Calories Burned: Polar FT7 vs Treadmill

paxbfl

My treadmill asks for my age and weight (I'm male, 46, 199 pounds) and syncs to my Polar FT7 to record my heart rate. So both the treadmill and Polar are working with identical data to compute calorie burn. On a 40-minute run at about 9 minute pace, the Polar estimated 600 calories burned while the treadmill estimated 700. (Interestingly, MFP estimates in the middle - 662.)

I'm curious why the difference if both are working with the same data. I know machines typically over-estimate calories (my elliptical is probably 40% too high) but I thought that was because they made assumptions about heart-rate since you're not typically recording your rate through the entire exercise. With the heart-monitor syncing to the treadmill, it has the same data as the heart-rate monitor.

_Zardoz_

They just use slightly different algorithms to work it out.

ShannonMpls

As far as I know, the treadmill does not use the heart rate to compute calories burned; it simply displays it on the machine for your convenience. Its calculation is based on sex/age/weight along with speed/incline. It doesn't take into consideration how hard you, as an individual, are working to sustain the pace. I could be mistaken but I'm not familiar with any machine that uses your HR to make its calculation.

That said, even if it were, they might be based on different formulas.

paxbfl

As far as I know, the treadmill does not use the heart rate to compute calories burned; it simply displays it on the machine for your convenience.

Thanks for this! I assumed that if the machine had your heart rate it would use it to calculate calories... but I did some research and see that you are correct, that's not necessarily true. (I shouldn't assume, right?)

I always use the HRM anyway, figuring that is more accurate. I just wish the HRM wasn't always lower!