Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Polar Calories vs Real World - Any rule of thumb?

  • 18-04-2010 9:27pm
    #1
    chakattack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,315 ✭✭✭


    My Polar speedo with heart rate reckons I burnt around 2500 calories on a 3 hr 80k spin in Wicklow with 2 climbs (Town -> Cruagh -> Sally gap -> Kilbride -> N81 -> Town).

    Wasn't killing myself at 27kph average. 2500 sounds very high.

    Does anyone know of any conversions back to the real world, maybe polar vs power meter?


Comments

  • #2
    niceonetom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,833 ✭✭✭niceonetom


    I'm not sure about polar, but I've read that some people put their weight into their garmin at 60% of their actual weight to give a more conservative estimate.

    It's all guesstimates anyway, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.


  • #3
    mloc123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭mloc123


    I think polar are pretty good? Don't they use HR, weight and time to calculate calories... unlike older garmins which use a random number generator :D


  • #4
    chakattack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,315 ✭✭✭chakattack


    mloc123 wrote: »
    I think polar are pretty good? Don't they use HR, weight and time to calculate calories... unlike older garmins which use a random number generator :D

    Cool I'll finish the Prawn Crackers that came with my grub :)


  • #5
    mloc123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭mloc123


    I think the newer garmins now use the same algorithm, they had to pay to use it.


  • #6
    niceonetom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,833 ✭✭✭niceonetom


    mloc123 wrote: »
    I think the newer garmins now use the same algorithm, they had to pay to use it.

    The 500 does use a different one to previous garmins all right. Didn't know it was the same as the polar one.

    I've had a polar and thought it generally was very generous in the calories it said I'd burned - typically in the 700 to 900 per hour range, or 1000+ if I did a really hard hour. Seems unlikely. If it were true I'd be a lot thinner.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    blorg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,995 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    mloc123 wrote: »
    I think the newer garmins now use the same algorithm, they had to pay to use it.
    That is what I heard, they paid to use the HR algorithms in the new 500. The old one massively overestimates I think, I haven't looked at it for a long time.


Advertisement