WARNING! POLAR HEART RATE MONITORS DEFECTIVE!
Options
Replies
-
Latest data from min, yesterday's run and test.
Total run 53 min or so. Ft7 vs Garmin 405 vs iPhone app.
1) Avr HR 152 193 kcal 13 min 14.8 kcal/ min weight set at 199 kg
2) Avr HR 152 537 kcal 40 min 13.4 kcal/min weight set at 85 kg
10% difference
As comparison mapmyfitness gave me 14.5 kcal/min (90 kg setting, can't get it to change) and the Garmin gave 12 kcal/min (85 kg) based on distance.
So something between 13.4 to 12 seems ok for me. 14.8 does seem too low for 199 kg.0 -
Latest data from min, yesterday's run and test.
Total run 53 min or so. Ft7 vs Garmin 405 vs iPhone app.
1) Avr HR 152 193 kcal 13 min 14.8 kcal/ min weight set at 199 kg
2) Avr HR 152 537 kcal 40 min 13.4 kcal/min weight set at 85 kg
10% difference
As comparison mapmyfitness gave me 14.5 kcal/min (90 kg setting, can't get it to change) and the Garmin gave 12 kcal/min (85 kg) based on distance.
So something between 13.4 to 12 seems ok for me. 14.8 does seem too low for 199 kg.
yeah, no way that can even be close to accurate at the higher weight for the ft7.0 -
After spending almost $300 on mine.... :mad: :mad: :mad:
I've heard the high end ones work better. they allow you to enter more data about yourself.0 -
mine works.
are you 300+ pounds?0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?
Yes, kilos.
You've piqued my data fixation. I'll likely do a whole bunch of evaluations in my runs and I'll let you know. Today's run was more of a focus on my girls who where riding next to me. Even though I used the three tools (polar/Garmin/iPhone) I didn't bother with variations or even differential readings. I'll keep you posted.0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?
Yes, kilos.
You've piqued my data fixation. I'll likely do a whole bunch of evaluations in my runs and I'll let you know. Today's run was more of a focus on my girls who where riding next to me. Even though I used the three tools (polar/Garmin/iPhone) I didn't bother with variations or even differential readings. I'll keep you posted.
The energy is measured by carrying a weight across a distance not time. It's the kcal/mile that matters.0 -
Hardly defective. MY average rate on my run is 158, doing zumba its 121 , doing my steps it's 130. Sorry but I'm guessing it's IS you.
But then I have a FT60 & an FT40 -
Hardly defective. MY average rate on my run is 158, doing zumba its 121 , doing my steps it's 130. Sorry but I'm guessing it's IS you.
But then I have a FT60 & an FT4
If you read the whole post the problem seems to get worse the higher your weight. Seems that you did not bother to really read.0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?
Yes, kilos.
You've piqued my data fixation. I'll likely do a whole bunch of evaluations in my runs and I'll let you know. Today's run was more of a focus on my girls who where riding next to me. Even though I used the three tools (polar/Garmin/iPhone) I didn't bother with variations or even differential readings. I'll keep you posted.
The energy is measured by carrying a weight across a distance not time. It's the kcal/mile that matters.
the more weight you are carrying, certainly more calories or energy will be expended.0 -
I didn't read all of the posts but I do have a question. I don't understand how you can work out for 60 or 90 minutes at your weight and only average 109 bpm? Even when I was 180, my pulse would shoot up to 160 if I walked 20 feet. Now that I've lost 40lbs, my pulse is much lower but I still probably average at least 130 bpm when I'm working out for an hour, with a peak of 160bpm. Unless someone is doing finger exercises, I don't get the average of 109 bpm. Just curious.0
-
I didn't read all of the posts but I do have a question. I don't understand how you can work out for 60 or 90 minutes at your weight and only average 109 bpm? Even when I was 180, my pulse would shoot up to 160 if I walked 20 feet. Now that I've lost 40lbs, my pulse is much lower but I still probably average at least 130 bpm when I'm working out for an hour, with a peak of 160bpm. Unless someone is doing finger exercises, I don't get the average of 109 bpm. Just curious.
