Polar FT4--Reviews Anyone?

heybales

Yesterday was my first workout with the FT4.

31 minutes on the elliptical. The Matrix machine said I burned 376 calories. The FT4 said 290. I will now be using the HRM numbers as I know they are based on my height, weight, and heartrate. I love this thing!

I am even wearing the watch part during the day because my son broke my other watch. LOL. Think it will stick out as "not a regular watch", or not? I got the gray/black one.

ETA: will be interesting to see what it says when I workout even harder (I have gotten up to 435 cals in a half hour on the elliptical, according to the machine).

Might want to test it out since it sounds like basing some food eating on the burn estimate.

Assuming that a different and lower value must therefore be more accurate isn't good logic.
The weight and height stat is used to calculate BMI. That is then used to estimate your VO2max with several other assumptions, like your HRmax based on 220-age.

You might be shocked that if you increase the weight by 10 lbs and keep your workout exactly the same, it'll give you a smaller calorie burn.

Pretty simple, just need treadmill and 30 min to test your real stats entered in.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

matsakisj

Does anyone know if there is a difference between a mens and womens?? Im a women and do not like the colors and was thinking of getting a mens. will it still be accurate?

meadow_sage

Don't waste your time buying anything else? Learn from my mistakes. I bought two other brands and they were junk. Thought I was saving myself a little money because they had all the same claims and supposed feature....BULL!! The first one crapped out as soon as it got a little wet and the second one was impossible to use. Vague instructions and I followed the instructions, precisely and couldn't get the functions to work....called Reebok and they said we don't actually make them and told me to call another company. Tried that and got the run around and ordered my Polar FT4.....I'm a very happy camper, now.

mrslcoop

I have one. It serves it purpose so I suppose I love it. I only use 3x per week during cardio so for me anything more expensive would have been a waste.

EDIT: I've had mine for little over a year. Works perfectly every time with the exception of it can't read my heart on top of my chest. I have to wear it under.... but I actually find that more comfortable.

Kalee34

It should be fine. When you are setting it up it asks if you are male or female, so I would assume that it can work for either/or.

I have had mine for 3 weeks and I love it!

meadowsmummy

LOVE LOVE LOVE mine - ive ad it a few months and dont regret spending the money at all

mhosner

Which one did you like best?

Polar FT4 is awesome. Even though I got a lttle discouraged using it. I have to face the truth. I was using the machines to calculate my calories burned but when I use the FT4 it's telling me alot lower. :sad: So I thought I was really pushing myself. Obviously I wasn't pushing hard enough. I wanted to burn 500 calories a day. Oops but Ft4 is saying I am burning 300 calories. But overall I really like it. I have to adjust the strap a little, the buckle part rubs my skin a little and is irritating but I will work thru it. Silly me but I also ordered the Fitbit. I want to try it out as well.

Best of Luck to you!

sonerrali

How accurate is it about calorie counting?
I have a Timex and I hate it! It always overestimates soooo much that it's unrealistic.
For example, my treadmill said I burned 325 cals in 45 min.
My Timex HRM, said I burned 677 cals! Yeah right! I wish!
I tried wearing it for an hour doing nothing (just sitting on the couch watching TV) and it said I burned 200 cals.
Like if I burn 4800 cals per day!

As anyone tried to wear their Polar FT4 for an hour watching TV just to see the results?

No HRM will be accurate outside a zone of about 90-150. The formula's break down badly outside that range.
As you confirmed. The Polar will do that too though.

The Polar, and some others, can be more accurate on the calorie count because they ask for more stats, making the calc's more accurate.

Gender, age, weight, MHR, VO2 max are needed to be as accurate as you will get. Which for women is still possible 13% off sadly.

If you don't enter known measured estimated MHR or VO2max, those are calculated for you based on age. For women, that means up at 33% off now.

Oh, those % off is for Polar HRM in a study, others may be similar or worse.

And the Polar watch function to measure VO2max is no where near accurate. And the MHR calc for women has a very wide bell curve for accuracy in general.

But it seems to be the best out there.

I just did an hours power walk. I am a pretty big guy at 117kg. 5'9 - 5'10. 176cm high. My FT4 says i burned 555 calories. Are you saying i should deduct 15% from this total to get a more accurate reading? Sorry was a bit confused...

Hope you or someone else can clarify for me.

Thanks

heybales

I just did an hours power walk. I am a pretty big guy at 117kg. 5'9 - 5'10. 176cm high. My FT4 says i burned 555 calories. Are you saying i should deduct 15% from this total to get a more accurate reading? Sorry was a bit confused...

Hope you or someone else can clarify for me.

Thanks

Those % of errors was based on study using a much better Polar that estimated VO2max on other factors, and then allowed correction if you had measured results. Those were also the % for women.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

For that watch, those %'s don't apply, because the cheaper Polar's that don't even show a VO2max figure are calculating one based on your BMI, and your gender and age.
For their table for your gender and age, is BMI good, bad, ugly, ect?
Then they match that assuming bad BMI means bad VO2max and fitness level. Which could be very untrue.

If you are just starting out, probably decent enough.

As you keep weighing the same and doing the same pace, you are burning the same calories. So if you see the HRM start giving lower calorie burns and lower HR to do the same work, then the HRM is losing accuracy for you.

Frankly, your most accurate calorie estimate will be here.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Where you can even test your HRM right now to see how far off it is.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

Rkthach

I LOVE mine. Amazon had to bronze ones on sale recently. I don't really care about the color so it was great!

Mr_Knight

Where you can even test your HRM right now to see how far off it is.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

Just wanted to single out that part of the post. One of the most useful bits ever posted on MFP.

sonerrali

I just did an hours power walk. I am a pretty big guy at 117kg. 5'9 - 5'10. 176cm high. My FT4 says i burned 555 calories. Are you saying i should deduct 15% from this total to get a more accurate reading? Sorry was a bit confused...

Hope you or someone else can clarify for me.

Thanks

Those % of errors was based on study using a much better Polar that estimated VO2max on other factors, and then allowed correction if you had measured results. Those were also the % for women.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

For that watch, those %'s don't apply, because the cheaper Polar's that don't even show a VO2max figure are calculating one based on your BMI, and your gender and age.
For their table for your gender and age, is BMI good, bad, ugly, ect?
Then they match that assuming bad BMI means bad VO2max and fitness level. Which could be very untrue.

If you are just starting out, probably decent enough.

As you keep weighing the same and doing the same pace, you are burning the same calories. So if you see the HRM start giving lower calorie burns and lower HR to do the same work, then the HRM is losing accuracy for you.

Frankly, your most accurate calorie estimate will be here.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

Where you can even test your HRM right now to see how far off it is.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

Hi, Thanks for the response, thats cleared up a few things, also i was able to use this link to get my VO2: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx which is around 14-15. Based on that and the calculations on the site it self, my calorie burn was almost identical. Dont have access to a treadmil and currently at work, but ill try over the weekend. But i was recommended that site by others on this site, and the results i must say did surprise me.

I guess it is accurate. However what i have been doing is using the weight when i weigh my self first thing in the morning (pretty much my boxers on only). According to your info i should be putting the weight with my trainers, and clothes on. I guess this would make sense seeing as ill be training/walking in them.

japar

Have had my F4 for several months and it is dependable, accurate, easy to read when working out, and it is easy to use. Something to consider wrt the calories...try to understand the calories that you need in a typical hour when you are awake and when you sleep. For me (Male, 50yo, 214lbs) my hourly cal usage is about 100 awake (sedentary work) and 85 sleeping. I use my FT4 for cardio and strength training. When you go to take "credit" for your calories burned during a work out - don't forget to subtract the calories that you would have burned anyway. Example: My FT4 reads that I burned 733 calories in 63 minutes of Insanity MaxPlyo...I don't add those 733 calories to my calorie allowance that day. First I remove the "just living" calories, about 100 in 63 minutes, and give the workout credit for buring 633 "extra calories". Good luck with the FT4 - it really is a nice tool.

