WARNING! POLAR HEART RATE MONITORS DEFECTIVE!
Replies
-
Point taken. But calories burned has everything to do with heart rate? this is widely accepted. When you get more fit your heart rate gets slower and thus you burn less calories if all other variables are the same.
You do understand that right?
Calories burned does not have everything to do with heart rate, and it is not widely accepted. Calories burned has to do with VO2max, which heart rate is a good indicator for, but not an absolute determination for. If calories burned has everything to do with heart rate, we could all drop the gym, and go to the movies to watch suspense and horror movies.
Agreed VO2 Max is the absolute test. But heart rate is good enough for Polar isn't it? and for everyone else in the fitness industry? it's going to give pretty accurate results for the most part. Do you have any solid data on the correlation of VO2 max and heart rate? or how it can be divergent?0 -
Have you contacted Polar's tech support people about this?
This^
I've been using a Polar FT7 for 2 years. I've been around 280-300 lbs during that time. The calorie burns seem normal compared the previous HRM's that I've used, and I've had success maintaining/losing my weight when I use those calorie burns along with MFP. (You know, when I actually follow the program) My only agrivation with the FT7 is changing the battery.
And yes, there are people who weigh 300 lbs that can do steady state cardio, not very fast, but it can be done.
Please share some data? "seems normal" does not really help much in getting to the bottom of this issue.
I have emailed Polar, no reply yet.
I don't have my HRM with me. I'll have to look at it later tonight, but I will reply. I will say avg of 109 seems kind of low. What kind of activities are you using it for. 109 is what my avg HR is when I'm on a hike or walk. I usually only wear mine when I've going to run or bike and my HR would at least be in the 130's.
As to the other argument. Calories are a unit of energy. A major part of any energy consumed equation is mass. V02 Max plays a small part but weight & speed are the two main factors.
At the gym using a mix of elliptical, uphill treadmill, and bike. usual session is 90 minutes with a minute or so water break between machines.0 -
The formula thatt anyone uses for calorie burn gets all wacky the further out of shape you get, this would be true for any HRM brand. The way to be more effective with a HRM is to get your heart rate tested vs your breathing. This way your heart rate is connected to your activity level. My HRM is so much more accurate since I was tested like this vs just using the basic forumla for a woman my weight.
This does not contribute to the solution much. Please share some data.0 -
I have one, and when exerting the same effort, the lower my weight, the lower my calorie burn...I don't doubt you may have a "defective" one, but mine works just fine. You might want to contact Polar's customer service line and see what they can do or if they have any input.0
-
I may have missed this and if I did I apologize-- have you properly set, and properly adjusted, your resting heart rate. That will affect cal burn significantly, along with weight.
While my average HR for certain excercises has gone down as the energy necessary to do them has gone down, my resting HR has gone down too, which offsets (at least partially) the lower average HR when calculating burn.
polar does not accept resting heart rate data therefore it is a non factor in their algorithm. But I agree it is important to know for calorie burn. My resting heart rate is about 55-61. Take my BP every morning and that is included.
I have reset the data several times making sure I had it right. Only a idiot can mess it up really. very straight forward. I always had it right from the beginning so the double checks were meaningless. but a good question to ask me.0 -
I may have missed this and if I did I apologize-- have you properly set, and properly adjusted, your resting heart rate. That will affect cal burn significantly, along with weight.
While my average HR for certain excercises has gone down as the energy necessary to do them has gone down, my resting HR has gone down too, which offsets (at least partially) the lower average HR when calculating burn.
polar does not accept resting heart rate data therefore it is a non factor in their algorithm. But I agree it is important to know for calorie burn. My resting heart rate is about 55-61. Take my BP every morning and that is included.
I have reset the data several times making sure I had it right. Only a idiot can mess it up really. very straight forward. I always had it right from the beginning so the double checks were meaningless. but a good question to ask me.
There is a setting for max HR. Have you adjusted that? Seems your max is likely lower than the formulas estimate. Mine is quite a bit higher.0 -
Have you contacted Polar's tech support people about this?
yes, no reply as yet.0 -
I have one, and when exerting the same effort, the lower my weight, the lower my calorie burn...I don't doubt you may have a "defective" one, but mine works just fine. You might want to contact Polar's customer service line and see what they can do or if they have any input.
yeah, ummm.. this seems to be accurate for from what I can tell at 190 pound or less. I think you fall into the "or less" category looking at your pics.
0 -
At the gym using a mix of elliptical, uphill treadmill, and bike. usual session is 90 minutes with a minute or so water break between machines.
