I am a runner and used a heart rate monitor and also six other estatmite to estimate my calorie burn. These were all within about 10 to 15%. The estimate of errors in the estimates is typically larger than this difference, that suggests that statistically there is no difference or very little difference.
Outside of a lab there is not way to get a very accurate estimate of calories burned. In my heart rate forumal I included a personal factor that allowed you to adjust the estimate. I decreased my estimate by 10% and had a friend who increased herss by 10%. We each did this to reflect what we experienced in the real world (that is weight loss, etc)
Edited Dec 4 2012.
I thought I would be more explicit that In my opinion a heart rate monitor is not really much better than all the rest. In fact, my friend and I adjusted the results from heart rate monitor caclulations by 20% (me down 10% and her up 10%) to make a reliable match between the estimates of the heart rate monitor and the real world results. So yes, heart rate monitors are slightly better and are in fact the best we can do outside a lab, however they are still not much more than a ball park 10-20%. 100 calories reported by a heart rate monitor should be considered somewhere between 90 and 110 calories at best.
So even the heart rate monitor is only a guestimate.
Edited by: PAPAMIKIE at: 12/4/2012 (10:47)