New Polar FT7 HRM and disappointing caloric count

Timdog57

So, I just tried my FT7 out for the first time today, and I'm disappointed for the opposite reason. I wore my FT7 for a strength training session, and I got a calorie number that blew me away. For my 65 minute session my HRM showed about 900 calories burned, but MFP shows about 390 calories for the same workout. Now, I understand that HRM's don't work so well for anaerobic exercise, but I didn't expect this large of a difference. Now I have no idea what my actual number is...

Anyone else have experience using their FT7 for non-cardio?

Timdog57

Update... I used my HRM for a interval session today, and the number I got (527 cal for 40 minutes) was very close to what I would have estimated with MFP.

I'm really wondering what others have experienced using their HRM for strength training.

brandiuntz

Quality HRM's (like the FT7) are going to be more accurate than a machine. An HRM truly measures your exertion, while a machine has generic formulas and estimates.

Be happy with the numbers you're getting. You now know what you're really burning. This will help you tweak your calories so you start losing again.

To Timdog57: HRM's don't accurately measure for strength training. So, ignore what it gives you. If you want to track calories burned for that type of training, use the general MFP estimate, but know that strength training isn't known for being a huge calorie burner. You get different benefits from strength training.

kylemartin105

I am with you Chainsaw Flower.

I just got the FT7 specifically to track calories. My calorie count was drastically lower than what the treadmill said.

Here is my counter argument to everyone that says that the FT7 is accurate and the machine is not.

My FT7 workout heart rate matches the machine perfectly-calorie count 50% less than the treadmill in an hour (I get it, everyone thinks the treadmill numbers are high)

HERE IS MY CONCERN
Workout buddy has the FT80. He does a workout on the same treadmill and his calorie count is < 5 calories off.
He is a different age, height, weight than me...but the treadmill was no where near as generous to him regarding his calorie burn vs his FT80

Soon he and I will switch watches (and user info) to see if the disparity is in the machine or the watch.

Chainsaw_Flowerchild

That could be a cool test. I'd be interested in finding out what your results are.

kylemartin105

Ran a test, need more testing

I played Racquetball against my friend with the FT80 tonight. He wore both watches and they were perfectly accurate to each other.

I wore both watches and they were both perfectly accurate to each other (we changed user stats to work for each of us)

So that made me think that the polar was right and treadmill was wrong...but through discussion I realized that both monitors had me at an average heart rate of 130 for 15 minutes. The calorie burn associated with that (165) is very close to what the treadmill would tell me I burned (same time same average heart rate)

This leads me to believe the monitor is correct AND the treadmill is correct...just not at the same time.

I have read that Polar HRM's sometime negatively interact with iPod's and iPhones.

During tonights test, neither of us had iPhones or iPods on us. My first run with the FT7 I had my iphone on.

Next test will be treadmill again without iPhone.

lacroyx

Don't be too disappointed in your calorie burn. You are much more fit that when you first started! That increased fitness brings down your numbers as well - not just using the HRM.

this is true. I have a Polar FT40. I got it when I was 440 lbs. 1 hr of walking 1200-1400 calories. MFP's estimates were never even close. now @ 324 lbs. I walk for 1 hr. 280-350 calories. if I jog for 1hr I can get close to my old numbers 800-900. it's sucks I can't burn that much but as others said you are more fit. and with HRM's they will always be more accurate than a machine or MFP's estimates.

and for your plateau question what worked for me was zig zagging my calories. and taking a weekly break. no excercise, and eating at maintance.

kylemartin105

OK, final tests

Jumped on the treadmill without my iPhone and watched calories really closely. The problem was obvious from the start. As the treadmill was getting up to speed and I was standing on the sides, the calorie count on the treadmill was pumping pretty fast. it got to 7 calories burned before my watch said 2 calories burned. I think it was on this thread but maybe another but this shows the treadmill is measuring based on kinetic energy...it is assuming I am on the treadmill at the time it is warming up. I am sure that is an over simplification because I am sure it is taking into account my heart rate as well, but it became very inaccurate very quickly when I was standing on the sides.

lbgrob

I think the hrm is definately much more accurate than any machine.

How do you figure? The machine knows what resistance your using where the HRM does not. The HRM is just using Age, Weight, Sex and Heart rate to determine the caloric burn. Where the machine is using Weight, Hear rate and resistance level to determine the information. Walking up hill uses much more energy that walking on a level platform but according to the my HRM it's the same. The link shows that Polar is looking in to some of the discrepancies, which is a good thing.

Its unrealstic to think you are burning nearly 16 cals a min walking at 3.5mph...
The HRM is a tool, it does estimates, its not 100% accurate, but it does a calculation based on more of your stats and your HR it received during the workout... it knows more about you and keeps a steady heart rate to do the calculation, from my statement above It would seem your HRM is more accurate.

lbgrob

I think the hrm is definately much more accurate than any machine.

How do you figure? The machine knows what resistance your using where the HRM does not. The HRM is just using Age, Weight, Sex and Heart rate to determine the caloric burn. Where the machine is using Weight, Hear rate and resistance level to determine the information. Walking up hill uses much more energy that walking on a level platform but according to the my HRM it's the same. The link shows that Polar is looking in to some of the discrepancies, which is a good thing.

Its unrealstic to think you are burning nearly 16 cals a min walking at 3.5mph...
The HRM is a tool, it does estimates, its not 100% accurate, but it does a calculation based on more of your stats and your HR it received during the workout... it knows more about you and keeps a steady heart rate to do the calculation, from my statement above It would seem your HRM is more accurate.

I dont believe its unrealistic that someone walking at 3.5 at an incline of 15 to burn 16cals in a minute... 15 incline is insane!

racheal9

I am with you Chainsaw Flower.

I just got the FT7 specifically to track calories. My calorie count was drastically lower than what the treadmill said.

Here is my counter argument to everyone that says that the FT7 is accurate and the machine is not.

My FT7 workout heart rate matches the machine perfectly-calorie count 50% less than the treadmill in an hour (I get it, everyone thinks the treadmill numbers are high)

HERE IS MY CONCERN
Workout buddy has the FT80. He does a workout on the same treadmill and his calorie count is < 5 calories off.
He is a different age, height, weight than me...but the treadmill was no where near as generous to him regarding his calorie burn vs his FT80

Soon he and I will switch watches (and user info) to see if the disparity is in the machine or the watch.

I've noticed something similar with mine, and then I realized that the machine displays my HR based on my monitor (I guess it's compatible with Polar so acts as a receiver). Even though the heart rates were identical throughout my workout, the calories burned would vary drastically. On the elliptical today for 20 minutes, the machine said I burned 57 cal and my Polar watch said 107. However, on the bike yesterday, the bike put me at 300cal and my watch at only 200.

It's really frustrating! On instagram, I like to search #HRM to see what other people are doing and I see loads of people with their monitors displaying 800 cal burned in a 1 hour workout, and I'm over here struggling to reach 400! I wish I knew how to up the burn like that, I don't slack off at the gym so it's really upsetting to work hard for an hour and see I only burned 300 calories.

IliN82

The HRM sounds about right. The machines wayyyy over estimate! I barely even burn more than 400 per hour and that's with a high intensity work out,

Vanity1920

I noticed the same problem with my new Polar FT60. I upgraded from the F4 and realized the new monitor even gives me a lower calorie burn than my old HRM. How can this be? They are manufactured by the same company!