Polar HR Calories
Floodcp
Posts: 190
Hi
I have a Polar HR monitor that gives Calories used during training.
How is this calculated and how accurate is it likely to be?
Flood
I have a Polar HR monitor that gives Calories used during training.
How is this calculated and how accurate is it likely to be?
Flood
0
Comments
-
Not very accurate at all!0
-
Not accurate - some HRM are better than others but all work on input information (age weight etc) max pulse (known or guessed) pulse during exercise and a whole set of complicated maths (algorythms?).
Have an idea Polar tends to read high. I use a Suunto which seems to tie in well enough with websites where you can calculate kcal vs speed etc....
But the HRM are repeatable - same run , same time, same weight, same kcal......useful guide but dont base weight loss predicions on it alone would be my take....0 -
Thanks
It did seem a bit unbelieveable.
Which websites can I use to calculate kcal vs speed?0 -
They are not very accurate as other have said.
I have powertap power meter as well as a Polar CS600 and I have worn both heart straps and both computers on a single ride so I can directly compare what both say.
64.5 mile ride (0.75 IF)
Powertap - 2102 calories
Polar CS600 - 3177 calories
As you can see for me on this ride the Polar has over reported by calories by ~1/30 -
Floodcp wrote:Thanks
It did seem a bit unbelieveable.
Which websites can I use to calculate kcal vs speed?
If it was just a matter of speed then the hrm would offer you accurate calories calculations and wouldn't need to resort to very complicated mathematical equations to try and come up with a figure. None of these websites can offer you any more accuracy than the hrm does. The only way to get a proper assessment is with a power meter and even then the number is exact.0 -
There is a calculation (look on runnersworld) that gives you calories burnt per mile - it depends on your weight.
A rough rule of thumb is 100 calories a mile for a bloke.
I've seen cycling reported as 1/5th to 1/4 the effort of running - so something round that area wouldnt be massively out.0 -
I believe they are all guestimates,
Powermeter measure power output very accurately but they do not know how efficient your body is, they use an average value. usually about 4 times the power output.
I use a Polar it compares reasonable with power and with gym machines, but I don't believe any are accurate, just a guide.0 -
Floodcp wrote:doyler78 wrote:
Powertap - 2102 calories
Polar CS600 - 3177 calories
As you can see for me on this ride the Polar has over reported by calories by ~1/3
How sure are you that the Powertap is accurate?
Because it measures the exact effort put in in KJoules...
It's still not ultra precise though as everybody has different efficiency but it's about as good as you'll get...0 -
-
NapoleonD wrote:Floodcp wrote:doyler78 wrote:
Powertap - 2102 calories
Polar CS600 - 3177 calories
As you can see for me on this ride the Polar has over reported by calories by ~1/3
How sure are you that the Powertap is accurate?
Because it measures the exact effort put in in KJoules...
It's still not ultra precise though as everybody has different efficiency but it's about as good as you'll get...
Ahh I read that question differently. I was assuming he meant was my powertap within spec and not how can I be sure that the powertap provides more accurate calorie estimates which would be more logical question for someone not using a power meter.
Agree here with what you say in response to that.0 -
http://bikecalculator.com/
is one but there are others & running ones etc. Only estimates too but you can get a better picture of what is reasonable - e.g if I was really using 1000kcal an hour how fast would I have to cycle (allowing for wind & terrain) etc. (rather faster than I can manage sad to say!)
runners rule of thumb isn't far off but it depends on body weight of course.0 -
Err on the side of safety - and multiply your Polar colories by .75 - will probably give you a better estimate. If anything, you might end up using more than you thought - which is a good thing.0
-
Thanks for all the replies.
I will take the readings with a large pinch of salt! and use them as purely a guide
Flood0 -
Err on the side of safety - and multiply your Polar colories by .75
Ah, so that's why I'm still a fat b'stard. The Garmin 705's even worse, I reckon about 20% higher than my Polar S625.0
