5

I have a certain watch that can be linked to a heart rate monitor. It then will give me the amount of calories based on the premise that I am running. However, obviously the watch can be used also for monitoring my heart rate during other activities, such as biking.

Given this setup:

  • does the calorie consumption only depend on the heart rate or also on the mode of movement?
  • assuming it depends on the mode of movement, can I "convert" my calories that were calculated based on the assumption that I was running into those for biking? A rough estimate is sufficient as we're talking hundreds of kcal, so I can subtract a bit more to make a conservative estimate.
  • can you please give the sources for your answers?!

TL;DR

There is or isn't a difference between running at 160 bpm for 10 minutes and biking at 160 bpm for 10 minutes? If there is, how to estimate from one mode of movement for another?

Improve this question
1

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

Heartrate, along with other factors (size, gender, age), will give you a close approximation of calories burned.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/171652-how-to-determine-calories-burned-during-exercise/

Improve this answer
2
  • Alright, so vigorous movement, no matter what mode will lead to an estimate. There is no difference between running at 160 bpm for 10 minutes and biking at 160 bpm for 10 minutes? Thanks already for the answer and +1 :)
    – 0xC0000022L
    May 18, 2012 at 16:30
  • Correct, at least from the information I've seen.
    – Wayne In Yak
    May 18, 2012 at 22:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.