Fitness Trackers Pros and Cons

Radiah07

For the last few months I have been tracking my fitness with a Polar Fitness Watch. It's really helped me to understand what types of workouts burn the most calories and raise my heart rate. I realize the calorie calculations are estimates, but I'm noticing huge discrepancies when I use the polar fitness monitor along with other trackers (Nike + Running). For example, I ran 2.1 miles the other day and the polar fitness monitor calculated 367 calories and the Nike + calculated 217. I also see the discrepancies with the treadmill. The last thing I want to do is over estimate calories.

So...I have two questions:

1. Can I reasonably rely on the Polar Fitness Monitor?

2. What are the benefits of working out at the highest level? I'm not too sure I understand the zones. I've read other answers on this topic, but I need the simplistic answer.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!!!

BobOki

I would put it to you this way...

Which you YOU prefer to trust... the company that specializes in fitness tracking and monitoring equipment, or the guys who make shoes?

Don't have answers for #2... I use fitbit.

drosebud

I use a Polar FT4 HRM, and find it's around 20-30% lessfor calorie count than MFP for similar activities. I figure that as it is monitoring my HR directly (unlike either MFP or Nike+ can) then it is likely to be more accurate.

Either way, no monitor will be exactly reliable as to how many cals you are burning, but I fin d them useful as a guide.

I don't use the zones on the Polar. It doesn't seem very useful to me.

WombatHat42

Here is what I have gotten from trainers(personal trainers)...Ignore the calories, heart rate etc from running and instead focus on intensity and duration. One of the best ways to lose weight is to do HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training). This will burn more calories in a short amount of time, increase bone density and decrease muscle lose(that comes with long distance running). So rather than run 2 miles straight a day, turn that into sprints. Break the 2 miles down into intervals. So after warming up do a 40 yard sprint followed by a quick walk light jog for the same distance then repeat this for however long you can sustain it. I usually aim for 20 minutes and increase 2 sprints every other workout. Take the HIIT into your weight training as well and it will keep the calorie burning going.

Zones are more for the "average" person. As my trainer said, they are for the sheeple/masses but when it comes to the individual it doesnt help as much, because everyone has their own zone. So if you find out what that zone is then it may be helpful but I would just simplify things and just run for the joy of running and not stress about am I hitting the right amount of calories burned etc. and eventually you will see positive results.

beertrollruss

I would assume the heart monitor is more accurate since it tracks your heart rate and the Nike band just tracks movement. Monitors need your correct measurements to be more precise. As you lose weight, the monitor should be updated. As you get lighter and more fit, it takes more exercise to burn calories.

The zones will depend on the level of exercise you're comfortable with. 60-70% is generally for cardio sessions of 30 minutes or longer. 70-80% is usually for shorter cardio sessions. If you can do 70-80% for longer than 30 minutes, you're probably pretty athletic.

In the end, the monitors and the food logging are all estimates. What works is consistent logging over time and paying attention to what works for you and what doesn't.

Best regards

WalkingAlong

I don't know what a Polar Fitness Watch is but its estimate looks too high. Anything well over 100 calories a mile is fishy to me, unless you're obese. If it's not monitoring HR with a chest strap it's probably not doing it well.

Is it a Polar Loop, used without the optional chest strap? If so, I think it works like the other activity trackers--- with an accelerometer. Does it have your weight, etc., correct?

MeanderingMammal

Here is what I have gotten from trainers(personal trainers)...

I do hope that you didn't pay for the advice...

One of the best ways to lose weight is to do HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training). This will burn more calories in a short amount of time, increase bone density and decrease muscle lose(that comes with long distance running). So rather than run 2 miles straight a day, turn that into sprints. Break the 2 miles down into intervals. So after warming up do a 40 yard sprint followed by a quick walk light jog for the same distance then repeat this for however long you can sustain it. I usually aim for 20 minutes and increase 2 sprints every other workout.

Intervals sessions certainly play a part, but contrary to the propaganda it's not a magic bullet. It's a session that's part of the equation, but needs to be complemented by other types of session. A good quality intervals session isn't going to last long enough to burn significant quantities of calories, but they will have an effect on VO2Max, so increasing training capacity over time.

While I'd agree that a focus on calorie consumption isn't helpful, it's about the quality of the session.

Zones are more for the "average" person. As my trainer said, they are for the sheeple/masses but when it comes to the individual it doesnt help as much, because everyone has their own zone. So if you find out what that zone is then it may be helpful but I would just simplify things and just run for the joy of running

So what your trainer is saying is that s/he doesn't understand the effects of operating in different HR ranges?

Whilst the idea of zones based on Max HR = 220-age is built around a gross approximation that doesn't provide significant useful information, that doesn't mean that training in different ranges doesn't have a different effect. OF course it all depends on whether ones objectives are around performance improvement or not.

Takes a bit of work to establish where the training zones sit, but it then helps one improve, whether that's enurance, exercise efficiency or VO2Max etc.

MeanderingMammal

1. Can I reasonably rely on the Polar Fitness Monitor?

Calorie estimations are a pretty moveable feast, all of the methods have a different set of underlying assumptions, whether that's around the HR being measured is reasonably consistent and doesn't have rapid transitions, or whether the distance and speed of moving your body mass is representative.

A lot of the accuracy depends on what type of sessions you do. Personally I don't use my HRM calorie estimation, my GPS tracking approximation is good enough given that I don't then need to think about the accuracy varying when I'm doing a long steady state session, or an intervals session.

2. What are the benefits of working out at the highest level? I'm not too sure I understand the zones. I've read other answers on this topic, but I need the simplistic answer.

You've got several aspects to think about, but it does depend on spending some time working out where your ranges are, to an extent based on perceived effort initially.

In the mid range, 50-60%, you'll build endurance. In this range I can run for a couple of hours comfortably, or ride for several hours.

At a higher level, around 70-75%, your around your lactate threshold, the point at which your body becomes less able to deal with the waste products that your body produces through high intensity exercise. By training in this range you improve your exercise efficiency, dealing with your ability to operate in high stress situations; races etc. Again for this I can do about 30-45 minutes at this level, after a good warm up of about 15 minutes, then cool down for 10-15 minutes afterwards.

At the highest level you're over your anaerobic threshold, the point at which your system is less able to burn the oxygen consumed. It's a range that you can't operate for long in, hence training in intervals. That improves your oxygen uptake; VO2Max. For one of these, warm up for 15 minutes then do 20 minutes of some form of interval, maximum effort with a moderate effort; 60 seconds/ 60 seconds or thereabouts. If you're really putting in maximum effort you're thrashed after about 20 minutes, so someone saying they do a 40 minute HIIT session is talking nonsense.

Of course it all depends on your objectives. I focus on improving my distance and pace, so put a lot of time into different training sessions. If you're only interested in weight loss, then it's not really going to make a huge difference, in fact a decent HIIT session probably won't burn that much up, the benefits are around other things.

drosebud

Thanks for the last post. MeanderingMammal. It made some sense to me. I've never really understood zones at all.
I'm hardly ever in the zone for running, as my HR is higher than it seems to think it should be, yet I can maintain it for 40 mins or so reasonably comfortably. I'm working towards my first 10k :-)

MeanderingMammal

I'm hardly ever in the zone for running, as my HR is higher than it seems to think it should be, yet I can maintain it for 40 mins or so reasonably comfortably. I'm working towards my first 10k :-)

Some of that will change as your fitness improves, equally the 220-age thing is very crude. Using that method my MHR is 176bpm, but in a tempo session I'll be sitting around 170-180bpm, and in an intervals session I generally peak around 195bpm.