Timex Heart Rate Monitor - Calorie Burn

[UnstrungHarp]

I decided to get myself a heart rate monitor during the day after Christmas sales and I found a particular Timex model at Academy Sports that seems to do everything I was looking for. Besides being a heart rate monitor that has a chest strap and user-changeable batteries, I just wanted a calorie burn counter. I programmed it with my weight and the other customizations (lower and upper range, max heart rate, etc) and so far I've worn it during maybe four workouts.

I am wondering if anyone has found that the calorie burn displayed on their heart rate monitor is higher than they expected. I have read many times on this forum that HRMs usually display a lower calorie burn than what is given in the Workout Manager or other sources (such as personal gut feelings!). But I have found so far that during all my workouts, I am burning around 600 calories, sometimes more. That includes some Insanity workouts as well as Cathe's 4DS I am doing this week. My heart rate readings seem accurate, and I have not gone above 175 at any point during any workout (that I know of). My resting heart rate varies between 45-55 depending on time of day, etc. Does it seem right that I would be burning 580-620 calories during a 60-75 minute workout of Insanity and Cathe-level intensity?

Thanks for any comments or thoughts you have on heart rate monitors in general!

 

[SheWolf]

I purchased a Timex HRM about a month ago when the Nike HRM I was using died. And like you I love the Timex for all it features. However, I have found that my calorie burn readings with the Timex are much higher than with the Nike. Makes me feel good to see those numbers, but also makes me question which one is right. On a side note, when trying to research this I found an article by Consumer Reports rating HRMs and a Timex scored number 1 in accuracy compared to an EKG machine as far as tracking the HR. The article did not talk about calories burned. Another interesting note is the HRM that score last in accuracy was a Polar.


If you find any more information I would love to hear it.

 

[lightening16]

I have a Timex HRM too and my readings also seem high. I have a very high max heart rate which I think contributes but when I did the first Insanity disc I burned 640cal. Sometimes when I did a CC run for an hour my burn can be as high as 800-900 cal. I really have no idea if this is correct or not. I have always been curious. Compared to the workout manager weight training matches but cardio is always low compared to the HRM. I am not using it for any calculations so it is not important but I was thinking of a Go Wear Fit and wondering where I would be on that?
I am also interested in others info on the accuracy!

 

[RapidBreath]

I normally burn about 600 calories an hour doing cardio. Not as much for weights.

 

[rjroubi]

Those caloric expenditures sound really high. As for comparing the inexpensive Timex Heart Rate Monitor to the low end Polar in the consumer report article-- they did take into account "ease of use" in the overall rating and Polar performed poorly compared to the rest of the heart rate monitors. I'm very sure the Polar wasn't simple to use--none of them are until you get the hang of it. (Incidently, Polar still rated excellent in terms of accuracy.) Also note there are also many consumer complaints as far as reliability with the Timex if you do do a search on the watch (ie. consistency).

After reading the article, if I was in the market for an inexpensive HRM I might have considered the Timex but after reading some of the caloric results of your workouts I would probably have second thoughts. Honestly, the numbers seem over the top unless you are a lot bigger than me or work out way harder than I do (which could quite possibly be true) but some of those numbers do seem way off.

UpstrungHarp, 175 bpm is a fairly high number--for what length of time are you up there? Just on average (not knowing age, resting heart rate etc), 171-190 bpm is generally (ballpark) considered 90-100% of max heart rate.

To accurately check my monitor, I would look at each of my target zones and see what percentage of time is spent in each zone. See if it's reasonable amount of time in the higher zones (it should reasonably be shorter) it might be accurate. If it's over the top (too much time spent say in the 171-190 bpm range) then I would most definitely say the monitor is off. Also if I know I'm not working that hard and I'm registering in a higher target zone I would also be able to tell if my monitor is off.

I have a high end Polar Heart Rate monitor. I owned 610i for about 8-10 years and just recently upgraded to a RS800CX. I download all my results via infrared onto my computer onto ProTrainer 5 Software which was provided with the new watch. (I've downloaded my results onto Polar computer software for years--the ProTrainer 5 software is new.) My results are divided into my five target ranges by heart rate beats per minute (from very light 104 bpm to a maximum 190 bpm). My results then tell me what percent of time I spend in each zone. Without a doubt my watch and zones are on target (my old and new watches register the same). Do you know when I did the new Hiit workout I spent 20% more time verses other cardio workout in the 152-172 bpm heart rate range? I don't even want to talk about the 171-190 bpm zone...lol. I only mention it because it was such a fun and interesting thing to see graphed.

