This seems wrong

Options
Allegi32
Allegi32 Posts: 302 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I just went for a 70 minute walk at a fairly moderate pace. I could talk, but not comfortably. It is super hot here so I was sweating bullets. My heart rate monitor (no chest strap, just the watch one) says that I burned 1184 calories. I find that EXTREMELY unlikely, but not sure what I should enter into MFP. Thoughts?

Replies

  • shaunshaikh
    shaunshaikh Posts: 616 Member
    Options
    Sounds hard to believe, unless you are REALLY out of shape.
  • ChantalGG
    ChantalGG Posts: 2,404 Member
    Options
    Dont eat it all back, just in case it isnt right. But it could be if it is hot and you were sweating. it works your heart harder.
  • aflane
    aflane Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    Even if you are REALLY out of shape, not likely. I don't trust the wrist strap only heart rate monitors. They've been proven to be fairly inaccurate. Not sure what you should enter on MFP though.
  • Dootzy1
    Dootzy1 Posts: 2,202 Member
    Options
    This might give you something to check out.

    http://health.discovery.com/centers/cholesterol/activity/activity.html
  • blacktallon
    blacktallon Posts: 38
    Options
    I find calorie counters tend to over estimate.. so I try to underestimate the burn and then not eat those calories. If its more then you have written, in my mind its better for you in the long run. I could be wrong in doing this, these are just my thoughts.
  • sblair77
    sblair77 Posts: 355 Member
    Options
    I switched to a chest strap HRM because of similar "unlikely" readings.

    Now I feel pretty confident in what I get back - even though it is usually much lower than what the exercise log on MFP would give me if I logged it.

    I recommend getting a HRM with a chest strap
  • abalicious
    abalicious Posts: 361 Member
    Options
    I had a watch type HRM and it was SO inaccurate. I would just enter the minutes walked on MFP on go by that.
  • sixpacking
    sixpacking Posts: 148 Member
    Options
    wrists HRM aren't accurate in inconsistent terrain because they heart rate is only taken manually which may be at your peak and continues calculating calories at this rate until the next time you press it. wrists HRM are best suited for treadmills (even terrain at same pace) and even here it isn't 100%.
  • Allegi32
    Allegi32 Posts: 302 Member
    Options
    Thanks everyone! Looks like I'm going to go research chest-strap monitors! I think maybe I'll just split the difference, enter in 50% of the calories burned. I'm out of shape, but not THAT out of shape.
  • littlecaponey2
    littlecaponey2 Posts: 143 Member
    Options
    Thanks everyone! Looks like I'm going to go research chest-strap monitors! I think maybe I'll just split the difference, enter in 50% of the calories burned. I'm out of shape, but not THAT out of shape.

    That's what I would have done. The calories burned seems very high to me to take all of them. Split it and eat half of them back if you want. Definately agree with the people that state get a HRM with a chest strap. It would mess with my head if I wasn't sure I was being accurate. I love my Polar FT4! Nice walk though!!!
  • Roadie2000
    Roadie2000 Posts: 1,801 Member
    Options
    Does it give you an average heart rate? If it did you could compare it to a calorie calculation website to see if the numbers are anywhere near each other.

    Or if you were checking it periodically on your walk you should pretty much be able to tell if it is accurate or not. If it was saying you were at, say, 85-90% of your max you'd be breathing pretty heavy and it would be tough to sustain for 70 minutes

Categories