sonerrali

Have had my F4 for several months and it is dependable, accurate, easy to read when working out, and it is easy to use. Something to consider wrt the calories...try to understand the calories that you need in a typical hour when you are awake and when you sleep. For me (Male, 50yo, 214lbs) my hourly cal usage is about 100 awake (sedentary work) and 85 sleeping. I use my FT4 for cardio and strength training. When you go to take "credit" for your calories burned during a work out - don't forget to subtract the calories that you would have burned anyway. Example: My FT4 reads that I burned 733 calories in 63 minutes of Insanity MaxPlyo...I don't add those 733 calories to my calorie allowance that day. First I remove the "just living" calories, about 100 in 63 minutes, and give the workout credit for buring 633 "extra calories". Good luck with the FT4 - it really is a nice tool.

How does one work out their natural hourly calorie burn?

heybales

Have had my F4 for several months and it is dependable, accurate, easy to read when working out, and it is easy to use. Something to consider wrt the calories...try to understand the calories that you need in a typical hour when you are awake and when you sleep. For me (Male, 50yo, 214lbs) my hourly cal usage is about 100 awake (sedentary work) and 85 sleeping. I use my FT4 for cardio and strength training. When you go to take "credit" for your calories burned during a work out - don't forget to subtract the calories that you would have burned anyway. Example: My FT4 reads that I burned 733 calories in 63 minutes of Insanity MaxPlyo...I don't add those 733 calories to my calorie allowance that day. First I remove the "just living" calories, about 100 in 63 minutes, and give the workout credit for buring 633 "extra calories". Good luck with the FT4 - it really is a nice tool.

How does one work out their natural hourly calorie burn?

BMR - but that is sleeping, would you be sleeping rather than working out?

There's actually an easier way, since you are on a diet accounting for all your food and activity.

Every hour of your day already has expected and accounted for a certain calorie burn. MFP calls it maintenance, otherwise called non-exercise TDEE.

MFP Goals page. Take that Maintenance / 24 and that is how many calories you were already expected to burn for that hr.
Subtract from the HRM calorie burn shown, now you know how many calories above and beyond what was already accounted for you just burned.

Could be sizable, for instance if maintenance is 2400 calories, that means 100 calories burned each hour is already accounted for.
Your HRM says you burned 800 during an hour.
But 800-100 = 700 calories actually burned extra over what was expected anyway. That's logged and eaten back.

heybales

Hi, Thanks for the response, thats cleared up a few things, also i was able to use this link to get my VO2: http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx which is around 14-15. Based on that and the calculations on the site it self, my calorie burn was almost identical. Dont have access to a treadmil and currently at work, but ill try over the weekend. But i was recommended that site by others on this site, and the results i must say did surprise me.

I guess it is accurate. However what i have been doing is using the weight when i weigh my self first thing in the morning (pretty much my boxers on only). According to your info i should be putting the weight with my trainers, and clothes on. I guess this would make sense seeing as ill be training/walking in them.

From the link on testing HRM, accurate is that 7-15 calories level.

Your VO2max was estimated at 14/15? Resting HR should be done in the morning first thing, not during the day, not after exercise, not after eating, not when cold or nervous, ect.

Correct, VO2max is based on mL per KG per min, and if you workout with clothes on, those count.

This also means, as you drop weight, your VO2max automatically goes up even if your fitness level doesn't.

So literally, as you drop say 10 lbs, your VO2max goes up, so your HR can go down for the exact same effort. In addition, moving less weight at same pace, it goes down for that reason too.

And that's where cheaper HRM's have a problem, they see the lower HR and assume less effort and therefore less calories.

