Heart rate monitors to track calories

Options
acpgranberg
acpgranberg Posts: 137 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hey can anyone suggest an accurate heart rate monitor to track calories. I tried one of the polar heart rate monitors and found it fairly accurate until it crapped out on me within 18 months. I switched to the Runtastic monitor and found it wildly inaccurate until I used a different app and that crapped out on me within 3 months. I'm tired of throwing my money away on garbage equipment. My friend had a FitBit and her calories seemed to be inaccurate as well so I'm not super interested in that device. Anyone have a suggestion?

Replies

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    What sort of training do you do?

    My first thought with most people asking about using HRMs as calorie guestimators on here is that they're unlikely to get what they want from them.

    It's like using a claw hammer to tighten the screw on glasses :)
  • sweedee1218
    sweedee1218 Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    acpgranberg wrote: »
    Hey can anyone suggest an accurate heart rate monitor to track calories. I tried one of the polar heart rate monitors and found it fairly accurate until it crapped out on me within 18 months. I switched to the Runtastic monitor and found it wildly inaccurate until I used a different app and that crapped out on me within 3 months. I'm tired of throwing my money away on garbage equipment. My friend had a FitBit and her calories seemed to be inaccurate as well so I'm not super interested in that device. Anyone have a suggestion?

    This may be a stupid question but it is an honest one, how do you know that the calories burned were not accurate? What are you comparing the numbers with? I want to purchase a device to track calories but how will I even know if the calories are correct? I guess Im trying to say that if you know wether or not each device was accurate or not then you must already have some idea of how many calories should have been burned, how do you come up with this number? I hope this makes sense. Im just not sure how to tell if a device is giving accurate calorie burn unless I already have an idea of what the numbers should be?
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    Options
    HRMs measure your heart rate, but they only estimate calories. The estimates are more or less accurate depending on (1) how closely your activity matches the kind of activity used to establish the equations they use for the formula they use to estimate calories from heart rate, and (2) your own personal relationship between energy expended and heart rate.

    For (1), most HRMs use formulas derived from studies of moderate to intense, steady state cardio: think running or cycling for 30 minutes, at a fairly constant speed, fast enough that you're sweating. The further away from that kind of activity you are, the less accurate the estimates will be.

    For (2), the fitter you are, the fewer calories a typical HRM will say that you've expended. Imagine two people, each of whom weighs 150 pounds. One is a couch potato, the other is a seasoned sub-3:00 marathoner. Put them both on a treadmill at an 8:00 mile pace. If they both have good running form, they'll both expend about the same number of calories. But the marathoner might have an average heart rate around 130, and the couch potato might be around 170. An HRM would claim that the couch potato burned more calories, but that's not true.

    Some higher-end HRMs allow you to enter your fitness level. My Garmin Edge 800 bike computer/HRM has that feature. But most don't, so ironically, they overestimate burns for the unfit and underestimate them for the fit.
  • sweedee1218
    sweedee1218 Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    bwogilvie wrote: »
    HRMs measure your heart rate, but they only estimate calories. The estimates are more or less accurate depending on (1) how closely your activity matches the kind of activity used to establish the equations they use for the formula they use to estimate calories from heart rate, and (2) your own personal relationship between energy expended and heart rate.

    For (1), most HRMs use formulas derived from studies of moderate to intense, steady state cardio: think running or cycling for 30 minutes, at a fairly constant speed, fast enough that you're sweating. The further away from that kind of activity you are, the less accurate the estimates will be.

    For (2), the fitter you are, the fewer calories a typical HRM will say that you've expended. Imagine two people, each of whom weighs 150 pounds. One is a couch potato, the other is a seasoned sub-3:00 marathoner. Put them both on a treadmill at an 8:00 mile pace. If they both have good running form, they'll both expend about the same number of calories. But the marathoner might have an average heart rate around 130, and the couch potato might be around 170. An HRM would claim that the couch potato burned more calories, but that's not true.

    Some higher-end HRMs allow you to enter your fitness level. My Garmin Edge 800 bike computer/HRM has that feature. But most don't, so ironically, they overestimate burns for the unfit and underestimate them for the fit.

    Thank you!!
  • 111YoYo111
    111YoYo111 Posts: 213 Member
    Options
    acpgranberg wrote: »
    Hey can anyone suggest an accurate heart rate monitor to track calories. I tried one of the polar heart rate monitors and found it fairly accurate until it crapped out on me within 18 months. I switched to the Runtastic monitor and found it wildly inaccurate until I used a different app and that crapped out on me within 3 months. I'm tired of throwing my money away on garbage equipment. My friend had a FitBit and her calories seemed to be inaccurate as well so I'm not super interested in that device. Anyone have a suggestion?

    Sounds like someone else is having my luck too. First I bought a Fitbit which went back due to glaring inaccuracies. Then a Mio that would have gone back if they hadn't demanded that I drive the 300KM back to the store to return it. Now I have a Garmin 70 and nothing but problems with it too. Won't connect to an app despite having a wireless USB to do so. So it beeps memory full all the time quite annoying. And it just quits for no reason during workouts sometimes. I've only had it a couple of weeks too. The chest strap is also very uncomfortable, plastic clasps that pinch. I hope our luck improves OP.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    bwogilvie wrote: »
    HRMs measure your heart rate, but they only estimate calories. The estimates are more or less accurate depending on (1) how closely your activity matches the kind of activity used to establish the equations they use for the formula they use to estimate calories from heart rate, and (2) your own personal relationship between energy expended and heart rate.

    For (1), most HRMs use formulas derived from studies of moderate to intense, steady state cardio: think running or cycling for 30 minutes, at a fairly constant speed, fast enough that you're sweating. The further away from that kind of activity you are, the less accurate the estimates will be.

    For (2), the fitter you are, the fewer calories a typical HRM will say that you've expended. Imagine two people, each of whom weighs 150 pounds. One is a couch potato, the other is a seasoned sub-3:00 marathoner. Put them both on a treadmill at an 8:00 mile pace. If they both have good running form, they'll both expend about the same number of calories. But the marathoner might have an average heart rate around 130, and the couch potato might be around 170. An HRM would claim that the couch potato burned more calories, but that's not true.

    Some higher-end HRMs allow you to enter your fitness level. My Garmin Edge 800 bike computer/HRM has that feature. But most don't, so ironically, they overestimate burns for the unfit and underestimate them for the fit.

    That's a pretty solid answer re: HRMs.

    As for the fitbit and other activity monitors... they are NOT the same thing as an HRM. They are not meant to be and should not be used as such. The are based primarily on motion (where HRMs are based on, you guessed it, HR). They are activity monitors, not HR monitors. The more active you are, the more calories it will ESTIMATE you've burned.

    FWIW, I had good luck with my fitbit flex when I looked at it's numbers over longer periods of times (days and weeks), not hour by hour.

    Some of the newer activity trackers are trying to bridge the gap by monitoring HR as well via a chest strap (i.e. Garmin Vivofit). I don't have any experience with these, so I can't comment on practical application, but the theory is good, and Garmin generally makes a solid product.
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    Options
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    Some of the newer activity trackers are trying to bridge the gap by monitoring HR as well via a chest strap (i.e. Garmin Vivofit). I don't have any experience with these, so I can't comment on practical application, but the theory is good, and Garmin generally makes a solid product.

    Ray Maker (aka DCRainmaker) did a good review of the Garmin Vivofit back in March. If you're interested in how it works and how it compares with other activity monitors, take a look.

Categories