Burning Calories Burned Question

2manymaitais
2manymaitais Posts: 5
in Fitness and Exercise
Hello,

I need some advice. I picked up a Schosche MyTrek Heart Rate monitor for a bit of a bargain yesterday. I have read good reviews and seemed like it would help me keep better track of my exercise calories.

Today I used it on my normal morning coffee break route and it told me I burned 174 calories for a 14 minute walk at my usual brisk pace.

Meanwhile, MapMyWalk told me I burned 145 calories for the same walk. When I manually enter the walk into MFP (14 minutes, very brisk pace), I get 112 calories burned.

I have checked my height, weight and age stats and they are the same for the MyTrek, MapMyWalk and MFP. I am confused abut the discrepancy.

If I was inclined to eat my calories back, I would be inclined to go with the lower MFP read. However, I just need to know if I can trust the Heart Rate monitor. If it's malfunctioning, I want to return it.

Has anybody else experienced this issue? I am diligent about keeping the most accurate records possible, which is why I bought a monitor in the first place. Can I be confident it is giving me accurate information?

Replies

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    They all use different formulas, there will be variations. They are all just estimates and they are all pretty close. You can't decide which one is most accurate.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Hello,

    I need some advice. I picked up a Schosche MyTrek Heart Rate monitor for a bit of a bargain yesterday. I have read good reviews and seemed like it would help me keep better track of my exercise calories.

    Today I used it on my normal morning coffee break route and it told me I burned 174 calories for a 14 minute walk at my usual brisk pace.

    Meanwhile, MapMyWalk told me I burned 145 calories for the same walk. When I manually enter the walk into MFP (14 minutes, very brisk pace), I get 112 calories burned.

    I have checked my height, weight and age stats and they are the same for the MyTrek, MapMyWalk and MFP. I am confused abut the discrepancy.

    If I was inclined to eat my calories back, I would be inclined to go with the lower MFP read. However, I just need to know if I can trust the Heart Rate monitor. If it's malfunctioning, I want to return it.

    Has anybody else experienced this issue? I am diligent about keeping the most accurate records possible, which is why I bought a monitor in the first place. Can I be confident it is giving me accurate information?

    Does your HRM have a chest strap? HRMs with a chest strap measure your heart rate (actually electrical pulses) constantly. HRMs that are wrist only often have difficulty measuring heart rate while your arms are moving. HRMs that are wrist only will measure from time to time.

    What HRMs try to measure is exertion level, by comparing your resting heart rate against your heart rate while working out. 174 sounds pretty high. But a number of factors will make the number bigger......out of shape = higher exertion. Lots of hills = higher exertion. Men typically burn more than women.
  • 2manymaitais
    2manymaitais Posts: 5
    Thanks for the replies.

    There is no chest strap with the MyTrek; it is a forearm strap with LED lights to indicate when it is monitoring. Here is some info on the unit: http://www.laptopmag.com/review/acessories/scosche_mytrek_wireless_pulse_monitor.aspx

    I also thought it seemed a bit high, but maybe given that I have 3 different numbers, I can just use an average. I was just worried that perhaps the monitor was broken, or that I was using it incorrectly.

    I may look at switching brands, but given that I paid less than $20 for the one I am using (regularly $100), I would hate to return this one an shell out 5 times as much on a new unit and end up with similar results!
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    The MyTrek is an ok HRM for as long as it lasts ... usually less than a year before the ribbon cable between the LEDs and the plastic case goes bad.

    174 calories burned for a walk is a bit high no matter what. Net calories burned by a human while walking is much closer to .3 calories per mile per pound so unless you're pushing 580 lbs, you didn't net that sort of burn form a 14 minute walk.

Categories