Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Question about accuracy of HRMs re: calories
Hello all,
I mostly lurk here but figured this would be a good place to ask about the accuracy of HRMs re: calories burned.
I recently purchased the Polar FT60 HRM so that I could get a better sense of how many calories I was actually burning during exercise (before, I was just relying on MFP estimates). I used it during a spinning class for the first time this morning, and was shocked to see it report that I had burned 650 calories in one hour, which seems insanely high to me.
If it is helpful information, I am 5'10", weigh 150 pounds, and am a size 8, so I'm not extremely overweight or anything. I've been doing spinning and/or weightlifting 2-3 times a week the last few months, so while I'm not in fantastic shape, I'm not a complete couch potato either. (And yes, I know that 150 is a healthy weight for my height, but I still have plenty of fat on my body that I am trying to lose through cardio, weightlifting, and eating healthy and tracking my calories).
So I guess my question is -- would you rely on the Polar's reading in this situation? I want to track calories burned as accurately as possible, and I thought that a HRM with a chest strap was the way to go -- but I also don't want to eat back 650 exercise calories if in all likelihood that's probably an overestimation.
Thanks in advance!
Re: Question about accuracy of HRMs re: calories
I have a polar HRM and have always thought it to be pretty accurate.
Somethings that can throw it off though are if the battery is low - but you said you just purchased it, so that shouldn't be an issue. And if you haven't programed youself into the watch properly - make sure that you have your weight in there correct as well as your heart rate range.
Its possible that you burned that many calories. There were a few times when I was doing insanity that in a 45 minute work out I was burning upwards of 400 calories.
When you first got it, did it have you put in all your info like height, weight, age, etc?
If you did all that, then I would say it's probably pretty accurate. I would agree that the chest strap ones are more accurate since it's actually near your heart. I think it's possible that you burned that much in an hour spin class.
Anyway, it's definitely more accurate than the calorie readers on the machines.
I have a Polar F6 and I've always trusted the readings. I've had really low calorie counts on mine before, but that's only because my chest strap slipped or something and I lost the signal, so it messed with the count. I don't think I've ever had a reading that I thought was way too high though.
Yeah, I programmed all of that info and also took the fitness test. I guess it's possible that I burned that much, but I still feel scared to eat back that many calories -- I know that sounds stupid.
I agree. I've burned upwards of 600 calories in a spin class. They can be pretty intense.
I did a long hike one day and it said I burned 900 calories. (I believed it as most of the darn hike was uphill.) There was no way I could eat back that many calories that day, so I didn't...I ate like 400 of it, maybe? But the next morning I woke up ravenously hungry, so I ate some more extra calories the following day too. My rule for me is I try to eat back *some* of the calories, and give myself extra wiggle room on the following day too.
650 doesn't sound too high at all for a spin class.
You don't need to eat back all of your calories if you're not hungry. You don't have to try to get to some exact number. I always think of calories as a good way of keeping yourself in check and not going too high or too low in general. But, you know, your apple might hace 85 calories instead of 80 in it, which would make your calorie number for the day different but not end the world.
I have a HRM that uses a chest strap and I think it's pretty accurate. I've been surprised before about calories burned, too, but I make it a habit of looking at my heart rate regularly during a workout and then I double-check calorie estimates online using this site:
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
They always come up with pretty similar numbers. 650 doesn't sound too high to me for a spin class if you were pushing yourself - I'm usually drenched in sweat and dying by the end of those.
{Blog: Adventures of AlaskanAlison}
This is a good point. I have hit a plateau with weight loss and have been stuck at 150 for awhile, which is why I think I've been a bit obsessive about tracking every last calorie. However, I know ultimately nothing is a perfect science and that I really just need to keep myself in check and that I will get over this plateau eventually.
I just asked my trainer about this yesterday (he has a master's in exercise phys). He said it is pretty accurate for heart rate, but it can be pretty off for calories burned. If I am understanding him correctly, the reason why calorie burn can be off is that it is somewhat dependent on how much of your weight is body fat vs. muscle.
He uses METs to track progress (METs, I guess, is an indication of the number of times harder your body is working than resting metabolic rate).