How accurate is calculating Calories Burned Using Heart Rate?
OldAssDude
Posts: 1,436 Member
I have a new activity tracker that I am trying out that uses heart rate, age, weight, gender, and duration to calculate calories burned for activities.
I have compared it to calories burned using heart rate on the web, and it is very close to the same numbers.
I also read that using heart rate is more accurate in calculating calories burned.
Anyone have any knowledge about this that they can share?
Thanks in advance.
I have compared it to calories burned using heart rate on the web, and it is very close to the same numbers.
I also read that using heart rate is more accurate in calculating calories burned.
Anyone have any knowledge about this that they can share?
Thanks in advance.
0
Replies
-
I've been using a fitbit charge hr, and right now i think it's quite accurate. I was reading a thread earlier today which suggested the TDEE that someone was getting from their fitbit was inaccurate because the person was eating to their fitbit calculated TDEE and gaining weight over 4 weeks. My suggestion is to experiment and slowly increase calories eaten to see how it's affecting weight loss/maintenance
Good luck!
0 -
I just found my zone through trial and error.bcalvanese wrote: »I have a new activity tracker that I am trying out that uses heart rate, age, weight, gender, and duration to calculate calories burned for activities.
I have compared it to calories burned using heart rate on the web, and it is very close to the same numbers.
I also read that using heart rate is more accurate in calculating calories burned.
Anyone have any knowledge about this that they can share?
Thanks in advance.
Metabolism is a function of weight, body fat, hormones, heart rate and who knows what else.
All I need is a close, consistent estimate, and I'm good.
0 -
I'm like Pinnacle ^^^ I just picked a number from a calculator that seemed pretty accurate and experimented over time, it ebbs and flow and unless there was a device that could measure your body fat, hormones, stress, health marker, etc, I really trust how I feel and what I see happening with my body fat over time more than any device.0
-
Thanks for the replies.
I am trying out a Basis Peak. It does not have all the bells and whistles as some of the other activity trackers. I don't even think it measures distance, but what I think it does do is measure constant heart rate, and automatically knows when you are doing an activity from the length of time you are doing a continuous movement, and what your heart rate goes up to. It automatically goes into activity mode and starts measuring the activity based on the movement (walking, running, biking), and starts measuring how long you are doing the activity and what your average heart rate is for that time. It knows your age, height, and weight in the settings, and uses that along with your heart rate, and how long you did the activity to determine the calories burned.
I think this may be an advantage because when it comes to burning calories, it should not be a matter of how far you go and what your pace was, but more a matter of how long you keep your heart at a certain rate for a certain length of time.
I found a calories burned by heart rate calculator on the web, then I did 3 separate activities on this new tracker for different lengths of time, and compared them with the calculator results by entering the avg. heat rate and the length of time, and all 3 were very close.
I know there are factors for each individual, but I think this could be a good place to start. And I am starting to think that the way of "you walked a certain distance at a certain pace so you should burn xxx calories" could be less accurate.
Or am I totally off base here?0 -
-
bcalvanese wrote: »I have a new activity tracker that I am trying out that uses heart rate, age, weight, gender, and duration to calculate calories burned for activities.
I have compared it to calories burned using heart rate on the web, and it is very close to the same numbers.
I also read that using heart rate is more accurate in calculating calories burned.
Anyone have any knowledge about this that they can share?
Thanks in advance.
Every time you bring this up, a few people who know their **** give you great, detailed, accurate answers, and all you do is argue with them.
So I'm just jumping to the only answer you want to hear - whatever you're doing is perfect, and if anything, it's underestimating your burns, so you can eat more nummies if you really want to.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »I have a new activity tracker that I am trying out that uses heart rate, age, weight, gender, and duration to calculate calories burned for activities.
I have compared it to calories burned using heart rate on the web, and it is very close to the same numbers.
I also read that using heart rate is more accurate in calculating calories burned.
Anyone have any knowledge about this that they can share?
Thanks in advance.
Every time you bring this up, a few people who know their **** give you great, detailed, accurate answers, and all you do is argue with them.
So I'm just jumping to the only answer you want to hear - whatever you're doing is perfect, and if anything, it's underestimating your burns, so you can eat more nummies if you really want to.
