Heart Rate Monitor (Polar FT7) vs. Newer Trackers (Fitbit, etc)

virelay129

I'm wondering if anyone out there has, or would be willing to, experiment with a heart rate monitor and their fitbit?

I don't have a fitbit yet. But as an experiment, wore my Polar FT7 for 24 hours and it showed a burn rate much higher than I thought...

I'm just curious if anyone has or would be willing to do so?

To see what happens?

Mr_Knight

That's an incorrect usage of an HRM, and it won't give anywhere near correct burn estimates except by sheer luck. The only thing you can safely say about the number it is giving you is that it is too high. Probably a LOT too high.

HRMs are great for monitoring heart rate, but they are hopeless for estimating burns unless you are doing long-ish periods of steady state cardio. And even then....

Train4Foodz

A heart rate monitor should (emphasis on should) be more accurate, as a general rule.
I use my FT7 a lot, I own a fitbit but I just found it to be too inconsistent with measurements, a great little tool to get a general idea of the kind of distance you cover a day and for some people it probably is an extremely handy thing to have.

Fitbit and other activity trackers as a general rule use an 'approximate' burn, based on a roundabout calorific expenditure for your details, without being able to accurately know your heard rate, etc.. there is no way a fitbit could even nearly be as accurate.

A HRM works somewhat differently, once you have inputted your basic details (age, gender, height, weight, etc) it will make the calculations based on your details.
One thing to remember is a HRM generally won't subtract your net calories from your gross calories burned so when using a HRM burn it's important to factor in the calorific burn you would have otherwise been burning if not doing the exercise (there are calculators to help with this widely available all over the internet).

Have an awesome night/evening!

Adam

Train4Foodz

Mr_Knight wrote: »

That's an incorrect usage of an HRM, and it won't give anywhere near correct burn estimates except by sheer luck. The only thing you can safely say about the number it is giving you is that it is too high. Probably a LOT too high.

Also, I have to agree with this.

I only use my FT7 whilst doing cardio exercise that results in me making a significant burn (greater than I would in everyday activities).
In a 24 hour period, simply going on your recommended intake for your goals is the best possible way forward (in my opinion).

MelodyandBarbells

Adam2k10 wrote: »

A heart rate monitor should (emphasis on should) be more accurate, as a general rule.
I use my FT7 a lot, I own a fitbit but I just found it to be too inconsistent with measurements, a great little tool to get a general idea of the kind of distance you cover a day and for some people it probably is an extremely handy thing to have.

Fitbit and other activity trackers as a general rule use an 'approximate' burn, based on a roundabout calorific expenditure for your details, without being able to accurately know your heard rate, etc.. there is no way a fitbit could even nearly be as accurate.

A HRM works somewhat differently, once you have inputted your basic details (age, gender, height, weight, etc) it will make the calculations based on your details.
One thing to remember is a HRM generally won't subtract your net calories from your gross calories burned so when using a HRM burn it's important to factor in the calorific burn you would have otherwise been burning if not doing the exercise (there are calculators to help with this widely available all over the internet).

Have an awesome night/evening!

Adam

Right, right

So what you're saying is you have a fitbit you're not using then??

Train4Foodz

JaneiR36 wrote: »

Adam2k10 wrote: »

A heart rate monitor should (emphasis on should) be more accurate, as a general rule.
I use my FT7 a lot, I own a fitbit but I just found it to be too inconsistent with measurements, a great little tool to get a general idea of the kind of distance you cover a day and for some people it probably is an extremely handy thing to have.

Fitbit and other activity trackers as a general rule use an 'approximate' burn, based on a roundabout calorific expenditure for your details, without being able to accurately know your heard rate, etc.. there is no way a fitbit could even nearly be as accurate.

A HRM works somewhat differently, once you have inputted your basic details (age, gender, height, weight, etc) it will make the calculations based on your details.
One thing to remember is a HRM generally won't subtract your net calories from your gross calories burned so when using a HRM burn it's important to factor in the calorific burn you would have otherwise been burning if not doing the exercise (there are calculators to help with this widely available all over the internet).

Have an awesome night/evening!

Adam

Right, right

So what you're saying is you have a fitbit you're not using then??

That's correct.. I don't have a clue for the life in me where it is though! lol

Funny you should mention that, I was digging about for it earlier on just out of curiosity!

MelodyandBarbells

Adam2k10 wrote: »

JaneiR36 wrote: »

Adam2k10 wrote: »

A heart rate monitor should (emphasis on should) be more accurate, as a general rule.
I use my FT7 a lot, I own a fitbit but I just found it to be too inconsistent with measurements, a great little tool to get a general idea of the kind of distance you cover a day and for some people it probably is an extremely handy thing to have.

Fitbit and other activity trackers as a general rule use an 'approximate' burn, based on a roundabout calorific expenditure for your details, without being able to accurately know your heard rate, etc.. there is no way a fitbit could even nearly be as accurate.

A HRM works somewhat differently, once you have inputted your basic details (age, gender, height, weight, etc) it will make the calculations based on your details.
One thing to remember is a HRM generally won't subtract your net calories from your gross calories burned so when using a HRM burn it's important to factor in the calorific burn you would have otherwise been burning if not doing the exercise (there are calculators to help with this widely available all over the internet).

Have an awesome night/evening!

Adam

Right, right

So what you're saying is you have a fitbit you're not using then??

That's correct.. I don't have a clue for the life in me where it is though! lol

Funny you should mention that, I was digging about for it earlier on just out of curiosity!

*sigh*. Well, here's to all the lonely, unused fitbits of the world!

I've seen some people use them in fitness classes, I think, to contribute to their daily step goal. I myself use an FT4. I'm a bit concerned of how depressing the numbers from a fitbit could be since I ride a desk most of the time

spfldpam

I only use my Polar FT7 at the gym for workouts only. It isn't worn all day in my normal daily life. The fitbit one I have I wear all the time. It only picks up steps taken and flights of stairs. It won't pick up bike riding, the elliptical ect... If you look at your fit bit when you wake up you have already burned some cals, but you do just for breathing. Mine at 6am is like 400 cals so your body burns about 1200 cals just laying there breathing and not doing anything else. It is the cals burned besides your daily life/activities that are counted as "extra". I don't eat back my exercise cals burned so the polar FT7 is worn more for me to know what I have burned off by my workouts and tracked just because I like to know.
If you already have a Polar HRM I wouldn't buy a fit bit. I bought a fit bit first and then the polar. The fit bit is really pretty useless but I still wear it daily. If to do again, I would just get the Polar HRM and skipped buying the fitbit one. I've had mine about 2 1/2 years-the fitbit one and the Polar FT HRM for about 1 1/2 years.
Good luck!