Took my new Polar FT7 for a walk...
demoiselle2014
Posts: 474 Member
Today I took my new heart rate monitor (an FT7) out for a walk (along with my MFP ghost-dog). I'm puzzled by the very high calorie burn it estimated, however. Where MFP and MapMyRun estimated around 250 to 260 calories burned, the heart rate monitor estimated 450 calories burned.
What is the explanation for such a big difference? Is the FT7 including the calories I'd be burning during that period if I were resting in addition to the estimated calories burned during my walk?
In case it is helpful, I walked 4.79 miles with a pace going up to 4.0 miles per hour. I weigh 116 lbs.
What is the explanation for such a big difference? Is the FT7 including the calories I'd be burning during that period if I were resting in addition to the estimated calories burned during my walk?
In case it is helpful, I walked 4.79 miles with a pace going up to 4.0 miles per hour. I weigh 116 lbs.
0
Replies
-
It is probably including the BMR in it.
Heart rate monitors can also be off if your heart rate is elevated to cool down rather than to transfer oxygen. I imagine that would require an incredibly hot day to make that difference though.0 -
It was warm this morning, but not that hot.0
-
Since my BMR is about 1200/day, and I walked for just under an hour and a half, that would account for about 75 calories. So if I subtract 75 calories that would put the FT7's estimate at 375. Still significantly higher than MFP estimates.
0 -
Have you put all your stats into the settings for your Polar watch? I do remember having to put my age, sex, weight, height etc into the watch before it would give me any useful info (I had a FT4)0
-
Yes, I put all those in, and when I got home and saw how high the estimated burn was, I double checked them. All correct.0
-
The Polar sounds about right to me... Going from my own stats, walking at about 4.0 mph I burn about 5 calories per minute, maybe a tad higher. (Using my own devices and comparing actual results with expected - I'm pretty confident of that number.) I'm ~10 pounds heavier. So for 85 minutes I'd expect to see, for me, about 450. Walking outside, perhaps a tad bit higher depending on the terrain.
Note - this includes my BMR. So sitting at home on the couch I'd burn about 75 in the same amount of time.0 -
demoiselle2014 wrote: »Where MFP and MapMyRun estimated around 250 to 260 calories burned, the heart rate monitor estimated 450 calories burned.
What is the explanation for such a big difference? Is the FT7 including the calories I'd be burning during that period if I were resting in addition to the estimated calories burned during my walk?
250 is probably much closer to correct, at the pace that you were walking I'd say that your HR won't have been high enough to get into a meaningful range where it's representative of calorie expenditure.
0 -
demoiselle2014 wrote: »Today I took my new heart rate monitor (an FT7) out for a walk (along with my MFP ghost-dog). I'm puzzled by the very high calorie burn it estimated, however. Where MFP and MapMyRun estimated around 250 to 260 calories burned, the heart rate monitor estimated 450 calories burned.
What is the explanation for such a big difference? Is the FT7 including the calories I'd be burning during that period if I were resting in addition to the estimated calories burned during my walk?
In case it is helpful, I walked 4.79 miles with a pace going up to 4.0 miles per hour. I weigh 116 lbs.
Polar HRM will include any calories burned when wearing the sensor, or in the record mode. If you're able to, pause it when you're resting. Are you walking up and down hills, or is it flat land?
0 -
It is probably including the BMR in it.
Heart rate monitors can also be off if your heart rate is elevated to cool down rather than to transfer oxygen. I imagine that would require an incredibly hot day to make that difference though.
Yes, it does include BMR. But so do MFP values, so that's not it.
0 -
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »demoiselle2014 wrote: »Today I took my new heart rate monitor (an FT7) out for a walk (along with my MFP ghost-dog). I'm puzzled by the very high calorie burn it estimated, however. Where MFP and MapMyRun estimated around 250 to 260 calories burned, the heart rate monitor estimated 450 calories burned.
What is the explanation for such a big difference? Is the FT7 including the calories I'd be burning during that period if I were resting in addition to the estimated calories burned during my walk?
In case it is helpful, I walked 4.79 miles with a pace going up to 4.0 miles per hour. I weigh 116 lbs.
Polar HRM will include any calories burned when wearing the sensor, or in the record mode. If you're able to, pause it when you're resting. Are you walking up and down hills, or is it flat land?
Mostly gentle slopes in that area. I will pause it if I stop to explore something I see. Probably it will be more accurate with running (which is mostly what it is for). I'll test that out on Friday.0 -
It is probably including the BMR in it.
Heart rate monitors can also be off if your heart rate is elevated to cool down rather than to transfer oxygen. I imagine that would require an incredibly hot day to make that difference though.
Yes, it does include BMR. But so do MFP values, so that's not it.
I could be wrong, but polar doesn't include BMR when wearing the heart sensor and recording. I have a V800, have used a loop, and FT80, the loop and V800 separate training/activity/BMR calories (only when recording :V800 ,wearing the sensor ;loop training calories) the FT80 recording and wearing the sensor, did not include BMR in calorie count.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »demoiselle2014 wrote: »Where MFP and MapMyRun estimated around 250 to 260 calories burned, the heart rate monitor estimated 450 calories burned.