That too. Let's skip a few pages of that.0 -
Maybe I am learning that I may be wrong, and am now trying to figure this out.
Is that a reason to be mean to me.
I notice there are a lot of very mean people in this forum.
Don't sweat it, I'll figure it out one way or another.0 -
I gave a very helpful link, and I'm not being mean. I've noticed that you tend to argue a lot in the forums and it turns into people going in circles. If you want advice, say thanks, and move on. If you think it's bad advice, ignore it.0
-
Have a Polar FT7
and is with an average of 16% off of my lab results (VO2 resting and fitness tests).
Have a Misfit...which i love also but seems very high aldo my exercises it seems to be lower than the Polar..but overall with steps in the day it comes out higher.
And no idea what you are looking for because you already bought yours
I just found my own level and the gadgets are nice and motivating.0 -
I gave a very helpful link, and I'm not being mean. I've noticed that you tend to argue a lot in the forums and it turns into people going in circles. If you want advice, say thanks, and move on. If you think it's bad advice, ignore it.
I actually found that link earlier, and the instructions for this new tracker says that you have to get to 3 MET's before it will go into activity mode and start measuring the activity.
Could it somehow be figuring out VO2?
it has these sensors: optical heart rate engine, 3-axis accelerometer, skin temperature and galvanic skin response sensors.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »I gave a very helpful link, and I'm not being mean. I've noticed that you tend to argue a lot in the forums and it turns into people going in circles. If you want advice, say thanks, and move on. If you think it's bad advice, ignore it.
I actually found that link earlier, and the instructions for this new tracker says that you have to get to 3 MET's before it will go into activity mode and start measuring the activity.
Could it somehow be figuring out VO2?
it has these sensors: optical heart rate engine, 3-axis accelerometer, skin temperature and galvanic skin response sensors.
No, those are two very different things. It wants your METs so it can calculate your burn at increments above that as your heart rate increases. It considers your resting heart rate 1 MET, and then counts units when you're raising your heart rate to estimate burn.
V02 is a much more complicated calculation and only really correct when done in a lab. The other calculations are all basic estimations.0 -
Have a Polar FT7
and is with an average of 16% off of my lab results.
Have a Misfit...which i love also but seems very high aldo my exercises it seems to be lower than the Polar..but overall with steps in the day it comes out higher.
And no idea what you are looking for because you already bought yours
I just found my own level and the gadgets are nice and motivating.
I have 15 days to return it.
I do like that it has the built in HRM and that it monitors your heart rate 24/7. My Garmin VivoActive has a chest strap HRM, but only measures heart rate during activity sessions.
I also like that I don't have to put it in sleep mode, or even start an activity. It does those things automatically.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »Have a Polar FT7
and is with an average of 16% off of my lab results.
Have a Misfit...which i love also but seems very high aldo my exercises it seems to be lower than the Polar..but overall with steps in the day it comes out higher.
And no idea what you are looking for because you already bought yours
I just found my own level and the gadgets are nice and motivating.
I have 15 days to return it.
I do like that it has the built in HRM and that it monitors your heart rate 24/7. My Garmin VivoActive has a chest strap HRM, but only measures heart rate during activity sessions.
I also like that I don't have to put it in sleep mode, or even start an activity. It does those things automatically.
I don't think there is anything wrong with it, as long as you keep in mind that it may not be perfect. Minus being under a constant fitness study in a lab, all things are estimated. You have to learn what that means in accordance with your own body and then adjust.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »I gave a very helpful link, and I'm not being mean. I've noticed that you tend to argue a lot in the forums and it turns into people going in circles. If you want advice, say thanks, and move on. If you think it's bad advice, ignore it.
I actually found that link earlier, and the instructions for this new tracker says that you have to get to 3 MET's before it will go into activity mode and start measuring the activity.
Could it somehow be figuring out VO2?
it has these sensors: optical heart rate engine, 3-axis accelerometer, skin temperature and galvanic skin response sensors.
No, those are two very different things. It wants your METs so it can calculate your burn at increments above that as your heart rate increases. It considers your resting heart rate 1 MET, and then counts units when you're raising your heart rate to estimate burn.
V02 is a much more complicated calculation and only really correct when done in a lab. The other calculations are all basic estimations.
So without VO2, it's pretty much a guess then.
Thanks.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »I gave a very helpful link, and I'm not being mean. I've noticed that you tend to argue a lot in the forums and it turns into people going in circles. If you want advice, say thanks, and move on. If you think it's bad advice, ignore it.
I actually found that link earlier, and the instructions for this new tracker says that you have to get to 3 MET's before it will go into activity mode and start measuring the activity.
Could it somehow be figuring out VO2?
it has these sensors: optical heart rate engine, 3-axis accelerometer, skin temperature and galvanic skin response sensors.
No, those are two very different things. It wants your METs so it can calculate your burn at increments above that as your heart rate increases. It considers your resting heart rate 1 MET, and then counts units when you're raising your heart rate to estimate burn.
V02 is a much more complicated calculation and only really correct when done in a lab. The other calculations are all basic estimations.
So without VO2, it's pretty much a guess then.
Thanks.
So I've heard. I still use one, for what it's worth. Like I said - use it and learn how your body responds to the calories you're allowing it based on the HRM.0 -
Have a Polar FT7
and is with an average of 16% off of my lab results (VO2 resting and fitness tests).
I use a Polar FT7 as well and I've always assumed it was over-estimating my calorie burn by 20-25%. I would guess that would be a common range of error among all HRM/activity trackers.
0 -
Running, rowing, cycling at an intense steady rate ..it should be fairly close to accurate-ish supposing you set it up right
Anything else take with a pinch of salt and learn what percentage is accurate for your body over time0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »I gave a very helpful link, and I'm not being mean. I've noticed that you tend to argue a lot in the forums and it turns into people going in circles. If you want advice, say thanks, and move on. If you think it's bad advice, ignore it.
I actually found that link earlier, and the instructions for this new tracker says that you have to get to 3 MET's before it will go into activity mode and start measuring the activity.
Could it somehow be figuring out VO2?
it has these sensors: optical heart rate engine, 3-axis accelerometer, skin temperature and galvanic skin response sensors.
No, those are two very different things. It wants your METs so it can calculate your burn at increments above that as your heart rate increases. It considers your resting heart rate 1 MET, and then counts units when you're raising your heart rate to estimate burn.
V02 is a much more complicated calculation and only really correct when done in a lab. The other calculations are all basic estimations.
So without VO2, it's pretty much a guess then.
Thanks.
So I've heard. I still use one, for what it's worth. Like I said - use it and learn how your body responds to the calories you're allowing it based on the HRM.
I will start with only using half the calories, and adjusting until I get to what I am supposed to be losing.
Thanks again.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »I gave a very helpful link, and I'm not being mean. I've noticed that you tend to argue a lot in the forums and it turns into people going in circles. If you want advice, say thanks, and move on. If you think it's bad advice, ignore it.
I actually found that link earlier, and the instructions for this new tracker says that you have to get to 3 MET's before it will go into activity mode and start measuring the activity.
Could it somehow be figuring out VO2?
it has these sensors: optical heart rate engine, 3-axis accelerometer, skin temperature and galvanic skin response sensors.
No, those are two very different things. It wants your METs so it can calculate your burn at increments above that as your heart rate increases. It considers your resting heart rate 1 MET, and then counts units when you're raising your heart rate to estimate burn.
V02 is a much more complicated calculation and only really correct when done in a lab. The other calculations are all basic estimations.
So without VO2, it's pretty much a guess then.
Thanks.
It will always be a bit of a guess
aldo my Polar is very constant with the lab tests it will always be off
This because of different factors...like the temperature in the lab is different duration...humidity etc etc
hormones
But you get a good guess
what i did was simple
i train 60 minutes for at least 300 burned calories per exercise
Which means the lighter i got over time the harder it was and is to get the 300 calories a day ( the more weight you lose the fitter you am..the harder it is to keep that 300 minimum per day up)
0 -
I think consistency and weighing all my food does the trick
0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »I have a new activity tracker that I am trying out that uses heart rate, age, weight, gender, and duration to calculate calories burned for activities.
