Calorie Monitors

Some interesting info via my friend:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...th+and+Fitness

Thanks for sharing that. It's a very nice summary of the limitations of some of the calorie estimating techniques out there.

I looked up a few of them simply because I knew nothing about them. It appears they are mostly accelerometer-based so cycling is still a manually estimated activity. They needs footstrikes to work.

Of course, I did not look at all of the better rated ones. I suppose I could ask Laura.

Thanks for the article. I have the frustration of being a geek, knowing fairly accurately my "calories in" but not getting good measures of "calories out." I read about the monitors this article mentioned as fairly accurate. I don't really know what that means. Unfortunately, none of the mentioned monitors measured heart rate. I wish they had compared the monitors they mentioned, which focus on motion, to ones that measured heart rate. The article does say that monitors that measure heart rate "and other data" are the best.

Here is a comparison of two of the mentioned monitors:
http://tweakfit.com/fitbit-vs-bodybugg-reviews

Here is a review of the Polar heart rate monitor for accuracy of calories burned:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/49...rate-monitors/ This review provided some data. 75% accurate on average isn't that encouraging but maybe that is the best you can do without measuring in a lab.

Hmm, way back when we had a long discussion about Polar's calorie count being much farther off for women than men. Anyone remember that? It was several years ago.

Editing to add link about Polar:
http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showt...polar+calories

I believe (although I have not looked it up, just based on my own observations) that the Garmin's algorithm that calculates calorie burn using HR is more accurate than Polar.