Heart rate monitor calorie tracker correct?

Options
wmjrigo
wmjrigo Posts: 69 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I did about 25 min of good cardio this afternoon. My Timex calorie tracker told me I burned 457 and MFP app told me 297. Is the calorie tracker on heart rate monitors accurate? Thanks.

Replies

  • abellante_0205
    abellante_0205 Posts: 368 Member
    Options
    I would probably follow ur monitor bc its directly tracking you, where as MFP numbers were done by users.
  • natskedat
    natskedat Posts: 570 Member
    Options
    Trust the HR monitor.
  • Azuleelan
    Azuleelan Posts: 218
    Options
    Many HRM's add the calories of just "living" to whatever you are doing. You have to establish what is your caloric burn each minute while you do nothing, and then substract that per each minute you exercised, so you get the true "exercise" calories.
  • Artemis_Blooms
    Artemis_Blooms Posts: 12
    Options
    I don't understand what that means! lol I want to get a heart-rate/calorie tracker too, but I don't know how to start. Do you have any suggestions?

    (I know it's a little off topic...:)
  • Iorns78
    Iorns78 Posts: 118 Member
    Options
    I bought a HRM today and it was 200 calories different than my treadmill. I went to several different sites and calculated what "their" calories burned would be and my HRM was still way over what the sites said...I am not so sure I want to trust it. It was a $40 dollar Wal-mart one...I am going to return it and save my pennies for a better one.
  • idahogirl71
    idahogirl71 Posts: 1,110 Member
    Options
    I completely trust my HRM over any site only because it has to take my pulse before it will give me the number of calories burned. So it is based on pulse, age, weight, height, age, sex and the intensity of the activity (which also has to be entered).
  • sarah44254
    sarah44254 Posts: 3,078 Member
    Options
    I've read a lot of Timex users cut their calorie burns in half to get the correct amount. For some reason some of the Timex's double the true calories burned.
  • wmjrigo
    wmjrigo Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    Interesting. I wonder if the more expensive models are more accurate?
  • W0zzie
    W0zzie Posts: 262 Member
    Options
    With my bit of research before buying I came to the following conclusions (among others)

    Timex can have some accuracy issues but would still be more accurate than calculators & MFP
    Polar are generally accepted very accurate
    Inactive Burn for me is not worth worrying about - it account for "maybe" 70/80 cal an hour - if I burn 500/600 in an hour - I don't really care much to bother with taking off the inactive burn

    Also I'm assuming you've entered you gender, age, weight & height to the HRM

    Mind you the 457 sounds highish but possible - it would be a blistering workout for me to get that in 1/2hr but there's too many variables to say if it's high or avg for you. I'd burn about 500/600 in a hour of moderate workout and I'm 76 kg 173cm 42yr old male.
  • lesliekae
    lesliekae Posts: 57 Member
    Options
    Many HRM's add the calories of just "living" to whatever you are doing. You have to establish what is your caloric burn each minute while you do nothing, and then substract that per each minute you exercised, so you get the true "exercise" calories.

    That's sounds really rational yet I never considered doing that. I just made a habit of leaving between 100 and 200 calories just in case my HRM was a over or my food calculations were a little under. I stick closer to the monitor than the number the machine provides or that the site gives. I can't imagine they could be closer than a device that is actually programmed to your current weight and height and is continously recording you heart rate. Make sure you get a HRM that has a chest strap because the others are not as accurate. I also started out with a timex and it gave me ridiculous numbers. I did a little more research and found that most people were happy with the Polar models and I bought one. I have to agree that they seem to be more accurate and mine (polar FT7) is really easy to opperate. I alternated the two HRM for a week comparing their numbers and the Timex would give me a higher calorie burn than the Polar even when it recorded my avg. HR as lower than the Polar HRM. That seemed really fishy to me so my oppinion of the Timex is that they are unreliable. Save up a little more money and invest in one that is more trustworthy (and comfortable) you won't regret it.
  • Azuleelan
    Azuleelan Posts: 218
    Options
    Many HRM's add the calories of just "living" to whatever you are doing. You have to establish what is your caloric burn each minute while you do nothing, and then substract that per each minute you exercised, so you get the true "exercise" calories.

    Ok, it seems nobody read, or understood my post. Many HRMs count the calories you burn while doing nothing. Why? Because they base your caloric burn on your heart beats. Your heart still beats while you do nothing, so the HRM still counts that.
    Try wearing your HRM and do nothing for ten minutes. How many calories does it say you burned? Divide those by ten, and then you will have how calories you burn a minute while doing nothing. On 20 minutes exercising, you burned 20 times whatever calories a minute you burn while living. Substract that from the total, as you only want to know what is the EXTRA, that is, what BESIDES living calories did you burn.
    Anyway.

    I have this:
    http://www.amazon.com/ePulse2-Strapless-Monitor-Calorie-Counter/dp/B003YDOO2K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302842741&sr=8-1

    It's AWESOME
  • Azuleelan
    Azuleelan Posts: 218
    Options
    With my bit of research before buying I came to the following conclusions (among others)

    Timex can have some accuracy issues but would still be more accurate than calculators & MFP
    Polar are generally accepted very accurate
    Inactive Burn for me is not worth worrying about - it account for "maybe" 70/80 cal an hour - if I burn 500/600 in an hour - I don't really care much to bother with taking off the inactive burn

    Also I'm assuming you've entered you gender, age, weight & height to the HRM

    Mind you the 457 sounds highish but possible - it would be a blistering workout for me to get that in 1/2hr but there's too many variables to say if it's high or avg for you. I'd burn about 500/600 in a hour of moderate workout and I'm 76 kg 173cm 42yr old male.

    I burn 55 calories every 20 minutes of "inactive burn" like you called it. That's 165 cal an hour. That to me is definitely worth "taking off".
  • W0zzie
    W0zzie Posts: 262 Member
    Options
    @Artemis_Blooms - to the point - Polar FT4 or FT7 if you can. I & many of my friends have the FT7 and love it.

    @lesliekae - "leaving between 100 and 200 calories just in case" me too and I'm meeting goals to date - but always have an open mind - if I stall for awhile then I'll get more serious with stuff maybe like Azuleelan is saying.

    @Azuleelan - cheers thanks for the explaination - and with those number yes you are right. I just took the daily 2100 and divided that by hours of the day LOL Might have a closer look if I start having issues. :)
  • Azuleelan
    Azuleelan Posts: 218
    Options
    @Artemis_Blooms - to the point - Polar FT4 or FT7 if you can. I & many of my friends have the FT7 and love it.

    @lesliekae - "leaving between 100 and 200 calories just in case" me too and I'm meeting goals to date - but always have an open mind - if I stall for awhile then I'll get more serious with stuff maybe like Azuleelan is saying.

    @Azuleelan - cheers thanks for the explaination - and with those number yes you are right. I just took the daily 2100 and divided that by hours of the day LOL Might have a closer look if I start having issues. :)

    I guess I'm just anal about stuff, lol!:ohwell:

    ooooh, I know, I'm going to verify my BMR now using my HRM!! yay, math!!
  • ladyhawk00
    ladyhawk00 Posts: 2,457 Member
    Options
    Here is a great blog that discusses how to use HRMs, good ones, and what the issues can be with them - ie most are NOT intended to accurately record cals burned during inactive periods.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
  • rozarotti
    rozarotti Posts: 139
    Options
    Interesting. I wonder if the more expensive models are more accurate?

    I use a New Balance with chest strap.
    Before I bought that one, it was only the watch and it calculated extremely high! The one I use now (with chest strap) is much more accurate. When I set it up I had to enter my weight, height, age and sex which makes it much more accurate.
  • Artemis_Blooms
    Artemis_Blooms Posts: 12
    Options
    Which one do you use Idaho?
  • Artemis_Blooms
    Artemis_Blooms Posts: 12
    Options
    @Artemis_Blooms - to the point - Polar FT4 or FT7 if you can. I & many of my friends have the FT7 and love it.

    @lesliekae - "leaving between 100 and 200 calories just in case" me too and I'm meeting goals to date - but always have an open mind - if I stall for awhile then I'll get more serious with stuff maybe like Azuleelan is saying.

    @Azuleelan - cheers thanks for the explaination - and with those number yes you are right. I just took the daily 2100 and divided that by hours of the day LOL Might have a closer look if I start having issues. :)

    I guess I'm just anal about stuff, lol!:ohwell:

    ooooh, I know, I'm going to verify my BMR now using my HRM!! yay, math!!

    Thanks guys! I posted my reply before seeing you had replied. lol I'm going to check out the polar model. I'll have to wait still as I am of the many unemployed. But it's in my mind for the future! :)

Categories