. Even at your weight that is an unrealistic number--and not by a little. That level of effort is equivalent to running a 7:00 mile and you don't work that hard doing 30 day shred. I would estimate that you were in the 300-350 range.

    One thing is that your max HR is probably higher than the 220-age predicted number that the HRM uses. So it assumes you are working harder than you actually are. I have found that Timex models tend to overestimate calories in general. I would double check the setup and try it with some other activities. If it is still way out there, it may be that it is not the model for you.
  • heathersmilez
    heathersmilez Posts: 2,579 Member
    No, it is not accurate at all. Even at your weight that is an unrealistic number--and not by a little.

    I agree, super unrealistic, go get your money back and get one of the HRM’s other MFP’ers recommend. I burn 150cals for 30DS and although I'm 138, 5'8 age 28 (wow that a lot of 8's, how convenient, lol!) you are not double my weight so it’s impossible to burn more than 300 in 26 little minutes.
  • BoresEasily
    BoresEasily Posts: 582
    The Almighty Az to the rescue.
  • binary_jester
    binary_jester Posts: 3,311 Member
    Just to get a feel...on the elliptical i burn about 700 calories in an hour. I weigh 227. My average HR is in the 150's
  • juday3
    juday3 Posts: 78 Member
    No, it is not accurate at all. Even at your weight that is an unrealistic number--and not by a little. That level of effort is equivalent to running a 7:00 mile and you don't work that hard doing 30 day shred. I would estimate that you were in the 300-350 range.

    One thing is that your max HR is probably higher than the 220-age predicted number that the HRM uses. So it assumes you are working harder than you actually are. I have found that Timex models tend to overestimate calories in general. I would double check the setup and try it with some other activities. If it is still way out there, it may be that it is not the model for you.

    So would the MFP calorie calculator be more accurate if I were to select circuit training or high impact aerobics from the database?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    No, it is not accurate at all. Even at your weight that is an unrealistic number--and not by a little. That level of effort is equivalent to running a 7:00 mile and you don't work that hard doing 30 day shred. I would estimate that you were in the 300-350 range.

    One thing is that your max HR is probably higher than the 220-age predicted number that the HRM uses. So it assumes you are working harder than you actually are. I have found that Timex models tend to overestimate calories in general. I would double check the setup and try it with some other activities. If it is still way out there, it may be that it is not the model for you.

    So would the MFP calorie calculator be more accurate if I were to select circuit training or high impact aerobics from the database?

    No. That would just be throwing a dart at the board. You can try setting the HR max number manually instead of having the HRM calculate it for you. I would set it at 210 and see what happens. Or you can look at exchanging it for a Polar F6 (or maybe even F4). Then if you get similar numbers you can come back and call me names.

    I've tried 30 DS and I weighed about 215 at the time and burned about 245 calories--which was about 1/2 of what I would usually burn doing my regular cardio for that many minutes, so I know that 30DS is not a big calorie burner to begin with.
  • no_day_but_2day
    no_day_but_2day Posts: 222 Member
    Hi!
    I have a TImex HRM as well and I have had it tell me my calories burned was around 450 on a 2 mile run at 10 min mile. I knew something was up because there's no way this is possible. 600 calories in 30 minutes is very unlikely doing that video ( I have it). I was upset when I found this out, because I paid good money for this HRM. So, what I did was I went to a site called Shapesense which you can monitor your calorie loss but the avg heart rate and the duration with your weight and age included. It turned out, it seemed as if the HRM was doubling the amount of calories I burned. Lets say you're 26, 240lbs, did an activity (like the video) for 30 minutes and your avg heart rate was 180. In 30 minutes, you burn approx 346 calories. Which in turn is about 1/2 the calories that this HRM says. I don't know why it does it because it seems fairly accurate because it uses a chest strap as the monitor, but all I know is I went some time with thinking I burned a 500 calories in a simple 2.5 mile run which is basically not possible if you're only running 10 minute miles. I would keep your HRM since you paid for it, but I would check out the ShapeSense Heart Rate Based Calorie Burn Calculator or another one online, and use your avg heart rate given on the monitor to find out your true results for calories burned.

    Hope this helps,
    Rachel
This discussion has been closed.

Categories