lost180
Fitness Enthusiast
Posts: 153
|
Post by lost180 on Jul 9, 2009 18:22:00 GMT -5
As I said in my journal I just bought a monitor. It also tracks calories burned too. I've read that most monitors are or can be pretty accurate in regards to tracking heart rate. As in only off by a few beats per minute. But what about the calories burned? I started week 5 of my running program. It lasted 31 minutes and of those 31 minutes 15 of those I spent jogging. I'm still building endurance so I'm not very fast. Meaning I wasn't running balls to the wall with my heart rate at 200 bpm. I got up to 166 for my highest I believe. After I finished that I went and used the stationary bike for about 15 minutes. The monitor told me I burned almost 1000 calories. Does that sound like it would be accurate? To me it seems like too much but I don't know how these things work exactly. Or maybe I've been under estimating just how many calories my work outs burn. Is there some kind of formula for determining calories burned by using ones weight and their heart rate? Cause the only info I put into the monitor was my weight. I haven't put in my target heart rate yet. But it automatically had it set at around 150 ish. Maybe a little lower.
Going back to the accuracy of the BPM I was a little surprised that it said my heart rate was over 107 BPM at one point from just walking. Does that sound right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ayers, CSCS on Jul 11, 2009 7:00:47 GMT -5
As I said in my journal I just bought a monitor. It also tracks calories burned too. I've read that most monitors are or can be pretty accurate in regards to tracking heart rate. As in only off by a few beats per minute. But what about the calories burned? I started week 5 of my running program. It lasted 31 minutes and of those 31 minutes 15 of those I spent jogging. I'm still building endurance so I'm not very fast. Meaning I wasn't running balls to the wall with my heart rate at 200 bpm. I got up to 166 for my highest I believe. After I finished that I went and used the stationary bike for about 15 minutes. The monitor told me I burned almost 1000 calories. Does that sound like it would be accurate? To me it seems like too much but I don't know how these things work exactly. Or maybe I've been under estimating just how many calories my work outs burn. Is there some kind of formula for determining calories burned by using ones weight and their heart rate? Cause the only info I put into the monitor was my weight. I haven't put in my target heart rate yet. But it automatically had it set at around 150 ish. Maybe a little lower. Going back to the accuracy of the BPM I was a little surprised that it said my heart rate was over 107 BPM at one point from just walking. Does that sound right? Hey lost, What kind of hour monitor is it? The bpm sounds like its probably pretty acurate, but the cal expenditure sounds high. Is there any input for age or bf%? I'm not sure what equations it uses but I'd say you need more info than just wt. to get an acurate calorie exp. |
|
lost180
Fitness Enthusiast
Posts: 153
|
Post by lost180 on Jul 11, 2009 9:31:54 GMT -5
It's a Timex Ironman. I'm not sure of the exact model. If it has an input for age I haven't seen it yet. I'm still learning how to use it. I figured that was a little bit much. I'd be happy with even half that though.  Even if the calories aren't right it'll still push me to keep my heart rate up. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ayers, CSCS on Jul 12, 2009 17:05:01 GMT -5
That's all that really matters. The whole calorie count thing is nice, but I never trust machine numbers. The elliptical machine will tell me that I burned 400 cal in 20 minutes, then the spin bike will tell me that I burned 340 in a 45min class where I know I was workin way harder.
|
|
Even if the calories aren't right it'll still push me to keep my heart rate up.