Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
MOMMYRE Posts: 403
8/6/13 3:42 P

Most days my HRM is a little higher than the other two. Jog Tracker uses GPS and calculates for elevation change and so forth. I used the example I did because they are so far apart. Last night I walked 1.07 miles according to Jog Tracker it took 20 minutes and JT said I burned 92 calories, SP said 85 and my HRM said 136. I just don't ever know which number to choose. I have Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia, so sometimes my HR is REALLY high. Not to worry, I am exercising under a doctor's supervision.

No, the MIO isn't the Alpha, I am too poor for that one. HAHAHAHA I actually bought this one new on Ebay.

I did have an issue with Jog Tracker last week and it said my walk was 12 minutes. I used my watch, it said 19 minutes, and my fiance used his Jog Tracker and it said 19. I think my program may be malfunctioning some. As far as the low reading for the mow, I think it may have to do with the vibration. The info in the watch box said that external movement, such as vibration of a steering wheel could affect a reading. Wouldn't this be true as well for a mower handle?

UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
8/6/13 3:25 P

AFAIK, all estimates do that. Spark's values include your BMR for that time as well.

REYNINGSUNSHINE SparkPoints: (20,387)
Fitness Minutes: (41,738)
Posts: 523
8/6/13 2:16 P

One thing I noticed about HRMs is that often times, they give you a total-calories-burned kind of thing... like if you were doing something for 30 minutes, it would give you the calories you burned TOTAL over that 30 minutes, not the "extra" calories you burned by being active. For example, if I'm doing my "normal" thing for 30 min (typical lifestyle things), I burn probably around 36 calories. So if my HRM monitor says for a 30-minute activity I burned 130 calories, I can assume really, I burned 94 *extra* calories, because 36 of those 130, I would've burned had I not worked out. I don't know if that makes sense, but that seems maybe the case for that first problem?

But that said, HRM USUALLY can tell intensity better than Spark or normal trackers. It seems odd that your HRM would give such a low value for 90 minutes- unless you took a LOT of breaks and weren't actually going that intensely. All hills aren't the same- I've got rolling hills by my house where I cycle, and while they're definitely hills, they're only maybe 3-4% grade; some people cycle at 7% grade, which causes a LOT more energy to expended. Even still, I suspect MAYBE something happened with your HRM and it malfunctioned a bit? The discrepancies are quite large. When I had a HRM, sometimes it would halve my pulse if it was up too high- so even if I was working out and my HR was 170, it would tell me 85. If it's not on your skin tight enough, that could be the problem.

Is your MIO that new fancy one, the type that is just a watch but is a continual-read HRM? I think it's the MIO Alpha? Just kind of an aside question.

UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
8/6/13 3:26 A

While an HRM watch can be quite accurate, less than 400 calories for over 90 minutes of "lots of walking uphill" doesn't sound at all realistic.

Spark and Jog Tracker (what is that - online mapping?) probably don't account for elevation, so they're working on a purely flat "as the crow flies" satellite mapping basis. So if anything, they're likely to be lower than realistic.

Exercise tends to be around 6-12 cals per minute, depending on intensity and your abilities. For 90 minutes you'd want to be seeing a figure between 540 and 1080.

I wouldn't worry too much about accuracy. Your BMR is estimated, your daily general activity is estimated, how many calories are actually in the foods you ate is an estimate, how much you ate is an estimate, everything is an estimate.

Best bet? Just pick a number that makes you feel happy enough, and see what your results are like. If you lose slower than expected, that number's probably a little high. If you lose faster it's probably a little low.

MOMMYRE Posts: 403
8/5/13 9:28 P

Simone, Thanks for the input. I my watch has a HRM. It doesn't use a chest strap, but from all the reviews I have read, it seems to be as accurate about 98% of the time.
So should I trust the information there? I want to do this right. Also should I track a workout not listed so I don't "inflate" my minutes to get my calories right or should I just adjust the minutes. Anyone can answer these. TIA for any help! emoticon

SIMONEKP Posts: 2,696
8/5/13 5:17 P

I find that SP estimates are too high. I would say use the watch because it is on your body is probably a better estimate than the others two, however, you can also consider buying a heart rate monitor. HRM aren't the solve all but they are tops in estimating calories burn, just be sure you get one with a chest strap.

MOMMYRE Posts: 403
8/5/13 3:46 P

I am not really sure how to calculate calories burned. I have a MIO watch and according to it, today's walk burned 133 calories. I use JogTracker to see how far I have walked, and it also said 133 (today). However, SparkPeople said 85. Yesterday was vastly different. I mowed my parent's back yard (lots of uphill walking) and it took me 90 minutes.) SparkPeople said 688, JogTracker Said 729 and my watch said 391. What number do I use? Or do I choose an amount of time that makes the number the average of the three? I don't know what to do. I want to be as accurate as possible.

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Walking with back problems 4/25/2016 9:09:31 PM
New to resistance bands, questions 6/22/2016 2:03:41 PM
Drink after work out 5/27/2016 12:37:58 PM
Fitbit stopped synching 1/17/2017 2:37:10 PM
Is your Fitbit accurately counting steps? 4/21/2016 10:51:51 AM