Comparison of Microsoft Band and Polar Chest Heart Rate Monitor

[scottg99999]

Polar: 871 calories, Avg HR 119, Max Hr 171, Min 64, Duration 1:40:30 about 21% Fat & 795 Carbs
Microsoft Band: 1125 calories, Avg HR 119, Max 186, Min 73, Duration 1:40:31 about 50% Fats & 50% Carbs
(see figures below)

As seen in the two graphs, the polar is much higher resolution (almost not even comparable), but in the end the average heart rate was the exact same. Difference in calorie burn (about 40% great on Microsoft Band) is surprising since average heart rate was the same on both devices. I have data from additional workouts that I will eventually post.

 

[dbregman]

My experience in comparing both is similar to yours. What is interesting is that, at the end of the day, the polar loop and the band show similar total calories. I believe the band overestimates workout calories and underestimates the non-workout calories. In the end it balances out. I hope this will be fixed in the future.

 

[DroidUser42]

The two devices are probably using different algorithms as to how to count calories. The real question is which is more accurate?

 

[scottg99999]

Update for 1/23/15

Polar: 1110 calories, Avg HR 135, Max Hr 180, Min 61, Duration 1:30:16 about 16% Fat & 84% Carbs
Microsoft Band: 942 calories, Avg HR 114, Max 174, Min 72, Duration 1:30:07 about 50% Fats & 50% Carbs.

This time Polar calorie estimate was higher than the Microsoft Band, but that is no surprise with 135 Avg HR on the Polar and 114 Avg HR on the Microsoft Band.

Scott