Polar to me (and most gyms) is the Gold Standard of HRMs but for inexpensive casual use maybe the Timex would be the way to go. Then again, after hearing some of those high caloric numbers and I would be highly suspect. (Burning a half days worth of food in one workout seems like an absolute dream--and it may just be that. )

 

[Govtgirl]

Yup, seems high According to my GWF, I burn about 300 calories an hour doing a weight workout, or with a jog on the treadmill.

The only way I've gotten 600 calories an hour is hard sprints alternated with jogging on the treadmill, and that was one tough hour, let me tell you!

I have realized that I am only really able to commit to 30-45 minutes a day to exercise, which is plenty for health purposes, and will only burn 200 or so calories with that.

Which leaves weight control up to diet. Either I workout 2 hours a day, or just don't eat that 600 calorie peice of cake in the first place.

Edited to add: My GWF also made me realize that just moving around a bit more during the day, taking a break from my desk job to walk down the hall, can burn an extra 20 or so calories an hour. That can easily add 200 calories to my "burn" with just incidental movement.

 

[SheWolf]

Sorry, my mistake. I accidentally misread the Consumer Reports ratings on the article.


But I am so glad that we have a Polar Sales Representative on this board to correct me and put me in my place. So I will just sink back into cyber obscurity now, thank you very much.

 

[icumom]

I found it pretty accurate - when I woke up,my post sleep heart rate was only 43entered that and my max for age, weight,etc..and when compared to the ekg (it was quiet at work,so I hooked myself up)..it correllated - I think it gives an excellent idea for how you're working and intensity...

 

[rjroubi]

Sorry, my mistake. I accidentally misread the Consumer Reports ratings on the article.


But I am so glad that we have a Polar Sales Representative on this board to correct me and put me in my place. So I will just sink back into cyber obscurity now, thank you very much.

I don't think the backhanded compliment was really necessary-- my only intention was to help.

 

[jharris]

I have a timex also. The battery in my polar f4 died. When I was first got the timex I was so excited about how many calories I burned. I posted that I burned 1000 during a cc session. I am 5'1 and weigh 173. Well I was told by everyone that it was probably inaccurate. When I compare to workout manager my hrm is always about 300 calories higher than the wm.

I bought the timex because it looked like it had more than the polar f4, but I'm thinking of getting the battery replaced in the polar and doing a comparision from there.

I would like something that gives me an accurate burn so I can maybe get these unwanted 50 pounds off of me along with a food journal.

 

[UnstrungHarp]

I only hit 175 bpm in the most intense parts of Insanity workouts...most of the time I'm in the 140-160 range during Insanity and maybe 125-150 throughout most Cathe cardio (sometime spiking up to 170 during more intense intervals). During weight workouts following cardio (4DS style), my heart rate stays up above 130 for a bit then goes down around 100...I recover pretty quickly after the workout, and my resting heart rate is somewhere between 45-55.

Anyway, I suspected that the 600 calorie burn was unrealistically high but was hoping it wasn't too far off. I do believe that the heart rate aspect of the Timex is accurate - it seems to reflect how fast I "feel" my heart beating. Since that was the case, I was really hoping the calories were right too.

 

[syzygy314]

I think the only way a HRM is going to more accurate is to have your VO2Max checked and to plug that number in your monitor. Of course, that's an expensive test, especially if your insurance won't pay for it! You would also need to have your BMR tested as well with a more accurate medical test.

Calories burned are so variable from person to person. You have to take the information and combine it with your calorie intake, all your personal stats, your true intensity (not how hard you wish/think you worked) and see what your weight loss is per week (1 lb., 1/2 lb.) and just use hit or miss to adjust your caloric intake. This is really only if you are trying to lose weight!

I found my readings were in a pretty good range - I have a Polar F6. When I was still trying to lose weight, I was average about 1/2 - 1 lb. per week and I was counting calories at the time. I never get much over 500 calories per workout and that's during running with about another mile to 2 miles walking tacked on after! It also really makes a difference with how much you weigh. Someone heavier is going to burn more calories because it takes more effort to move more weight.

Basically, HRMs are a tool, not a definite medical gauge. You have to use it together with all the other information you have and make an educated guess!