HRM + SWIMMING

Schwarzeaugen
Schwarzeaugen Posts: 129 Member
edited October 1 in Fitness and Exercise
Before I got my HRM, I would swim everyday for about an hour, and MFP would say I'd burn ~700 calories. When I finally got my HRM, I found that MFP was was overestimating the amount of calories burned during walking, running, general cardio, etc. I haven't swum since purchasing the HRM, and I'm wondering if I can use it while swimming. I have a Polar FT7; anybody know???

Replies

  • thetorontokid2
    thetorontokid2 Posts: 231 Member
    Did you read that little book that came with it? I would think it'd say whether or not it's water resistant. I didn't think it was, but I could be wrong.
  • Flyntiggr
    Flyntiggr Posts: 898 Member
    a lot of them say they are water resistant for up to x number of minutes. What you need to look at is whether the signal can travel through the water. For about 99% of them, it can't. I've read articles on a lot of swimming sites saying that for hte most part, even serious swimmers don't use one, because 1)the data is innacurate, and 2) since you are in a streamlined position moving through the water, it is extremely difficult to keep it in place.
  • Mrs_TrimWaistFatWallet
    Mrs_TrimWaistFatWallet Posts: 486
    Not sure about that water resistance, but 700 cal/hr is really high. My BodyMedia FIT (though not water resistant, can estimate very well how much I burn) says I burn 450/hr. It measures 500/hr cycling and 600/hr running, so that seems accurate.
  • chezst33
    chezst33 Posts: 15
    When I got my Polar FT4 I thought the numbers seemed lower than what MFP says, or than what my other HRM said w/o a chest strap. What I was told is HRM's w/o a chest strap, or programs like MFP base everything on an AVERAGE vs an ACTUAL rate. Its kind of a bummer to see the numbers as less than what you had accounted for, but I'd agree, it's the actual/accurate count.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories