Is my HRM actually accurate?

Options
allisonshaw710
allisonshaw710 Posts: 52 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi,
I am a woman, 185 lbs and just got an HRM. the first time I used it during zumba, my average heart rate was 155 for 65 mins. It told me I burned 1241 calories. People (not on MFP, and people that weight less than me) have told me it can't be right becuase not even running burns that much. I have checked the settings and I set it up correctly. Does anyone know abouot this? it's a Timex.

Replies

  • trail_rnr
    trail_rnr Posts: 337 Member
    Options
    The different companies that manufacture monitors all use different formulas and base the calculation on an estimated BMR (which might or might not be the best formula; I think there are 3 or 4 different BMR/RMR formulas out there). No monitor is entirely accurate, and some are less accurate than others. The more you pay for a monitor, the more sophisticated the algorithm. Some monitors apparently (and I do mean "apparently") learn about you and adjust the algorithm. Might or might not be the case.

    In any event, this article talks about the Timex HRM in general:

    http://www.thegreatfitnessexperiment.com/2007/12/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-calorie.html

    I use a Garmin and take it with a grain of salt. I think it's good for looking at patterns over time, but I do think it overestimates. :sad:
  • Mom2M_and_O
    Mom2M_and_O Posts: 214
    Options
    When I was shopping for an HRM, I read that Timex wasn't accurate on calorie burn because it doesn't take gender into account. As a result it way overestimates calorie burn.

    I have a Polar FT7, and mine comes to about 400 calories for 40 minutes of Zumba -- understanding there are other factors at play -- my weight is different, my height may be different, my heart rate may be different, and my workout -- while similar -- is different. But still, that's a significantly different number from 1100.

    I've also read somewhere that some people subtract a calorie for each minute exercised to compensate for HRM overestimation. But so far I think mine has been fairly accurate -- enough for me anyway.
  • leadoff
    leadoff Posts: 136 Member
    Options
    I'm assuming the Timex calculates calorie burn on HR and not just time. IF this is the case, the main thing to consider is what you have input in the watch as your Max HR. Check out what you have entered as your Max HR.
  • cowgirlslikeus86
    cowgirlslikeus86 Posts: 597 Member
    Options
    Are you sure you entered your hight, weight and gender correctly?

    I weigh 180 and running at 175-198 BPM burns me an average of 95-100 calories per 10 minuts.
    I don't think your HRM is correct.
  • KareninCanada
    KareninCanada Posts: 795 Member
    Options
    Sounds like maybe your stats are programmed into it incorrectly?

    I don't know if this is your model or not, but take a look at some of the comments on this one, particularly the review where he explains how to set the parameters: http://www.amazon.com/Timex-Personal-Trainer-Heart-Monitor/product-reviews/B005TCXELQ?pageNumber=3
  • Sasha_Bear
    Sasha_Bear Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    Not familiar with the Timex brand does it have a chest strap?
  • michelegrayson
    michelegrayson Posts: 157
    Options
    That seems very high for just 65 minutes of aerobic activity.

    . I weigh 163 and my range is 145-155 most aerobic exercise. For running I burn about 500 an hour running an 10-11minute mile for biking 500=600 if I'm climbing hills and pushing a15-17 mile an hour pace. As someone said earlier, in time you will come to know where your averages are.

    I did buy a Timex Ironman last year and it was VERY inaccurate for my burn. I ended up throwing it out. I now use a Polar F4(basic/cheapest option) and I find it much more consistent.

    To validate your rate you can check your BPM against your time at this site: http://braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    Goodluck!

    Michele
  • mcrim5
    mcrim5 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    It could possibly be correct. What I did was go to www.zumbacalories.com and looked to see about how many calories it said I should have burned and compared it to my HRM and they were very close. I do know of some ladies who burn that many calories in one session, and you have to remember that all bodies burn at a different rate. Also, are you taking your heartrate multiple times during your workout?
  • RAFValentina
    RAFValentina Posts: 1,231 Member
    Options
    Hi,
    I am a woman, 185 lbs and just got an HRM. the first time I used it during zumba, my average heart rate was 155 for 65 mins. It told me I burned 1241 calories. People (not on MFP, and people that weight less than me) have told me it can't be right becuase not even running burns that much. I have checked the settings and I set it up correctly. Does anyone know abouot this? it's a Timex.

