WARNING! POLAR HEART RATE MONITORS DEFECTIVE!

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.

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.

iWaffle

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.

peterdt

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.

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.

that may be so, but it does not ask it anywhere in the initial "interview".
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.

alpine1994

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

I would suggest contacting Polar directly.

Same

peterdt

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).

RunFarLiveHappy

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.

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.

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.

pinkgumdrop123

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.

DanaDark

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.

peterdt

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.

peterdt

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?

peterdt

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.

peterdt

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.

peterdt

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.

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.

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.

Care to share some actual data? At lower weights it seems to be more accurate, 190 or less.

peterdt

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.

peterdt

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"?

peterdt

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.

tidesong

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.