For my age it is considered at the lower end of the fat burning zone, 60% of max for me would be 105 bpm for me. So, no problems there. In one phone conversation I had with a Polar employee they also told me that would not be an issue for accuracy. In other words, it is high enough for it to be accurate. I also do some warning down, get a drink between machines which brings the average down a bit. While on the machine I average about 110-120.
I'm talking to a guy from Polar next week and will report. He called me back finally.0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?
Yes, kilos.
You've piqued my data fixation. I'll likely do a whole bunch of evaluations in my runs and I'll let you know. Today's run was more of a focus on my girls who where riding next to me. Even though I used the three tools (polar/Garmin/iPhone) I didn't bother with variations or even differential readings. I'll keep you posted.
The energy is measured by carrying a weight across a distance not time. It's the kcal/mile that matters.
the more weight you are carrying, certainly more calories or energy will be expended.
The more energy expended, the higher the heart rate. If you put weight on my back I will burn more and it will be reflected by a higher heart rate. You can't increase the weight at the same heart rate and wonder why cal/min is going down.0 -
Hardly defective. MY average rate on my run is 158, doing zumba its 121 , doing my steps it's 130. Sorry but I'm guessing it's IS you.
But then I have a FT60 & an FT4
The algorithm for his device does seem wrong for someone weighing 300ish pounds. I'm more concerned about everyone being so hung up on all these calculated guesses and using them like they are real. With everyone's goal being to change their lifestyle to get healthy and many to lose weight, wouldn't it be better to find something fun to do? How long can it keep your interest to keep track of all these wrong numbers. How long before your bored with all this data?0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?
Yes, kilos.
You've piqued my data fixation. I'll likely do a whole bunch of evaluations in my runs and I'll let you know. Today's run was more of a focus on my girls who where riding next to me. Even though I used the three tools (polar/Garmin/iPhone) I didn't bother with variations or even differential readings. I'll keep you posted.
The energy is measured by carrying a weight across a distance not time. It's the kcal/mile that matters.
the more weight you are carrying, certainly more calories or energy will be expended.
The more energy expended, the higher the heart rate. If you put weight on my back I will burn more and it will be reflected by a higher heart rate. You can't increase the weight at the same heart rate and wonder why cal/min is going down.
We aren't carrying more weight we are fiddling with the watch settings which should give a higher burn at a higher weight setting all other parameters being constant.0 -
I've had no problems with my FT4. It gives EXACTLY the same reading as the cardio equipment at my gym after I punch in my details It gave me about a 5000 odd calorie reading for my last marathon and my g'friend who is same age, similar build to me clocked similar results on her FT4 over a same distance. Check your battery, check that you have the strap on properly and the sensors are wet. Remember to adjust your weight in the settings as it changes too. Hope you find a better result.0
-
I love data crunching. Data crunching doesn't exclude doing fun things. I suggest you look at my profile - it suggests that I'm here for the fitness, endurance and "doing things" of it all. Weight loss, body composition and data crunching are just icings on the cake. And I'm a nerd. Seriously.Hardly defective. MY average rate on my run is 158, doing zumba its 121 , doing my steps it's 130. Sorry but I'm guessing it's IS you.
But then I have a FT60 & an FT4
The algorithm for his device does seem wrong for someone weighing 300ish pounds. I'm more concerned about everyone being so hung up on all these calculated guesses and using them like they are real. With everyone's goal being to change their lifestyle to get healthy and many to lose weight, wouldn't it be better to find something fun to do? How long can it keep your interest to keep track of all these wrong numbers. How long before your bored with all this data?0 -
bump0
-
Y'know. I had a mate who was a mad cyclist. He was a really big boy though, but after checking his stats and heart rate, he turned out to be amazingly fit even though his weight never shifted. Mym mum's the same. Built like a bullock and keeps a low heart rate despite her slightly generous size. You might be working at a lower heart rate than you expect. I have trouble getting mine up above the 130s/140s even when powering up really tough hills. Try different intensities and see if you can get variations there. Otherwise just send the watch back for a refund.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions