Polar H7 vs. Nautilus Treadclimber, results below.

SillyCat1975

So with my Treadclimber which I had used for my calories because it's supposed to burn "3x regular calories" and here I am, I decided to buy a heart rate monitor. Let me tell you, the results are WAY off. Do not trust the Treadclimber results, you will be disappointed if you are counting on those for calories. Do not spend $2500.00 on something that you believe on a commercial. I made this mistake, pay the 70.00 for a heart rate monitor, join a gym and go from there. My treadclimber says I burned 650 or so, my polar H7 said I burned 450. I am going to go with those results since it is a chest strap.

MeanderingMammal

SillyCat1975 wrote: »

My treadclimber says I burned 650 or so, my polar H7 said I burned 450. I am going to go with those results since it is a chest strap.

What makes you think either one is correct?

How long did you use it for and what sort of session did you do? Steady state or intervals? What sort of HR level?

dewd2

Isn't the H7 just a strap? What app are you using to get the calories? That's were the algorithm is stored. Do the same workout with a different app and you may get a different result.

FWIW, I wouldn't trust either until I spent a few weeks using them. Only then will you know for certain (assuming you are accurately logging your food and weighing yourself weekly).

SillyCat1975

The treadclimber is a mix of an elliptical, stair climber and treadmill. I have used it for 4 days now and it shows the extreme difference. I list it as walking on the Polar but I know I am not really walking, I am using it in a different way but my HR does stay the same when I put them on the machine and the polar, I just trust the chest strap because it's right on my heart.

dewd2

You can't use your heart rate to calculate calories.

SillyCat1975

Oh I accurately log my food, I have had the treadclimber for about 1.5 years, I can exercise for an hour on it and it tells me that I have burned 800 calories, going the same speed it tells with the polar that I have burned 450 calories.

SillyCat1975

So how am I supposed to calculate them? (Not being sarcastic) I did this about 2 years ago and I was successful but I never knew a true heart rate, I also use my fitbit for excerise purposes.

SillyCat1975

I would also run 5 miles per day when I lost the 30 pounds over 3 months

SillyCat1975

I am using the Polar Beat app. I just want to find something accurate that will truly tell me, I thought this was the way to go.

dewd2

The problem with HRM's is your heart rate can vary based on temperature, over training, illness, and many other reasons. Your burn is almost identical if you run a mile with a heart rate of 170 or run the same mile at 130.

For machines the best way is usually trial and error. You've had this for 1.5 years. Has it been accurate? Have you eaten the calories back and did you have the desired result (lose, gain, or maintain)?

SillyCat1975

Ugh, I hate when I post the wrong thing, I use it at a steady pace and my HR gets up to around 160

SillyCat1975

dewd2 wrote: »

The problem with HRM's is your heart rate can vary based on temperature, over training, illness, and many other reasons. Your burn is almost identical if you run a mile with a heart rate of 170 or run the same mile at 130.

For machines the best way is usually trial and error. You've had this for 1.5 years. Has it been accurate? Have you eaten the calories back and did you have the desired result (lose, gain, or maintain)?

To be honest, I haven't used it like I should have. Before my aunt passed away I had lost about 18 pounds in 2 months. Then I gained it all back and then some. I've not eaten back my calories, I didn't do it then either. I think I probably should eat some of them back though. But I did lose the weight. I'm just conflicted on how to try and find the type of tracker that could be close to calories burned. I know before people always said to me, the most effective way of calorie tracking is to have a chest strap heart rate monitor.

ninerbuff

Personally I think it's overpriced and the BS ad of "burns more calories than a treadmill" is laughable since they were comparing their incline to a treadmill that was at 0 incline. Raise the incline to the same degree and same speed and voila, calorie burns are approximately the same.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

dewd2

A chest strap is the most accurate for measuring heart rate (at least for consumers). I use one for running (training for long distance races).

I would seriously start by eating half the calories back and see where you are in 2-3 weeks (allowing for the initial water weight to sort itself out). Then adjust it up or down (or maybe you will get it right the first time).

SillyCat1975

ninerbuff wrote: »

Personally I think it's overpriced and the BS ad of "burns more calories than a treadmill" is laughable since they were comparing their incline to a treadmill that was at 0 incline. Raise the incline to the same degree and same speed and voila, calorie burns are approximately the same.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I had used one at the gym in the past and I thought Wow, how great. So when I seen a infomercial about it I told my husband I just had to have it. I promised that I would use it everyday.. Yeah, right. He bought it and well needless to say, it's been an overpriced coat rack. Now I am back to using it and some days, I hate it. I can't wait until the weather is nice so I can get back outside. I enjoy running (when I build my stamina back up) and I seriously can't wait to do that again.

robertw486

Does the treadclimber show any type of distance metric? If it does, you might be able to use one of the walk/run estimation calculators that allows walking on an incline. That might give you a closer to accurate rate of calorie burn.

As for the HRM, I'm not a fan of using them for anything other than heart rate. But combined with a machine, it's still a good metric to have just for that reason. You could do a set workout (intensity/pace/angles) and be able to see how your heart rate will get lower over time.

SillyCat1975

robertw486 wrote: »

Does the treadclimber show any type of distance metric? If it does, you might be able to use one of the walk/run estimation calculators that allows walking on an incline. That might give you a closer to accurate rate of calorie burn.

As for the HRM, I'm not a fan of using them for anything other than heart rate. But combined with a machine, it's still a good metric to have just for that reason. You could do a set workout (intensity/pace/angles) and be able to see how your heart rate will get lower over time.

Today I went outside and decided to work out that way, there is hills and such. I worked out for 76 minutes and the Polar said 616 while the fitbit said 1009. The treadclimber show the intensity. Which one would you attempt to use with today's measurements? I was hot,sweaty and all those things that could throw it off. It was an intense workout for me though seeing as I now weigh 230 pounds. No skinny chick by no means!

robertw486

SillyCat1975 wrote: »

robertw486 wrote: »

Does the treadclimber show any type of distance metric? If it does, you might be able to use one of the walk/run estimation calculators that allows walking on an incline. That might give you a closer to accurate rate of calorie burn.

As for the HRM, I'm not a fan of using them for anything other than heart rate. But combined with a machine, it's still a good metric to have just for that reason. You could do a set workout (intensity/pace/angles) and be able to see how your heart rate will get lower over time.

Today I went outside and decided to work out that way, there is hills and such. I worked out for 76 minutes and the Polar said 616 while the fitbit said 1009. The treadclimber show the intensity. Which one would you attempt to use with today's measurements? I was hot,sweaty and all those things that could throw it off. It was an intense workout for me though seeing as I now weigh 230 pounds. No skinny chick by no means!

For general walking, this calculator should be reasonably close...

exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Plenty of apps use GPS to give you distance, and you can do a best guesstimate on the inclines. Remember for MFP you want to log net calorie burn. You might find that for some exercises your HRM is close, and for others it is farther from reality. But it's still a good tool to have to see the HR and hopefully over time see improvements from the exercise.

You might also find apps that give you a reasonable calorie burn estimate with your chest strap, but usually they are only accurate for steady state stuff.

As for not being the "skinny chick".... walking, running, and the machine shows you are making changes. Stick with them for the long term and most of us can hit any realistic goals. None of us gained weight overnight, and we surely won't lose it overnight either.