Difference in calories burned

Options
Himurahotaru
Himurahotaru Posts: 29 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So I've had my polar hrm for years and I love it. I also have a Samsung gear fit which I'm
..meh about. I did a walk on treadmill today for an hour. According to polar I burned 645. According to Samsung I burned 314...that's a big difference but the average heart rates seem to be similar. Which one do I count on?

Replies

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Your weight?
    Speed or distance covered?
    Incline? (Not holding on to handrails I hope.)
    Does the treadmill measure power? If so what (or watt!!) did it estimate your calories to be?
  • Himurahotaru
    Himurahotaru Posts: 29 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    Oh.. I'm about 200 lbs and 5'5". 3 miles. No handrails with incline at a 2% for 1 mile. 4% at mile 2 and back down to 2% for the last mile. At about 3.0 average speed. I would go up to 3.5 occasionally. I have issues with my shins so I don't tend to go super fast. The treadmill estimated 300. I don't know the power or anything
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Two estimates around 300 seem to point at your Polar being way out. A flat walk (I know you added incline) would only burn around 180 cals (net) for 3 miles at your weight.

    645 for only 3 miles walked, nope sorry.
  • Himurahotaru
    Himurahotaru Posts: 29 Member
    Options
    Is there a way to recalibrate the polar at all? I don't like the gear fit for other kinds of workouts since it doesn't have just a general activity/workout mode. After usually an hour of p90x my polar tells me I burn about 500 calories.
    But on the other hand I am considering getting a fitbit..
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    I think the very wise @Azdak posted a way to test / calibrate basic HRMs....
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    I think the very wise @Azdak posted a way to test / calibrate basic HRMs....

    That was @heybales . I just use The Force.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,488 Member
    Options
    For a walk on the treadmill I wouldn't think an HRM would be accurate at all since your heart rate isn't elevated enough and from the numbers it is giving you it doesn't appear to be.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Azdak wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    I think the very wise @Azdak posted a way to test / calibrate basic HRMs....

    That was @heybales . I just use The Force.

    Is the Farce a thing, since I commonly use that.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/774337/how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is/p1

    Is this one of the cheaper Polar's without VO2 test?
    Just gender/age, height/weight?

    I've not found any studies that give a clue as to what formula they use to determine VO2max without some other stats, to kind of back in to correctly the figures.
    Their nicer HRM's with VO2max you can find the study they either use or tweaked.

    So basically your device is assuming that if the BMI (height/weight) is bad for your gender/age - then your VO2max is bad too. And vice-versa. That assumption can be decent perhaps in slight majority of cases - but there are a lot folks that exercise that have bad BMI's but are fit otherwise.
    @sijomial probably being one of them because of upper body muscle mass.

    Sounds like you are in this camp. Not seen a way to correct it.

    The nicer Polar's include restingHR in there as indicator of Fitness level, and self-selected amount of weekly exercise, and some HR-variability to estimate a better than 220-age HRmax value.

Categories