Anyone have a heart rate/calorie counter watch?

tbullucks06
tbullucks06 Posts: 128
edited September 24 in Health and Weight Loss
Hi Everyone. I wanted to get your thoughts on this. I have had a cheaper SportLine brand heart rate/calorie counter watch that I have been using for the past 2 years. I decided to upgrade because the watch I had you had to touch to get your heart rate and it wouldn't work all of the time. It never worked outdoors. So I bought a $70 Timex Personal trainer watch and it has a chest strap so it just works on it's own. My concern is that I used it for the first time this afternoon and it says I burned way more calories than I usually did. My old watch would have had me burning about 500ish calories and this one said I burned 715. Should I believe it? Because it costs more does that make it more correct? What do you think?

Replies

  • mallorybriann
    mallorybriann Posts: 1,380 Member
    The ones without the chest straps are not reliable. They move constantly affecting the reading. As long as you place the chest strap on correctly , it is probably more accurate than the wrist one.
  • Newfiedan
    Newfiedan Posts: 1,517 Member
    different brands give different readings, I have the sportline wrist watch style you need to touch but you should also moisten the arm when you wear it for a more accurate reading so I would not always go by what the older sportline said unless you did that prior to starting your work out. I am going to be looking into one of the chest strap varieties as well I think though for a more accurate reading. The sportlines with the chest strap are supposed to be very accurate though.
  • Creiche
    Creiche Posts: 264 Member
    Did it ask you to input any personal info like gender and weight? I'm not an expert, but I think in general the more info it has in addition to reading your HR in "real-time", the better it is because obviously for a given heart rate, calories burned can be very different between different people.
  • mariaaxtell
    mariaaxtell Posts: 3 Member
    I have a polar heart rate monitor with the chest strap and I feel that it is very accurate. As long as the strap was in contact with your chest the entire time I would say it is going to be more accurate than your other one.
  • tbullucks06
    tbullucks06 Posts: 128
    The one I have asks you to enter your target heart rate zone based on your age and it also asks for your weight.
  • nukehiker
    nukehiker Posts: 457
    im not sure about which one is more accurate, but from what i read if your HRM has a chest strap it gives you a more accurate measurement. I have the polar FT4 which works really well. I also had one of the sportline models that i bought at walmart but I used it like 3 days and returned it. it didn't work right.
  • Fat2FitChick
    Fat2FitChick Posts: 451 Member
    Yes the watches you have to touch to get a reading are not constantly reading your heart rate, only when you touch the sensor so in between you checking your heart rate that watch is not counting correctly and could be really really off. It isn't constant so I would trust the chest strap monitor before I trust the one with just a touch sensor.

    I have a HRM with a chest strap and it works great and has been correct and on point since I started using it last month.
  • mallorybriann
    mallorybriann Posts: 1,380 Member
    LOVE my Polar FT4 :happy: Best $80 I ever spent LOL
    im not sure about which one is more accurate, but from what i read if your HRM has a chest strap it gives you a more accurate measurement. I have the polar FT4 which works really well. I also had one of the sportline models that i bought at walmart but I used it like 3 days and returned it. it didn't work right.
  • tbullucks06
    tbullucks06 Posts: 128
    The Walmart one is the one I have had for 2 years! :sad:
  • sing1998
    sing1998 Posts: 38 Member
    i would go by the results you've been getting. if your other one was inaccurate you would have noticed that you were losing faster than you should if it was "under reporting" calories burned. i do not believe that more expensive necessarily means quality. i see many people on here reporting very high calories burned and i'm skeptical. it's hard to burn that much! it's all math so if it's accurate you'll know by how quickly you lose.
  • Newfiedan
    Newfiedan Posts: 1,517 Member
    the hrm watch I use does have a back sensor on it though so it does read constantly while I workout but I do feel that its a lil inaccurate. I can burn 1000 cal/hr with my workouts though when I do train.
  • scagneti
    scagneti Posts: 707 Member
    I've found that the Walmart one was little more than a pedameter (is that how it's spelled? I almost put pedometer, which I think is really, REALLY wrong!) I returned mine also and spent the extra to get a PT7 with a chest strap. The Walmart one pretty much only took into account the number of steps I was taking, not my heart rate or anything else.
  • Dan112358
    Dan112358 Posts: 525 Member
    You can compare your reported calories to this calorie calculator:

    http:--www.braydenwm.com-calburn.htm

    I've found this to be very accurate.

    Hope this helps you out
  • FireRox21
    FireRox21 Posts: 424 Member
    I have a Polar F6. It has a chest strap and I never work out without it. It asks for a lot of information and it has a function called "Own Zone" which reads your heartrate for a minute and determines if you are working out easy, moderate, or hard. It counts calories, time, etc. All of my exercise is through swimming and the HR/calorie counts are very accurate. After I started wearing my HRM, I noticed that MFP was over-estimating my calories burned by 15-20%. It was a huge eye-opener, as I had been eating WAY too much without the HRM.

    All in all, buying a quality HRM with a chest strap will be the best money you've ever spent and will save you a lot of heartache with scale battles!!!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories