Body Bugg vs. HRM

Options
ktmunchie
ktmunchie Posts: 35
in Fitness and Exercise
I have been using a heart rate monitor for about 2 years now. A friend just lent me a body bugg to try. I wore them both a few times while I was exercising and the calories burned is VERY different, like the HRM says I burned 750 calories and the body bugg say I burned only 400 calories. Does anyone know which is more accurate for determining calories burned during a work out? I am so frustrated! I don't want to eat more calories that I burn!!

Thanks for any help or advice you may have! :smile:

Replies

  • Awkward30
    Awkward30 Posts: 1,927 Member
    Options
    When you used the body bugg did you configure it with your stats? Those are supposed to be more accurate because they use more metrics
  • ktmunchie
    ktmunchie Posts: 35
    Options
    I did configure it to me. It was actually brand new, he got it free when he joined a gym and didn't want it! :happy:
  • femmerides
    femmerides Posts: 843 Member
    Options
    it's always better to have a lower number...it's probably more accurate. i use the bodybugg and i work out hard and an hour workout is max at 500. never higher.
  • DopeItUp
    DopeItUp Posts: 18,771 Member
    Options
    Good question, I've been looking to get a new HRM or a Body Bugg. Curious to see the consensus.
  • stubbysticks
    stubbysticks Posts: 1,275 Member
    Options
    I use a Bodymedia Fit (similar to Bodybugg) & I've found it to be pretty accurate. I would trust that over a HRM or machine readout (or a weight loss website estimate) any day.

    If you want to know for sure, just track your food & exercise for a month & compare your deficits to your actual rate of weight loss. Then you'll know which is more accurate.

Categories