I have compared it to calories burned using heart rate on the web, and it is very close to the same numbers.
I also read that using heart rate is more accurate in calculating calories burned.
Anyone have any knowledge about this that they can share?
Thanks in advance.
I have a polar FT7 I've been using for two years. I've lost 44 pounds and kept it off for a year and a half, so my HRM works well for me (as does weighing food). I generally count all the calories it gives me. However, I have found Web resources to render too high of calories for exercise burns.0 -
Thanks all for the input.
I am going to return this thing today, because it did not record my sleep last night, and the heart rate monitor does not seem to be accurate enough.
I'm going to exchange it for the Polar A300.0 -
I went one better and exchanged it for the Polar M400 with the heart rate monitor.0
-
If the heart rate monitor is adjusted correctly, it can be somewhat accurate, but I think all they do is use your heart rate to determine your activity level and then plug that into a lookup table similar to the one used by online calculators. Heart rate monitors may be slightly more accurate because they can measure how long you spend at each activity level, rather than just taking the average for the whole workout.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »If the heart rate monitor is adjusted correctly, it can be somewhat accurate, but I think all they do is use your heart rate to determine your activity level and then plug that into a lookup table similar to the one used by online calculators. Heart rate monitors may be slightly more accurate because they can measure how long you spend at each activity level, rather than just taking the average for the whole workout.
I got the Polar M400 today, and it has a fitness test that is supposed to determine your VO2 max. You have to put your profile information in (age, weight, height, etc.), then you put the year rate monitor on and lay down, then star the test. It measures your heart rate for what seems to be about 5 minutes, then tells you what your VO2 max is.
Once it has your VO2 setting, it uses that in conjunction with your heart rate during an activity session to calculate the calories burned for that activity.
Seems to me it would be fairly accurate, because today I did a mile walk at a fast pace it said I burned 101 calories. That seems like a much more believable number than what I would get on MFP, online calculators, or any of the other activity trackers that I have used before this one.0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If the heart rate monitor is adjusted correctly, it can be somewhat accurate, but I think all they do is use your heart rate to determine your activity level and then plug that into a lookup table similar to the one used by online calculators. Heart rate monitors may be slightly more accurate because they can measure how long you spend at each activity level, rather than just taking the average for the whole workout.
I got the Polar M400 today, and it has a fitness test that is supposed to determine your VO2 max. You have to put your profile information in (age, weight, height, etc.), then you put the year rate monitor on and lay down, then star the test. It measures your heart rate for what seems to be about 5 minutes, then tells you what your VO2 max is.
Once it has your VO2 setting, it uses that in conjunction with your heart rate during an activity session to calculate the calories burned for that activity.
Seems to me it would be fairly accurate, because today I did a mile walk at a fast pace it said I burned 101 calories. That seems like a much more believable number than what I would get on MFP, online calculators, or any of the other activity trackers that I have used before this one.
Could be. Some Syracuse University researchers found the average for men walking a mile is 88 calories. If you are bigger than average, that might explain the 13% difference.0 -
What ever you choose, it will always be an estimate.
HRM or not.
The trick is to find out how much it is off.
For me it was easy with all the tests done.
And i look at it this way now. ( which is pretty much accurate when i see my weight loss)
when i swim for 300 calories..than about 60 of those calories are already calculated for...( when i do nothing and sleep or sit i will burn those 60 calories in an hour anyway.)
So that means that i did extra 240...Which is not accurate.
According to my tests it can be about 16% off. But i take a bigger number so i be sure of it so a 25% to high. That is 60 calories too much from the 240 that was given. Left over 180 calories that i really burned extra by an hour swimming.....and still this is an estimate too
But for now my calculations are pretty much right if i see my weight loss and my calorie intake.
Always see your gadget..HRM or not as a tool that you can use as set point..you still have to tweak it a bit and get used to it. And the circumstances is for every person different, think of sex/age/hot or cold weather/humidity/stress/TOM for woman/ etc etc
Weigh all your food on a scale.... create a deficit. Deficit plus burned calories is your weight loss.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.2K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions