Heart Rate Watch

johmapri
johmapri Posts: 24
edited September 19 in Fitness and Exercise
After perhaps underestimating my calories burnt for the past couple of months, I bought a SPORTLINE SOLO 910 HRM.

When I was doing my Taebo 8 Min workout, I would estimate that I burnt 104 calories, and when I did Taebo Basic I would estimate I burnt 215. I weigh 166. I tested the watch with the 8 min workout and my highest heart rate went up 194. (Unfortunately, it was my first time using it and I didn't hit the calories mode until I was in the cool down mode and by then my heart rate was already 152, so with that reading it said I burnt 191 calories). With the Taebo Basic the highest was 186 and it said I burnt 367 calories. The only thing I dont like about this watch is that you have to hit a button to update your heart rate, so I would have to hit the button and update it every single time that Billy would say "walk it out":smile:

Anyhow, I am not sure how accurate this is or if this is even a good watch. I bought at Sears for $60.00. It does not have chest straps. Do the calories burnt sound right? Also, is there a watch out there that keeps up with your heart rate which in turns keeps up with the calories burnt? I hope you guys can understand my rambling :laugh: and thank you in advance.

68450.png
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Online Calorie Counter

Replies

  • johmapri
    johmapri Posts: 24
    After perhaps underestimating my calories burnt for the past couple of months, I bought a SPORTLINE SOLO 910 HRM.

    When I was doing my Taebo 8 Min workout, I would estimate that I burnt 104 calories, and when I did Taebo Basic I would estimate I burnt 215. I weigh 166. I tested the watch with the 8 min workout and my highest heart rate went up 194. (Unfortunately, it was my first time using it and I didn't hit the calories mode until I was in the cool down mode and by then my heart rate was already 152, so with that reading it said I burnt 191 calories). With the Taebo Basic the highest was 186 and it said I burnt 367 calories. The only thing I dont like about this watch is that you have to hit a button to update your heart rate, so I would have to hit the button and update it every single time that Billy would say "walk it out":smile:

    Anyhow, I am not sure how accurate this is or if this is even a good watch. I bought at Sears for $60.00. It does not have chest straps. Do the calories burnt sound right? Also, is there a watch out there that keeps up with your heart rate which in turns keeps up with the calories burnt? I hope you guys can understand my rambling :laugh: and thank you in advance.

    68450.png
    Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Online Calorie Counter
  • MattySparky
    MattySparky Posts: 771
    I think I know what you're saying. I dont know though 194 seems kind of high to me but I wasn't there and dont know the intensity of the workout. I am 28 year old male and I weigh 243 lbs and I run for 25 minutes every night at 6mph and my heart rate spikes around 168 and that is at the end of the run for the last two mintues I run at 8mph . During the run once I get my heart rate up I average 155bpm heartrate. Again this is different for everyone. The calories sound close I think although you didn't put how long your workout was. When I do the above run I burn about 350 calories. I have a polar f6 and from what I understand of your post it has the features you are looking for. I would say deffinately worth the money!
  • bathedinshadow
    bathedinshadow Posts: 117 Member
    I have had similar questions about the accuracy of these watches. I have sometimes felt like it says I have burnt more calories than I felt I did. The first time I used it, I did the elliptical for 20 min with an average heart rate of 173 (my max is 192) and it said I burnt 373 calories. I'd love to know how accurate these are.

    I have the Times Ironman Triathlon and it does keep a running tab of your heart rate as well as calories without pushing any buttons. I actually got the guys version because I'm not really into "powder" colors. It's a bit more expensive than what you paid ranging around and above the $100 range. But if it is accurate (which I'm not sure myself), then it's worth it. It's pretty easy to use once you get the initial setup done. It also has "laps" you can do which separate your heart rate, while keeping a constant running tab on calories. Which I think is useful for people who are training. I haven't really used that feature too much though.
  • fiddlechic
    fiddlechic Posts: 196
    Let's see...Ive read that Heart rate monitors that have a chest strap are more accurate.
    The part where you mention "keeping up with your heartrate", i'm not too sure what you meant by that but my polar F6 shows my heart rate on the screen the whole time. all i have to do is start it when i start my workout and then stop it when i am done and it tells me my peak heart rate, my lowest heart rate, the amount of time spent in my target heart rate zone and my total calories burned. As far as whether or not it is accurate is hard to say since everyone is different. When I am working out I burn about 100 cals per 10 minutes and sometimes my peak heart rate is in the high 180's, anything above 185 and i might pass out!
    Did the watch ask you to enter any info about yourself like age and weight?
  • johmapri
    johmapri Posts: 24
    It did not ask me any information....
  • fiddlechic
    fiddlechic Posts: 196
    i think your calorie burn depends a lot on your height weight etc...maybe return the watch you bought and do some more research on other brands. $60 is still a good amt of money to not get what you want. i think there are other brands out there for around that price that have more options. i love my polar but i know there are more HRMs than polar.
  • porka29
    porka29 Posts: 868 Member
    My HRM is a Polar that I bought about 8 years ago and never used. Now that I'm working out, I wanted to utilize it (finally! :tongue: ) and realized it's not as hip as the ones today, no calorie counts. So, I did some googling and came up with this calculator from a trialathon trainer's calculator who encountered the same problem. This will help you get an exact amount of calories. I am still using the ones on MFP but it's nice to know if i have more or less to play with on working out hard days.

    http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/?page_id=483
  • MattySparky
    MattySparky Posts: 771
    The thing I like about my polar f6 is that you enter your sex, weight, birth date, age and height and based on that information it calculates your cals burned using your heart rate. I would say very accurate! It's also really nice because it determines your different heart rate burning zones based on a small initial test that you can do when setting it up.
  • johmapri
    johmapri Posts: 24
    Thank you guys! :wink:
  • qatarsessions
    qatarsessions Posts: 31 Member
    MattySparky - Maybe you can help me. I'm a computer science major and I can't figure out my Polar F6. I entered all the data to get it set up and I can start the exercise and stop it and see all the "in zone", "out of zone", cals, etc.... for that one exercise session.
    Fine.
    It has an exercise diary and is supposed to accumulate all those numbers for weekly, monthly.
    It never seems to accumulate anything and I'm really not sure about all the buttons. I just keep pushing randomly until I see what I want.

    The small booklet that came with it didn't seem to give any specifics and I don't even know where it is anymore.
    Do you use the accumulation tools? Can you explain this thing to me?
    Thanks.
  • MissResa
    MissResa Posts: 1,147 Member
    I just got my F6 today!!! I'm not sure if I should have it set on Cal or Kcal... Does anyone know the difference?
  • qatarsessions
    qatarsessions Posts: 31 Member
    Kcal is metric
  • MissResa
    MissResa Posts: 1,147 Member
    which one should I be using?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories