WARNING! POLAR HEART RATE MONITORS DEFECTIVE!

peterdt

So, at lower weights, is it still accurate or is the claim that this issue affects all people of all sizes who use this product?

it seems to me that the lower weights are accurate. when I entered the data for 190 those numbers sounded right compared to online calculators and accepted algorithms for calculating this.

Weezoh

Just for the heck of it I looked for a workout session where I averaged 109 on my FT7 and found one. When I looked at the calories per minute it was 7.5 currently i weigh 255 so seems to be roughly in line with your 190 and 320 weights. I'm assuming that the hrm is set with a particular sweet spot and as you depart from that sweet spot going in either direction the accuracy is going to suffer. What that sweet spot is I don't know.

peterdt

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.

Gapwedge01

Mine seems perfectly logical - the calorie burn has reduced as I've lost weight.

I would suggest contacting Polar directly.

The burn goes down as you become more cardio fit not because you have lost weight. Running 3 miles unfit will result in a higher HR average. Running the same 3 miles as a more cardio fit person your burn will go down because you are not pushing your cardio level as you once were. Weight is not involved with that part of it. However, one should change the settings in the HRM when their weight changes.

Weight absolutely is involved in the equation. It went down for BOTH reasons. My average HR has gone down, but not as significantly as my weight. I change my HRM settings every 10 pounds. I actually set it for 10 lbs. less than I really weigh, and then once I reach that weight, put it down 10 more lbs.

I never said weight was not part of the equation. It surely is. And yes you adjust your settings accordingly to your weight. My point was for the same duration and same steady state exercise like running as you become more cardio fit the HR average goes down. Don't get so defensive.

DanaDark

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.

omma_to_3

I've got nothing to get defensive about, but you clearly stated "The burn goes down as you become more cardio fit not because you have lost weight." I didn't want people to think that weight going down doesn't reduce your burn.

peterdt

Just for the heck of it I looked for a workout session where I averaged 109 on my FT7 and found one. When I looked at the calories per minute it was 7.5 currently i weigh 255 so seems to be roughly in line with your 190 and 320 weights. I'm assuming that the hrm is set with a particular sweet spot and as you depart from that sweet spot going in either direction the accuracy is going to suffer. What that sweet spot is I don't know.

I don't agree. compare these numbers. Does this look right to you? your age also is different than mine I guess so that could affect it, but weight is has much more "weight" in the algorithm overall. your burn is likely significantly higher than what your FT7 is saying.

check out this site and plug in your numbers here.
http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html

8.1 calories/minute - 190 pounds.

7.5 calories/minute - 255 pounds (your numbers).

6.5 calories/minute - 326 pounds.

DanaDark

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.

iplayoutside19

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.

Gapwedge01

I've got nothing to get defensive about, but you clearly stated "The burn goes down as you become more cardio fit not because you have lost weight." I didn't want people to think that weight going down doesn't reduce your burn.

Point made.

peterdt

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?

peterdt

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.

peterdt

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.

Sarah0866

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.

peterdt

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.

omma_to_3

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.

peterdt

Have you contacted Polar's tech support people about this?

yes, no reply as yet.

peterdt

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.

iplayoutside19

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.

cmriverside

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.