For the VO2max going up - not true.
For the weight going down and pace staying the same - true.

But generally, you'll workout harder, faster pace, and make up the weight difference, but it'll still read lower HR because of improved fitness level - HRM is wrong.

japar

Have had my F4 for several months and it is dependable, accurate, easy to read when working out, and it is easy to use. Something to consider wrt the calories...try to understand the calories that you need in a typical hour when you are awake and when you sleep. For me (Male, 50yo, 214lbs) my hourly cal usage is about 100 awake (sedentary work) and 85 sleeping. I use my FT4 for cardio and strength training. When you go to take "credit" for your calories burned during a work out - don't forget to subtract the calories that you would have burned anyway. Example: My FT4 reads that I burned 733 calories in 63 minutes of Insanity MaxPlyo...I don't add those 733 calories to my calorie allowance that day. First I remove the "just living" calories, about 100 in 63 minutes, and give the workout credit for buring 633 "extra calories". Good luck with the FT4 - it really is a nice tool.

How does one work out their natural hourly calorie burn?

BMR - but that is sleeping, would you be sleeping rather than working out?

There's actually an easier way, since you are on a diet accounting for all your food and activity.

Every hour of your day already has expected and accounted for a certain calorie burn. MFP calls it maintenance, otherwise called non-exercise TDEE.

MFP Goals page. Take that Maintenance / 24 and that is how many calories you were already expected to burn for that hr.
Subtract from the HRM calorie burn shown, now you know how many calories above and beyond what was already accounted for you just burned.

Could be sizable, for instance if maintenance is 2400 calories, that means 100 calories burned each hour is already accounted for.
Your HRM says you burned 800 during an hour.
But 800-100 = 700 calories actually burned extra over what was expected anyway. That's logged and eaten back.

I wish I would have known these things earlier - might have saved me from some work that I did...but here's how I did it...

#1. Simple Research: use the various models that allow you to enter your salient characteristics (gender, age, activity levels, etc) and get an estimation of average daily cals needed.

#2. Experiment: use your FT4 and try to understand calorie burn for your normal periods at different parts of day. Try to correlate with #1 to see if you are close (remember...all of this is an estimation).

#3. More Experimentation: track weight loss/gain with calorie counting (this is best correlation of #1) and continue refining your understanding of your calorie needs. I think you should try to understand your calorie needs while awake and asleep - especially if you have an active lifestyle where there is a greater delta between sleep and awake time.

Remember that in the end, it is still an estimation and your just getting close - better understanding will result in better estimations and allow you to better manage your diet.

CherSharon

I love mine too. Have had it 4 months now & it is awesome. Very ewsy to use & comfortable.

cavazosjennifer

I have a question!!!

I've been wanting to get a watch, but I've been reading alot of reviews and does it come with the strap that goes around your chest area?? And what is the difference between watches? Ft4? Ft60? Ft7?

heybales

I have a question!!!

I've been wanting to get a watch, but I've been reading alot of reviews and does it come with the strap that goes around your chest area?? And what is the difference between watches? Ft4? Ft60? Ft7?

Almost always comes with HR sensor strap in package, you'd have to find some place special that sells one without it. But some already have HR sensor and just want features of better HRM.
Though FT4 is the cheaper end, most usually go up from there, not down to it.

FT4 and FT7 are both basic cheap HRM's, not many features or options.
If purpose is for calorie estimating (not measuring, it's calculated and estimated from several assumptions), know that it can be inflated by over 35% for women.

FT60 has a couple extra stats and tests to get them, which can increase calorie burn estimate accuracy up to 35% inflated for women, you may be better estimates though, never know.
But much better features for training, setting HR zones and alarms, ect.

Check out RS300X too for that matter, even better options, usually better price, and future ability if desired to add a footpod for tracking indoor running, a GPS unit for tracking outdoor, and even bike cadence/distance unit for that.