What is your HR when you look at your HRM doing all this? Do you cross check with the machines to see what they say your HR is? I think the discrepency in the alogrithim might be at "lower" HR, HRM's are notorious for that.0 -
This will help:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
He also has other blogs posts about HRMs, and you could always PM him for more info...he knows a lot about them after decades in the fitness and sports industry. I'll bet this is covered somewhere in the manual or on their website, too.0 -
I may have missed this and if I did I apologize-- have you properly set, and properly adjusted, your resting heart rate. That will affect cal burn significantly, along with weight.
While my average HR for certain excercises has gone down as the energy necessary to do them has gone down, my resting HR has gone down too, which offsets (at least partially) the lower average HR when calculating burn.
polar does not accept resting heart rate data therefore it is a non factor in their algorithm. But I agree it is important to know for calorie burn. My resting heart rate is about 55-61. Take my BP every morning and that is included.
I have reset the data several times making sure I had it right. Only a idiot can mess it up really. very straight forward. I always had it right from the beginning so the double checks were meaningless. but a good question to ask me.
There is a setting for max HR. Have you adjusted that? Seems your max is likely lower than the formulas estimate. Mine is quite a bit higher.
FT7 does not request max heart rate data. at least mine does not.0 -
Wow- just checked out-- http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html
That site was actually pretty close to what my FT7 tells me for my workouts.0 -
To do a proper experiment, you need:
A person at 190 pounds and a person at 326 pounds where both people have the same V02max. From there, you'd also need to use the same monitor and ensure the heart rate stayed the same between the two participants.
Simply telling the monitor you are 190 is not sufficient.
Telling the monitor I'm 190 is enough to know that something is very wrong.
the point of this post is to see if there is something funky with the Polar FT7. Not debate the finer points of VO2max.0 -
that may be so, but it does not ask it anywhere in the initial "interview".I may have missed this and if I did I apologize-- have you properly set, and properly adjusted, your resting heart rate. That will affect cal burn significantly, along with weight.
While my average HR for certain excercises has gone down as the energy necessary to do them has gone down, my resting HR has gone down too, which offsets (at least partially) the lower average HR when calculating burn.
polar does not accept resting heart rate data therefore it is a non factor in their algorithm. But I agree it is important to know for calorie burn. My resting heart rate is about 55-61. Take my BP every morning and that is included.
I have reset the data several times making sure I had it right. Only a idiot can mess it up really. very straight forward. I always had it right from the beginning so the double checks were meaningless. but a good question to ask me.
There is a setting for max HR. Have you adjusted that? Seems your max is likely lower than the formulas estimate. Mine is quite a bit higher.
FT7 does not request max heart rate data. at least mine does not.
FT7 does permit you to set Max HR data.0 -
Mine seems perfectly logical - the calorie burn has reduced as I've lost weight.
I would suggest contacting Polar directly.
Same0 -
At the gym using a mix of elliptical, uphill treadmill, and bike. usual session is 90 minutes with a minute or so water break between machines.
What is your HR when you look at your HRM doing all this? Do you cross check with the machines to see what they say your HR is? I think the discrepency in the alogrithim might be at "lower" HR, HRM's are notorious for that.
HRM are not supposed to be accurate at under 95 BPM. I am well over that, and in the lower end of the "fat burn" zone at just over 60% or max heart rate. Should not be a problem at my heart rate.
The machines match my HR. I even physically have checked my HR many times to compare to the monitor (finger to neck for 10 seconds x 6).0 -
Seems somewhat of an unfair blanket statement. I've been extremely pleased with the accuracy of my Polar HRM. As I've gotten more physically fit I've also been able to push myself longer, harder, further in my workouts. I can see a difference in my calories burned when I am working my butt off and when I'm phoning in my workouts (not often). I've noticed that working out for the same amount of time doing similar kinds of workouts that the more in shape I've gotten the smaller the burn is.
Good luck with your particular issue that you're having. I personally would highly recommend a Polar HRM.0 -
I may have missed this and if I did I apologize-- have you properly set, and properly adjusted, your resting heart rate. That will affect cal burn significantly, along with weight.
While my average HR for certain excercises has gone down as the energy necessary to do them has gone down, my resting HR has gone down too, which offsets (at least partially) the lower average HR when calculating burn.
polar does not accept resting heart rate data therefore it is a non factor in their algorithm. But I agree it is important to know for calorie burn. My resting heart rate is about 55-61. Take my BP every morning and that is included.
I have reset the data several times making sure I had it right. Only a idiot can mess it up really. very straight forward. I always had it right from the beginning so the double checks were meaningless. but a good question to ask me.
There is a setting for max HR. Have you adjusted that? Seems your max is likely lower than the formulas estimate. Mine is quite a bit higher.
FT7 does not request max heart rate data. at least mine does not.
Yes it does. It defaults to the formula standard. It's under the user settings with weight/height/age/etc. It's the last option. I have the FT7 too.0 -
Mine seems perfectly logical - the calorie burn has reduced as I've lost weight.
I would suggest contacting Polar directly.
yes my burn has decreased as well from losing weight so mine seems to be working just fine.0 -
Telling the monitor I'm 190 is enough to know that something is very wrong.
the point of this post is to see if there is something funky with the Polar FT7. Not debate the finer points of VO2max.
No. It is not. Not even remotely from a scientific standpoint.0 -
Seems that Polar changed the FT7. That's why some of you say max heart rate can be entered, others say no. See below taken from this post:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
For greatest calorie count accuracy, an HRM must have the following features:
1. Chest strap sensor for continuous monitoring
2. Ability to manually input HR max, VO2 max, gender, age weight and HR rest.
3. Sophisticated analysis technology and software which has been validated on large numbers of test subjects.
For those features, your choices are going to be limited and you cannot go super-cheap. If you cannot enter VO2 max, then the HRM is using a more general format to determine your fitness level, which means greater inaccuracy.
Note: The only HRMs I know that meet the above criteria are the Sunnto T-series HRMs, the older Polar F6 and F11 models, and the newer Polar FT40 and FT60 models. FT4 and FT7 do not. Suunto does not use VO2 max, but they have a detailed series of "activity levels" that accomplish the same thing. They may not be the only ones, but they are the only ones I can say with certainty. I have looked at the owner manuals of other brands (Timex, Sportsline, Mio) and they do not allow manual VO2 input. Don't know about Reebok or Nike products.0 -
Telling the monitor I'm 190 is enough to know that something is very wrong.
the point of this post is to see if there is something funky with the Polar FT7. Not debate the finer points of VO2max.
No. It is not. Not even remotely from a scientific standpoint.
Can we agree that getting more individuals feedback might shed some light on the issue?0 -
Seems somewhat of an unfair blanket statement. I've been extremely pleased with the accuracy of my Polar HRM. As I've gotten more physically fit I've also been able to push myself longer, harder, further in my workouts. I can see a difference in my calories burned when I am working my butt off and when I'm phoning in my workouts (not often). I've noticed that working out for the same amount of time doing similar kinds of workouts that the more in shape I've gotten the smaller the burn is.
Good luck with your particular issue that you're having. I personally would highly recommend a Polar HRM.
Care to share some actual data? At lower weights it seems to be more accurate, 190 or less.0 -
Mine seems perfectly logical - the calorie burn has reduced as I've lost weight.
I would suggest contacting Polar directly.
yes my burn has decreased as well from losing weight so mine seems to be working just fine.
Care to share some actual data? At lower weights it seems to be more accurate, 190 or less.0 -
Care to share some actual data? At lower weights it seems to be more accurate, 190 or less. Please contribute to the post in this way if you like of course.Telling the monitor I'm 190 is enough to know that something is very wrong.
the point of this post is to see if there is something funky with the Polar FT7. Not debate the finer points of VO2max.
No. It is not. Not even remotely from a scientific standpoint. 0 -
I have one, and when exerting the same effort, the lower my weight, the lower my calorie burn...I don't doubt you may have a "defective" one, but mine works just fine. You might want to contact Polar's customer service line and see what they can do or if they have any input.
Care to share some actual data? At lower weights it seems to be more accurate, 190 or less.0 -
This will help:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
He also has other blogs posts about HRMs, and you could always PM him for more info...he knows a lot about them after decades in the fitness and sports industry. I'll bet this is covered somewhere in the manual or on their website, too.
thanks for this. very informative.0 -
Wow- just checked out-- http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html
That site was actually pretty close to what my FT7 tells me for my workouts.
Care to share some actual data? contribute to the "scientific study"? 0 -
Mine seems perfectly logical - the calorie burn has reduced as I've lost weight.
I would suggest contacting Polar directly.
Same
Care to share some actual data? At lower weights it seems to be more accurate, 190 or less.0 -
I would suggest contacting Polar directly.
^^this. Call Polar and get some answers from them before going off and accusing the products of being defective.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions