Polar FT 7... is this thing for real??

nas24
nas24 Posts: 880 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So i finally got a heart rate monitor and while today was suppose to be my day off, i couldn't resist trying this thing out. Well i did, worked out for an hour, dancing, then about 10mins of pilates and then about 5mins of ab work. I end my session and it says i burned 416 cals :noway: Is this thing for real? Do i have a defective one? If thats the case, that this thing is the real deal, then why the F am i not loosing more weight? Not eating enough? I can barely net about 1200 (seriously, i try, but i can eat more) Help. Im a bit weirded out by this whole thing. lol

Replies

  • Dare2BThin
    Dare2BThin Posts: 211 Member
    Yep its for real!
  • Jen0414
    Jen0414 Posts: 466 Member
    Sounds about right.
    You are not loosing weight because you probably need to eat more.
  • oneIT
    oneIT Posts: 388 Member
    Sounds right considering I burn like 600 in 40 minutes doing Insanity.
  • secretlobster
    secretlobster Posts: 3,566 Member
    Yup that's about right, my high intensity cardio is about 500 for 60 minutes and I have a Polar HRM as well.
  • melizerd
    melizerd Posts: 870 Member
    Need to up your calories and likely protein too. MFP's default for protein is quite low.
  • FrostyBev
    FrostyBev Posts: 119 Member
    Definitely sounds right. Probably need to increase your intake if that's a regular exercise burn for you. :)
  • Chantal34
    Chantal34 Posts: 128
    Sounds right considering I burn like 600 in 40 minutes doing Insanity.
    [/quote

    I really need to get on this bandwagon.
  • bzmom
    bzmom Posts: 1,332 Member
    Yup sounds good Iburn anywhere from 300-450 on 30 min of turbo fire depending on how intense I get into it. I agree with a previous post may be you are not eating enough calories. I also have a FT7 and your diary is blocked so we really cant suggest much sorry.
  • crissyrox
    crissyrox Posts: 94
    Yup definitely for real! I love mine!!
  • 2012asv
    2012asv Posts: 702 Member
    That actually sounds exactly right for an hour of working out.

    There could be so many reasons why you're not losing weight, what do you eat? how much do you eat? Water intake, strength training, etc.

    Getting an HRM is a good step though! :)
  • Gt3ch
    Gt3ch Posts: 212 Member
    I know it's sacrilegious to say here, but HRM's aren't that accurate for counting calories. They SEEM really accurate and authoritative because they have a digital display- but they're not. They can be in the right ballpark, though, IF you calibrate it with a good VO2 MAX figure or you happen to fit perfectly into one of their fitness/age profiles. But all that can go out the window if you didn't get enough sleep, had some coffee, are in a bad mood, are getting sick, etc.

    Basically if you set it up right and have it fit properly you'll get a good ballpark number for straight cardio routines only (not weightlifting). But still expect some variation in what it reports and be prepared to throw out or partially ignore some of the numbers you get. Think of it more as an "intensity score" that precise guidance for eating.
  • WestCoastPhoenix
    WestCoastPhoenix Posts: 802 Member
    Eat. More. Yes, it's for real.
  • Hayesgang
    Hayesgang Posts: 624
    Sounds about right.
    You are not loosing weight because you probably need to eat more.


    ^^This

    It's truly not hard to "net" over 1200 calories. Add more fruit, veggies, and lean protein to your diet and you'll be there in no time.

    Good Luck :flowerforyou:
  • Captain_Tightpants
    Captain_Tightpants Posts: 2,215 Member
    Sounds right to me... depending on your height and weight of course.
  • nannabannana
    nannabannana Posts: 780
    bump for more info on Polar FT7...and others:smile:
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,605 Member
    when you're comparing your HRM burns to MFP, bear in mind that the mfp database typically *includes* your resting calories burned. Your HRM generally won't. I didn't know this up until recently, and it does help me put the burn data into context a bit.
  • goldfinger88
    goldfinger88 Posts: 686 Member
    All HRM rate calorie burn way too high in most cases. The possible exception might be cardio. But for the ab work, lifting, things like that, they're not at all accurate. I've always found them far higher than any other gadget and I've reviewed hundreds for fitness magazines and Amazon. Plus, there are lots of variables that come into play.
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    HRMs often overestimate calorie burn.
  • _the_feniks_
    _the_feniks_ Posts: 3,412 Member
    Its for real and Polar is known as being one of the most accurate HRMs.
  • stacyll
    stacyll Posts: 43 Member
    i'm with you, i'm burning a good amount of calories several times a week teaching strength and bootcamp classes and taking zumba but my weight isn't moving to those numbers that show on my "if every day were like today you'd weight <> in 5 weeks". i had a goal of losing 2 lbs a week but changed it to 1 lb which gave me an additional 150 calories...still my weight is hovering.

    to answer your question that calorie burn could be right. double check your height, weight and age are correct.

    as for me, what i'm going to try to do to get the scale to budge is one to actually start using the scale weekly again, drink only water or unsweetened tea and save my wine for the weekends. also, cutting desserts. i'm not gaining but i'm not losing and i think it's the desserts. urgh.
  • sommerskins
    sommerskins Posts: 57
    I noticed when I was doing a 1200 calorie diet, my weight was not moving.... So, I increased it to 1250, saw some weight go.. Then slowly added in 50 calorie increments. I have been losing steadily. I am now up to 1400 calories with 40% protein and 30/30 split for carbs and fat. That has worked for me. The HRM sounds right too. I burn about 600 calories in an hour, doing my 20/20/20.
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,605 Member
    All HRM rate calorie burn way too high in most cases. The possible exception might be cardio. But for the ab work, lifting, things like that, they're not at all accurate. I've always found them far higher than any other gadget and I've reviewed hundreds for fitness magazines and Amazon. Plus, there are lots of variables that come into play.

    HRMs don't purport to be accurate for lifting etc. So I'm not sure this is an entirely valid criticism.

    What, in your estimation, woul be 'more accurate'? And how is this accuracy established?

Categories