WARNING! POLAR HEART RATE MONITORS DEFECTIVE!
Replies
-
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.
I have. no reply.
Care to share some actual data? At lower weights it seems to be more accurate, 190 or less.0 -
109 seems a very low heart rate. I am pretty fit (cardio 5 days a week and heavy lifting 5 days as well)
MY heart rate when I'm running is in the 160's-170's. 109 for BPM seems like you're not working very hard at all.0 -
http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html
I used this site and put in 3 different weight, with the same heartrate and and time( as well as same gender and age)
The first weight I used was 280lbs. HR was 124 for 45 minutes- the total calories burned was 227
The second weigth i used was 220 everything else was the same and the total calories burned was 264
At the weight of 190 the calories burned were 2820 -
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.
okaaaaaay.... found the setting... but I have NO IDEA how to figure what I should enter there.0 -
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.
In my experience, cardiovascular fitness (or lower heart rate) tends to be linked to weight loss. In other words, if I bust my *kitten* at the gym I will be getting fitter, but my bod will also be changing.0 -
Why don't you put your stats into one of those online calculators that asks for weight, activity duration and average heart rate and see what it says for calories burned compared to the polar?0
-
Regarding the calorie burn, play around with this calculator:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm
I enter stats as follows:
33 yo female, exercising 60 minutes with an average HR of 155
At 300 pounds, she burns 489.48 per hour
At 170 pounds, she burns 596.5 per hour
(I am not including v02max in these equations, assuming it is unknown).
I wonder if the underlying assumption is that the 170 pound woman is fitter than the 300 pound woman, and therefore she is working much harder to sustain a HR of 155 despite her relatively lower body weight. For the 300 pound woman, perhaps the exertion needed to sustain a 155 HR is much lower and therefore her calorie burn is lower.
I don't know the answer to why the heavier woman is burning fewer calories than the lighter woman per this formula, but the author of the tool includes a discussion for the formulas used to calculate the burn.
(FWIW, my Polar FT7 shows results very similar to this calculator)0 -
109 seems a very low heart rate. I am pretty fit (cardio 5 days a week and heavy lifting 5 days as well)
MY heart rate when I'm running is in the 160's-170's. 109 for BPM seems like you're not working very hard at all.
not looking for your comments.
looking for data. please share.0 -
http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html
I used this site and put in 3 different weight, with the same heartrate and and time( as well as same gender and age)
The first weight I used was 280lbs. HR was 124 for 45 minutes- the total calories burned was 227
The second weigth i used was 220 everything else was the same and the total calories burned was 264
At the weight of 190 the calories burned were 282
Hmm, looking at that calculator was ODD... male and female are different. In males, the calories spent goes up and for females it goes down...
Settings: 110 bpm, 60 min, age 27
Male
500 pounds - 929
400 pounds - 800
300 pounds - 671
200 pounds - 541
Female
500 pounds - 30
400 pounds - 112
300 pounds - 195
200 pounds - 277
This is not correct results at all. If any heart rate monitor is using the same formula as is this website, then it would indeed be defective.0 -
Your BMR is definitely not accurate. It is just a close guess.
The amount of calories you burn doing whatever is just an estimate, no matter what.
It will not take you very long to figure out how many calories you can eat to lose weight. Fixating on the numbers (calories in vs calories out) will never be accurate. Just keep moving and try to have as much fun doing it as you can.
I understand the slight disappointment that there is an illogical result to the calories on your HRM, but HRM's are more about your heart rate/fitness and confirming that you are working hard enough.0 -
http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html
I used this site and put in 3 different weight, with the same heartrate and and time( as well as same gender and age)
The first weight I used was 280lbs. HR was 124 for 45 minutes- the total calories burned was 227
The second weigth i used was 220 everything else was the same and the total calories burned was 264
At the weight of 190 the calories burned were 282
looking for Polar FT7 data. not site data. site data for calories burn is probably high for most people IMO.0 -
http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html
I used this site and put in 3 different weight, with the same heartrate and and time( as well as same gender and age)
The first weight I used was 280lbs. HR was 124 for 45 minutes- the total calories burned was 227
The second weigth i used was 220 everything else was the same and the total calories burned was 264
At the weight of 190 the calories burned were 282
Hmm, looking at that calculator was ODD... male and female are different. In males, the calories spent goes up and for females it goes down...
Settings: 110 bpm, 60 min, age 27
Male
500 pounds - 929
400 pounds - 800
300 pounds - 671
200 pounds - 541
Female
500 pounds - 30
400 pounds - 112
300 pounds - 195
200 pounds - 277
This is not correct results at all. If any heart rate monitor is using the same formula as is this website, then it would indeed be defective.
I retract my statement: the site is probably not accurate. but I'm looking for actual data from other users who are using the FT7? Care to contribute?0 -
Why don't you put your stats into one of those online calculators that asks for weight, activity duration and average heart rate and see what it says for calories burned compared to the polar?
online calculators are probably not accurate. I posted one and everyone jumped on that. lol.
what I'm really looking for is actual FT7 data. have any?0 -
My HRM (sigma sport rc 14.11 ) won't register any calories at a heart rate lower than 100. I know the polar does the same but don't know the exact value. Also, it takes me a few minutes to reach my average HR as I warm up.
So maybe a good portion of your workout is under the cutoff number.0 -
bump. gonna try this on my FT40
-
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?
This is wrong.
Calories burned are not directly related to HR. The HRM's use HR as an estimate of perceived exertion (% of max HR) in order to estimate the oxygen uptake. The amount you weigh, Lean body mass, VO2 Max, actual oxygen uptake, and Mets, are much more related to the amount you actually burn vs. HR.0 -
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.
In my experience, cardiovascular fitness (or lower heart rate) tends to be linked to weight loss. In other words, if I bust my *kitten* at the gym I will be getting fitter, but my bod will also be changing.
hey there Friend!
any data to share along with your physics lesson?0 -
I disagree. I use the FT7 and it works perfectly!0
-
Class Action Lawsuit...
do the study...research then consult a lawyer...I bet you have a lawsuit if they don't replace these..which I doubt especially if enough people ask for their money back!0 -
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?
This is wrong.
Calories burned are not directly related to HR. The HRM's use HR as an estimate of perceived exertion (% of max HR) in order to estimate the oxygen uptake. The amount you weigh, Lean body mass and VO2 Max, oxygen uptake, Mets, etc. are much more related to the amount you actually burn vs. HR.
understood. so, you are saying all HRM calorie burn estimates should be ignored?0 -
I retract my statement: the site is probably not accurate. but I'm looking for actual data from other users who are using the FT7? Care to contribute?
Should start a thread dedicated to that. Otherwise will get lost in this thread. The title of this thread does not read "Looking for FT7 data" or anything remotely similar, nor does the original post.
I have become quite interested in the topic, especially after seeing the website above give WEIRD results (537 pound, 27 year old female burns NOTHING with a bpm at 110 for 60 minutes >.> ).0 -
Mine works fine, your Topic heading is mis leading and false.
Why don't you contact Polar rather than flaming them on a public forum?0 -
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?
This is wrong.
Calories burned are not directly related to HR. The HRM's use HR as an estimate of perceived exertion (% of max HR) in order to estimate the oxygen uptake. The amount you weigh, Lean body mass and VO2 Max, oxygen uptake, Mets, etc. are much more related to the amount you actually burn vs. HR.
This is the best way I've read it explained. This is also why you really should be tested for your personal zones. My HR zones are way different than the charts. I work out at about 160 BPM and that burns me about 12 cal a minute according to my testing. I'm also sweating and working *hard* during that so I feel like it's accurate. Compared to 30 lbs ago, when I could maintain at 150BPM and be working just as hard. As my heart is getting healthier my zones are changing. I use the Polar RS200 (an older model) and it's fantastic. But, it's also set to my zones, not my weight.0 -
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?
This is wrong.
Calories burned are not directly related to HR. The HRM's use HR as an estimate of perceived exertion (% of max HR) in order to estimate the oxygen uptake. The amount you weigh, Lean body mass and VO2 Max, oxygen uptake, Mets, etc. are much more related to the amount you actually burn vs. HR.
understood. so, you are saying all HRM calorie burn estimates should be ignored?
No, but they are just that, estimates, and are only fairly accurate during steady state cardio, doing intervals, circuit training, etc. they can be way off.0 -
I retract my statement: the site is probably not accurate. but I'm looking for actual data from other users who are using the FT7? Care to contribute?
Should start a thread dedicated to that. Otherwise will get lost in this thread. The title of this thread does not read "Looking for FT7 data" or anything remotely similar, nor does the original post.
I have become quite interested in the topic, especially after seeing the website above give WEIRD results (537 pound, 27 year old female burns NOTHING with a bpm at 110 for 60 minutes >.> ).
For some reason widely accepted methods for females use a negative in the weight category, but create an addition for men's burns, not sure the science, or theory behind burn less for weighing more for women than for men0 -
Class Action Lawsuit...
do the study...research then consult a lawyer...I bet you have a lawsuit if they don't replace these..which I doubt especially if enough people ask for their money back!
I wouldn't go that far...yet. Love to get more data. Something seems fishy though. any data to share?0 -
Before you go claiming that these products are defective, are you wearing them properly? IE, getting the strap wet before using and making sure it's tight enough?
I'm sorry, but at 326 pounds, I highly doubt you can push yourself very hard to get your heart rate up very high without getting out of breath fast... so I can see why it would be lower for someone who is heavier.
Plus calories burned on an HRM have only a fraction to do with weight... the rest comes of from your heart rate, weight, age, etc.
ETA: I see now you said average heart rate... which as I pointed out, for a heavier person could be normal depending on their aerobic fitness.
Your response show that you neither thoroughly read my post.
Of course I know the proper use of my HRM. I have had times when it does NOT function properly, but it is quite obvious as the reading become way out of kilter, or don't register at all.
Are you serious? Can't get my heart rate up for a significant amount of time for a person my size. My average workout session is 90 minutes sustained at an average of 109. seems that you no idea what people at that weight are capable of.
this is a link to the algorithm most widely accepted for calorie burn.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/453151-how-to-calculate-amount-of-calories-burned/
Run the numbers and you will see that weight is by far the most important factor in weight loss. Besides all the other variable remained constant in my data. The only thing that varied is the weight. So my results are very reliable.
You do realize that an average heart rate of 109 is seriously low? My heart beats at 109 bpm when I'm walking. A sustained effort will have me averaging 170 or 180bpm.
Just sayin'.0 -
I disagree. I use the FT7 and it works perfectly!
care to share some data? only way to get to the bottom of it0 -
Before you go claiming that these products are defective, are you wearing them properly? IE, getting the strap wet before using and making sure it's tight enough?
I'm sorry, but at 326 pounds, I highly doubt you can push yourself very hard to get your heart rate up very high without getting out of breath fast... so I can see why it would be lower for someone who is heavier.
Plus calories burned on an HRM have only a fraction to do with weight... the rest comes of from your heart rate, weight, age, etc.
ETA: I see now you said average heart rate... which as I pointed out, for a heavier person could be normal depending on their aerobic fitness.
Your response show that you neither thoroughly read my post.
Of course I know the proper use of my HRM. I have had times when it does NOT function properly, but it is quite obvious as the reading become way out of kilter, or don't register at all.
Are you serious? Can't get my heart rate up for a significant amount of time for a person my size. My average workout session is 90 minutes sustained at an average of 109. seems that you no idea what people at that weight are capable of.
this is a link to the algorithm most widely accepted for calorie burn.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/453151-how-to-calculate-amount-of-calories-burned/
Run the numbers and you will see that weight is by far the most important factor in weight loss. Besides all the other variable remained constant in my data. The only thing that varied is the weight. So my results are very reliable.
You do realize that an average heart rate of 109 is seriously low? My heart beats at 109 bpm when I'm walking. A sustained effort will have me averaging 170 or 180bpm.
Just sayin'.
You are only 26. I am 46. Max heart rate and fat burn cardio range is very different for you than for me.0 -
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?
This is wrong.
Calories burned are not directly related to HR. The HRM's use HR as an estimate of perceived exertion (% of max HR) in order to estimate the oxygen uptake. The amount you weigh, Lean body mass and VO2 Max, oxygen uptake, Mets, etc. are much more related to the amount you actually burn vs. HR.
This is the best way I've read it explained. This is also why you really should be tested for your personal zones. My HR zones are way different than the charts. I work out at about 160 BPM and that burns me about 12 cal a minute according to my testing. I'm also sweating and working *hard* during that so I feel like it's accurate. Compared to 30 lbs ago, when I could maintain at 150BPM and be working just as hard. As my heart is getting healthier my zones are changing. I use the Polar RS200 (an older model) and it's fantastic. But, it's also set to my zones, not my weight.
the new versions of the FT7 do NOT allow you to enter zones, VO2 max, or max heart rate.
perhaps it is "canned" now in their algorithm based on one's actual workout history. but never saw any info on that.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