What is the explanation for such a big difference? Is the FT7 including the calories I'd be burning during that period if I were resting in addition to the estimated calories burned during my walk?
250 is probably much closer to correct, at the pace that you were walking I'd say that your HR won't have been high enough to get into a meaningful range where it's representative of calorie expenditure.
^^^^^^^^^
THIS
0 -
A heart rate monitor is going to be more accurate than estimating without it. Perhaps, I overlooked it, but something we're missing in all of this is your average heart rate from your walk.0
-
send2michael wrote: »A heart rate monitor is going to be more accurate than estimating without it. Perhaps, I overlooked it, but something we're missing in all of this is your average heart rate from your walk.
A HRM is not accurate for low intensity activities such as walking.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »send2michael wrote: »A heart rate monitor is going to be more accurate than estimating without it. Perhaps, I overlooked it, but something we're missing in all of this is your average heart rate from your walk.
A HRM is not accurate for low intensity activities such as walking.
What about speed or power walking? I had understood that fast walking was comparable in terms of calorie burn to slow jogging.
0 -
demoiselle2014 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »send2michael wrote: »A heart rate monitor is going to be more accurate than estimating without it. Perhaps, I overlooked it, but something we're missing in all of this is your average heart rate from your walk.
A HRM is not accurate for low intensity activities such as walking.
What about speed or power walking? I had understood that fast walking was comparable in terms of calorie burn to slow jogging.
If you're talking Olympic type race walking ... then yes, the burns are comparable to running. Based on what you described, that wasn't what you did.
0 -
what's a power walk to some is not a power walk to others, what was your heart rate during these walks. what zone did it have your heart rate in? are you able to do a VO2 and fitness test with it?0
-
Well, an hour and a half. That could be about right. When I walk on my treadmill at 3.5-3.8 mph, it takes me between 37-42 minutes to burn 200 calories. I weigh 105. I use a Polar F4 to measure that.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »demoiselle2014 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »send2michael wrote: »A heart rate monitor is going to be more accurate than estimating without it. Perhaps, I overlooked it, but something we're missing in all of this is your average heart rate from your walk.
A HRM is not accurate for low intensity activities such as walking.
What about speed or power walking? I had understood that fast walking was comparable in terms of calorie burn to slow jogging.
If you're talking Olympic type race walking ... then yes, the burns are comparable to running. Based on what you described, that wasn't what you did.
This, its called a heart rate monitor for a reason. When you fail to reach the appropriate intensity then the estimations can be inaccurate.0 -
That sounds about right... if you walked almost 5 miles, I'm sure that took a while. When I was in better shape, I burned about 5-7 calories per minute, then just subtracted by BMR from the total amount.0
-
I walk 6 miles daily at an average pace of 3.5 MPH and it get as fast as 4.2 most days. I weigh 112 pounds and my calories burn is 314 calories for 103 minutes. I use Runtastic as my tracker.0
-
ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »It is probably including the BMR in it.
Heart rate monitors can also be off if your heart rate is elevated to cool down rather than to transfer oxygen. I imagine that would require an incredibly hot day to make that difference though.
Yes, it does include BMR. But so do MFP values, so that's not it.
I could be wrong, but polar doesn't include BMR when wearing the heart sensor and recording. I have a V800, have used a loop, and FT80, the loop and V800 separate training/activity/BMR calories (only when recording :V800 ,wearing the sensor ;loop training calories) the FT80 recording and wearing the sensor, did not include BMR in calorie count.
I only used the FT4, and it did include BMR. So I really should have qualified my statement. I have no experience with the one you use.
0 -
demoiselle2014 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »send2michael wrote: »A heart rate monitor is going to be more accurate than estimating without it. Perhaps, I overlooked it, but something we're missing in all of this is your average heart rate from your walk.
A HRM is not accurate for low intensity activities such as walking.
What about speed or power walking? I had understood that fast walking was comparable in terms of calorie burn to slow jogging.
Given that you've recently finished C25K, although I don't know what pace you were doing, then your HR shouldn't be increasing enough at 4mph to meaningfully represent calories expended.
The relationship between HR and calorie expenditure isn't linear, and at lower ranges it's difficult to differentiate actual effort and BMR.
Personally I normally get about 100 cals per mile running, and about 50 cals per mile walking.
0 -
My pace for C25k is about 11:30 to 12:00/mile. While I was speed walking yesterday, I was walking at a pace of about 13:00/mile. However, I am suspecting that I got my heart rate just high enough during the portions when I was speed walking to throw the estimated calorie burn off during the times I slowed down to enjoy the scenery/inspect park facilities.0
-
For additional info, my resting heart rate is about 60. Average during the walk was 119. Max was 154. I was in the "fitness" zone for almost 18 minutes, and the "fat burn" zone for 1h6m.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions