Heart Rate Monitor Accuracy?

Options
fatmama4
fatmama4 Posts: 39 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I just bought a base wristwatch model at Walmart, so yesterday I started the timer for my exercise when zumba class started, and checked my heart rate after each song throughout the hour. I was usually between 85%-99%, and at the end of the class, it said I burned 1251 calories. I know that I do sweat a TON, and am somewhat achey the next day, but how accurate is that? Thanks in advance!

Replies

  • jaimejean478
    jaimejean478 Posts: 152 Member
    Options
    That seems a little high to me. I use a Polar FT4 HRM, and in a 50 minute Zumba class I burn around 500-550 depending on my efforts. I know each instructor is different... but over 1200 seems like a lot unless you have a 2 hour class.
  • Last_15
    Last_15 Posts: 129
    Options
    Without a chest strap, I do not think that is very accurate at all. That would mean you were burning over 20 calories per minute!! Even the less expensive ones with a chest strap lie, sorry:flowerforyou:
  • momma3sweetgirls
    momma3sweetgirls Posts: 743 Member
    Options
    If it doesn't have a chest strap, it won't be very accurate. I have an HRM with chest strap and I burn about 360 calories during the 45 minute Zumba class and I really push myself and sweat buckets! I'm 135.5 lbs and 5'5".
  • gtm124
    gtm124 Posts: 179
    Options
    You really need to know as closely as possible what your HRmax is. That is how your % are set up. If you are low on your HRmax estimation then your readings of 85-99% would be too high and the calories would be too high since they are calculated based upon the HR%. There are ways and calculations all over the web on how to calculate your HRmax but I don't have them readily available. Google HRmax calculations.
    I am unfamiliar with a Wal-Mart brand of HRM and whether it uses a chest strap with transmitter. I use a Polar and over the years have determined pretty close what my HRmax is so my HR% are pretty close as well.
    Your results to me appear on the high side.
  • MsElphaba
    MsElphaba Posts: 432 Member
    Options
    I started with an inexpensive model from WallyWorld and ended up with a Polar FT7. The first one would stop recording, not come on... all sorts of problems.

    L
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,224 Member
    Options
    I will put it to your as straight forward as I can. Without a chest strap it is useless for calculating calories. Always remember just because the number it there, does not mean it means anything. HRM that calculate calories sell well, so they add that number to all of them even the ones that really can't calculate calories like the one you have. Take it back and get one with a chest strap.
    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
  • GIBride01
    GIBride01 Posts: 328 Member
    Options
    Have to agree with the other posters. I had an inexpensive Timex (with a chest strap) that I used for the better part of a year and swore by, helped me lose 20+ pounds. It started acting hinky, so I bit the bullet and purchased a more expensive Polar model with a few more bells and whistles, and was shocked at the difference in the calories burned numbers I was getting. Same run, same treadmill, same gym 2 days apart and I had an almost 200 calorie difference. For real accuracy, you need a chest strap HRM, and buy one that costs a bit more that factors in age, weight, height, gender.... it will be worth it.
  • fatmama4
    fatmama4 Posts: 39 Member
    Options
    Ok, thanks All for the replies! I figured it was too high :-( Considering that I would be losing weight like crazy if it WAS accurate, lol. I guess I'll have to look at the Polars.

Categories