    Running for about 75 minutes for me burns just over 1100kCal.... thats with a HR of about 165Av... its a bit off but I'd say by about 4-600kCal if that helps.... Can't be sure without knowing your height, VO2max, RHR etc.... It's never going to be 100% accurate either.

    I weight about 155lbs.
  • RAFValentina
    RAFValentina Posts: 1,231 Member
    Options
    It could possibly be correct. What I did was go to www.zumbacalories.com and looked to see about how many calories it said I should have burned and compared it to my HRM and they were very close. I do know of some ladies who burn that many calories in one session, and you have to remember that all bodies burn at a different rate. Also, are you taking your heartrate multiple times during your workout?

    How do they know for sure they are burning that many?
  • runfrommygenes
    runfrommygenes Posts: 83
    Options
    I have a Polar F6 and it has a VO2Max setting on it... don't know if Timex does also... I know that this really changed my calorie burn... (there are maybe tests to do, but the most accurate for VO2Max is the NEW LEAF testing....)
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Options
    Timex is crap at estimating calories burned.

    Best bet would be to scrap that calorie estimation and buy a new HRM.
  • ATT949
    ATT949 Posts: 1,245 Member
    Options
    That sounds high.

    You and I are the same weight and, when I run, my Garmin 305 has me burning about 150 cals/mile (I do my long runs at a 10 minute mile).

    On 2/14, I did 6 miles in 1:00:40.22 with an average HR of 156 and the 305 estimated that I burned 889 cals

    The Garmin 305 is not HR based — only the Garmins ending in 10 are HR based. I'd think that they're more accurate than an algorithm but I don't know how inaccurate it is (I'd love to find out about that, if anyone cares to chime in).
  • BellydanceBliss
    BellydanceBliss Posts: 330
    Options
    i have a sportline duo it has a chest strap i love it normally 120 paid 30 on ebay...i use it along with my fitbit which i also love. I think using both in my opinion is best.
  • allisonshaw710
    allisonshaw710 Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    That seems very high for just 65 minutes of aerobic activity.

    . I weigh 163 and my range is 145-155 most aerobic exercise. For running I burn about 500 an hour running an 10-11minute mile for biking 500=600 if I'm climbing hills and pushing a15-17 mile an hour pace. As someone said earlier, in time you will come to know where your averages are.

    I did buy a Timex Ironman last year and it was VERY inaccurate for my burn. I ended up throwing it out. I now use a Polar F4(basic/cheapest option) and I find it much more consistent.

    To validate your rate you can check your BPM against your time at this site: http://braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    Goodluck!

    Michele


    Thanks,
    I think I will combine this website with the average heart rate from my workouts. this site has me burning 500 in my workout today, just now, where my avg HR was 142. My HRM said 915, so the 500 is probably alot more accurate.
  • ckmama
    ckmama Posts: 1,668 Member
    Options
    Does it have a chest strap?

    That numbers seems high.

    If it doesn't I wouldn't use the calorie burn. When I was around 200 lbs at 5'6" I burned an average of 10-11 calories a minute at those BPM

    So that's about 500-600 calories in an hour.
  • mcrim5
    mcrim5 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    It could possibly be correct. What I did was go to www.zumbacalories.com and looked to see about how many calories it said I should have burned and compared it to my HRM and they were very close. I do know of some ladies who burn that many calories in one session, and you have to remember that all bodies burn at a different rate. Also, are you taking your heartrate multiple times during your workout?

    How do they know for sure they are burning that many?

    You input your weight, the minutes exercised, and how vigorous the work out was and it estimates. Doesnt say that it is spot on, but from personal experience, it was pretty close.

Categories