08-09-10, 10:58 AM | |
VF Supporter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Baja Arizona
|
I have THIS Timex HRM and a Polar F4 (long story). I've alternated the two for the same videos, similar bike rides, etc. and have found the TIMEX calorie count to be significantly higher than the Polar, by a range of 70-100%. The Polar calorie count for bike riding was almost spot on with the calorie count charts on the internet so I think it is the more accurate of the two. (darn!)
|
08-09-10, 01:39 PM | ||
VF Supporter
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Does anyone else have other recommendations for a HR monitor without spending hundreds of $$$? Thanks! |
|
08-09-10, 01:58 PM | |
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: canada
|
timely thread. I have had a couple of MIOs over the years and like it but am thinking of moving to one with a chest strap for continuous monitoring. Am currently wondering which to invest in but not interested in forking over too much $$$
__________________
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr. Seuss |
08-09-10, 02:29 PM | |
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: accord ny
|
According to Consumer Reports the Timex is rated very high for accuracy. I do get very high calorie burns for some workouts and others not so much. I know they say the monitors with the chest straps are more accurate than those without.
Today I did 20 minutes of Fusion Flow and it showed 117. Yesterday I did Turbo jam Kick Punch and Crunch with weighted gloves and was at 680. When I did the 50 minute premix on Circuit Burn I was close to 1000. All of these numbers would be awesome if the were accurate. I do agree with halfing the calories that you burn to your calorie budget and not adding them all in but what if that is still inaccurate. Thanks for all the responses.
__________________
Jenn |
Tags |
heartrate monitor, heat rate monitor |
|
|