Heart rate monitor calories.

andrcollrvt
andrcollrvt Posts: 24 Member
edited March 2016 in Fitness and Exercise
How accurate are heart rate calories burned during exercise?
Not a Fitbit, but an actual chest heart rate monitor.

Replies

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Depends what sort of exercise you're on about.

    Distance running and cycling, reasonably accurate, most other things, not very. For resistance training or most classes, unreliable.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    The accuracy ranges from pretty accurate to reasonably accurate to pathetic.

    Depends on the exercise AND the person. Not all HRMs are created equal either.
  • andrcollrvt
    andrcollrvt Posts: 24 Member
    I mostly use it for cycling.
  • robsmy5606rm569
    robsmy5606rm569 Posts: 20 Member
    Good thing not a Fitbit cause those are the most inaccurate piece of *kitten* ever I could be sitting and it will read 121 Bpm
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited March 2016
    Cycling can be good accuracy with a HRM.
    My Polar FT60 allows you to calibrate it to your fitness level and max HR. Calorie estimates seem pretty accurate when compared to power meters.
    Accuracy goes to pot if you do intervals or get hot though - seen a divergence of 20%.
    My earlier Polar FT7 overestimated fairly consistently. Still usable estimates with application of a bit of common sense. You don't actually need to be completely accurate.

    But for cycling I use a Garmin Edge for convenience of HRM, navigation, tracking and cadence in one unit. Calorie estimates pretty poor though.
  • andrcollrvt
    andrcollrvt Posts: 24 Member
    robsmy5606rm569 wrote: »
    Good thing not a Fitbit cause those are the most inaccurate piece of *kitten* ever I could be sitting and it will read 121 Bpm

    I actually call my Fitbit a shitbit lol. In accurate POS.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    andrcollrvt wrote: »
    I mostly use it for cycling.

    I've used an FT60 as well, nowadays I use a Garmin GPS with HR, speed and cadence accessories. I find the Garmin estimates a bit lower than the FT60 used to be.
  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member
    edited March 2016
    As mentioned can be reasonable for running or cycling type activitites.

    Really not necessary for counting calories as you can do that by using simple mathematical formulas or even by apps likes runtastic.

    You can be more accurate by monitoring your weight changes through proper food logging and manually adjusting your calorie intake.

    I do think they can be useful just as a training tool though. Such as when you notice your heart rate is lower than normal for a typical terrain while running, you then can adjust your pace accordingly.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    andrcollrvt wrote: »
    I mostly use it for cycling.

    If you're cycling or running consider something with GPS as well as HRM, most HRMs do little more than take time & heart rate to come up with a caloric burn whereas something like a Garmin Forerunner (they have lots of different models) will also measure distance, pace, elevation changes and some will support (if you're a real data junkie) cadence sensors etc - not quite as good as a power meter but nowhere near the same $$

    If biking is your sport many of their bike computers also support HRM straps.

Categories