Heart Rate Monitor

most likely not

It works but is it accurate. I thought you heart rate needs to be accelerated for HRM to be accurate. I suppose it depends how far you walk. An activity monitor may be better.

It works but is it accurate. I thought you heart rate needs to be accelerated for HRM to be accurate. I suppose it depends how far you walk. An activity monitor may be better.

Ok .. well first, it is a GPS watch. The GPS doesn't care how fast you go .. it will track you if you are running or walking. Done deal. The GPS is typically max +/- 2-3 % unless it is a Timex (they suck) .. but your TomTom is pretty good.

Re the HRM .. it measures your heart rate .. and only your heart rate. Nothing else ... no calorie burn stuff. It cannot measure calories burned directly .. and really no device can. It uses a math calculation based on your stats .. and estimates your calorie burn based on your heart rate during your activity. And .. they can be very very inaccurate. They are not perfect at it.

I personally once walked 10 miles with my HRM on .. and it said I burned over 1900 cal, well sorry .... more like 500 is a more realistic number. So .. that number you have to take as well just an estimate.

It works but is it accurate. I thought you heart rate needs to be accelerated for HRM to be accurate. I suppose it depends how far you walk. An activity monitor may be better.

I've never heard this. My own heart rate monitor tracks my heart rate from the time I first put it on, before I've begun exercising.

Yes .. your HRM will measure your heart rate as long as you are breathing .. and not dead. Oh .. your heart has to be beating too. But really .. you can be sleeping, resting, working out .. running whatever have you and it will just measure your heart rate. That is it's only real job and it does that very very very well.

The formulas tying HR to a calorie burn are indeed for the aerobic exercise zone, starting at about 90 bpm on the low end, up to your lactate threshold on the high end.

So when I walk level 4 mph, I barely hit 90 bpm - and calorie count on HRM is inflated.

If I wear a 17 lb pack, I can get up to 120 and much better accuracy.

Nothing to do with an inability to monitor the HR, but the formula.

So depends on your weight, fitness level, incline, speed, ect.

Eventually it could be invalid means.

Here's better if you get distance and time. This is more accurate that HRM too.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

NET is what you would eat back. Gross would be what HRM, treadmill, or database entry would be reflecting.

So, you're assuming that the OP was asking about tracking calorie burn? He wasn't specific.

The formulas tying HR to a calorie burn are indeed for the aerobic exercise zone, starting at about 90 bpm on the low end, up to your lactate threshold on the high end.

So when I walk level 4 mph, I barely hit 90 bpm - and calorie count on HRM is inflated.

If I wear a 17 lb pack, I can get up to 120 and much better accuracy.

Nothing to do with an inability to monitor the HR, but the formula.

So depends on your weight, fitness level, incline, speed, ect.

Eventually it could be invalid means.

Here's better if you get distance and time. This is more accurate that HRM too.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

NET is what you would eat back. Gross would be what HRM, treadmill, or database entry would be reflecting.

So, you're assuming that the OP was asking about tracking calorie burn? He wasn't specific.

When do people on this site ask about anything else? While possible, it would be ludicrous to assume they are concerned about heart rate and not calories, especially for walking. Which exercise zone do people try to maintain during their walks?