Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
ALORTA SparkPoints: (7,310)
Fitness Minutes: (3,449)
Posts: 310
3/28/13 6:49 P

yeah, got the ft40 (wanted the fit test... which I still haven't used, else I'd probably have settled on the 7) myself. Still breaking it in ^_^
I was curious so I put in my most recent file into the link provided below.
On a 39min workout the calc was off by 25calories;
My HRM said 236, the calc 261
On a previous 63min, 516cal (according to HRM) it overestimated by 23
Not bad, not bad at all, and probably a hell lot more accurate than just going by the machine's estimate. Still, I do have a Q. For an accurate average heart rate, you need to check it as often as possible; since treadmills, etc only check it while you're holding the bar (and the treadmills I've tried, at least, don't want you doing it while running)..
So, how accurate will your avg heart rate be based on the machine's samplings?
Anyone with a HRM and a non-syncing gym equipment feel like giving it a try (I really am curious)?

2SWEETCHEEKS SparkPoints: (7,709)
Fitness Minutes: (9,215)
Posts: 12
3/28/13 12:52 P

I did the same thing. I bought a Polar FT7 HRM and I love it! The elliptical machine tells me I burned 800-900 calories in an hour but my HRM tells me its closer to 600-700. I believe the HRM because its based off my heart rate during exercise, height, weight, and age. Best purchase ever!

p.s. no I don't work for polar LOL

ALORTA SparkPoints: (7,310)
Fitness Minutes: (3,449)
Posts: 310
3/28/13 2:52 A

this is why I gave in and bought a HRM...


WINTERTRASH Posts: 58
3/27/13 10:59 P

Ok I'm sold! That explanation makes perfect sense. I wonder how many people know about this...???

Sure, it sucks to know I've been burning less than I thought, but I have re-calculated everything to reflect the more accurate burned calories. Whew.

Thanks a bunch!

MOTIVATED@LAST Posts: 14,110
3/27/13 7:01 P

Built into online calculators (including Spark) is an assumption that calorie burn is proportionate to bodyweight. This holds true for weight bearing forms of exercise such as walking, running, aerobics, etc.

But for things like the elliptical, you are working out against the resistance of the machine, rather than your bodyweight, and online estimates can be seriously distorted for heavier people.

The heart rate based calculators (including the one in your post) are probably going to be more accurate for the elliptical.

600 calories in an hour sounds about right for a vigorous workout - you need to be seriously fit AND working hard to burn 800 calories.

M@L

WINTERTRASH Posts: 58
3/27/13 6:48 P

When I calculate my calories burned via SP or most other sites the feedback I get is that my typical hour on the elliptical machine burns a TON of calories - about 800/hour!

This does sound suspiciously high, but hey, I AM 80 lbs overweight and even though those calculators don't take into account how hard you're working on the elliptical, I DO bust my ass on it.

Today I found a different type of calculator that uses your average heart rate during your exercise, which for me, since I typically exercise at 80-85% of my max heart rate, it says my calories burned are only 586-663/hour......a lot less than 800 :(

Here is a link.
www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calcul
ators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-ca
lculator.aspx


Does anyone know more about these calulators? I seriously am at a loss and have no clue how to properly calculate my workouts now. Please help! :)


Page: 1 of (1)  




Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Cal's burnt in 40mins according to treadmill etc.? 7/3/2013 2:33:11 AM
Help! I broke my foot! 7/13/2013 8:48:33 PM
Cant Let This Stop Me! 8/28/2013 2:16:24 PM
Running will not give you arthritis 8/16/2013 11:49:15 AM
Zumba? 8/3/2013 1:44:38 PM

Diet Resources: biotin supplement | biotin streptavidin | biotin supplements