Polar FT4 Seems to Be Giving High Calorie Count

ThinLizzie0802

I use a Polart FT4 (which has a chest strap) and my stats are accurately entered. 220, 5'6, 26 yrs old, max hr is set. Yesterday, I did 45 mins on the treadmill alternating between 3 and 3.5 mph and got a calorie burn of 580. That seems excessively high. Any idea why I would get such a high reading?

morgiee_lynne

How long did you walk for?

erickirb

Have you used it in the past for a similar routine? If so how do these results compare?

I will point out that HRMs give you total calories burned during that time which would also include what you would have burned had you not worked out (Maintenance calories) usually 1-2/min, so may be 90 cals less due to just that aspect.

You said you set the Max HR, you changed that from the default? What was your max HR, was it lower or higher than the 220-age?

kr1stadee

Based on your height and weight, it's entirely possible to burn more ... it doesn't seem insanely high to me.

joshuaratliff

I have the same monitor. I just ran 5 mph for 32 minutes and burned 508 cal. I am 229, 5'9, 37 yrs, and male. Seems about right to me. Polar has been doing the heart rate monitoring for 38 years and they are the most accurate according to industry testing. Unless you have low batteries...probably pretty close.

FallToRise

I have the same monitor and it seems pretty acurate.

CorlissaEats

Hmmm. What are you comparing it to? The number the tread mill gave you or the inflated numbers MFP gave you? A heart rate monitor accounts for both the extra exertion calories and the number you would have burned just breathing. Exercise counters often just account for the extra efforts. It takes calories just to exist, normally you log the difference exercising makes and not the total burn. A HRM doesn't do this which could be why your number seems high. If you subtract the base 80-120 calories do you get closer to your expected output number?

If 220lbs is a very overweight number for you and you haven't been walking long, its actually possible for your burn to be high. As your body gets more efficient at an exercise you burn fewer calories doing the exercise (as I understand it), you also burn less as you lose weight. Based on your height, 220lbs gives you about 70lbs of extra poundage that you carry around every day. It takes energy to move that extra weight.

Short answer, 300-600 calories for an hour of exercise is possible but it depends on the body and the exercise.

brianpperkins

It's extremely high for an under three mile walk.

sw33tp3a11

I think you should trust it.

ThinLizzie0802

A few responses-yes, my Max is currently set at 190, which was a close middle between a few equations-194 would be the result of the exact equation presented above. I did subtract the 80 and just marked it as 500 cals burned. It was a 45 min walk. It's been 2+ months since I was doing regular exercise, and that was always a mix of cardio and weight lifting done with a trainer. Considering I have been back to pretty much sedentary for close to three months, I can see how this would have been an intense strain on my body. I really don't have any tread mill counts to compare it too, but if it doesn't seem to be an entirely impossible burn after subtracting the 80, then I will just have to compare it to other results from the same type of exercise over the next month. I just don't want to be logging an extraordinary amount of extra calories burned that just isn't true. Thanks!

brianpperkins

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

Net calories from walking is in the ballpark of .3 calories per pound per mile. So ... 2.6 miles x 220 lbs x .3 ... or approximately 173 net calories.

HRMs are only as good as the formula they use. Most low end HRMs are lacking in that respect ... they aren't programmed at all for many activities ... are not designed at all for things like weight lifting ... can't handle interval training because they only count heart beats, don't track when you're going hard or not as part of the intervals ... most report gross calories burned, not net from exercise ... all things that matter when looking at the numbers they provide.

ThatGirl_1968

I've got the same Polar and I've been concerned it's a bit over inflated, but still log the exercise calories it gives me. Since I've stalled on weight loss I'm not eating back all of my exercise calories and am going to see if that helps. I also think MFP exercises are written as if you are doing a steady rate of exercise and when I bike, tmill, elliptical I never just go at a steady rate on a flat surface, but typically do intervals with hills and various speeds which I believe requires more effort and burns more calories than the steady rate. Short answer - use the information it gives you and eat back all the calories for a couple of weeks - if no weight loss then try eating back only a portion tweaking as necessary.

ThinLizzie0802

I don't wear it when doing anything other than steady state cardio. I would think a Polar with a chest strap wouldn't have a problem tracking a treadmill walk. I always subtract 60 cals when exercising for 30 mins or up to 100 when going for a full hour from the read to account for calories burned from just existing.

ThinLizzie0802

Thanks, keepingsecret!

dudekc

I have the same HRM and mine is pretty accurate (-i think) - sometimes when you go from not using one to using a HRM, the jump in calories is significant because before you're just inputting activity and time into an equation that doesn't take all your stats into account. Whereas when you begin using one, it's using your own personal stats, so it's going to be pretty accurate overall unless there is something defective going on with it.

brianpperkins

ThinLizzie0802 wrote: »

I don't wear it when doing anything other than steady state cardio. I would think a Polar with a chest strap wouldn't have a problem tracking a treadmill walk. I always subtract 60 cals when exercising for 30 mins or up to 100 when going for a full hour from the read to account for calories burned from just existing.

If you don't think it would have a problem with a treadmill walk, why would you think it's providing inflated numbers? This entire thread is based on the premise that your HRM is having trouble with a walk. You routinely subtract numbers from the readings in an effort o make it closer to what you think should be the right output which reinforces it isn't giving you accurate numbers (subtracting 100 for calories burned from living in an hour is only applicable if your RMR is 2400 calories).

The simple fact is the device is reporting something much closer to accurate for a run, not a walk ... still inflated for running, but closer.

Lshona

I believe it's accurate.

lina011

kr1stadee wrote: »

Based on your height and weight, it's entirely possible to burn more ... it doesn't seem insanely high to me.

That's what I was thinking