WARNING! POLAR HEART RATE MONITORS DEFECTIVE!

Options
12357…12

Replies

  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Options
    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 >.> ).
  • Ben2118
    Ben2118 Posts: 571 Member
    Options
    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?
  • Erienneb
    Erienneb Posts: 592 Member
    Options

    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.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options

    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.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    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 men
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    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? :)
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    Options
    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'.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    I disagree. I use the FT7 and it works perfectly!

    care to share some data? only way to get to the bottom of it :)
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    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. :)
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options

    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.
  • tenkesh
    tenkesh Posts: 81
    Options
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data

    Congratulations peterdt. We've just confirmed that you are the lucky person who said the word "data" for the millionth time. You just won a big pile of bupkis, tell us how you feel.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    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 >.> ).

    the title you suggest would not have gotten anyone to look at the post. :)
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data

    Congratulations peterdt. We've just confirmed that you are the lucky person who said the word "data" for the millionth time. You just won a big pile of bupkis, tell us how you feel.

    care to share some actual data? lol
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    My test on my watch:

    3 min
    3 kcal
    avr 55
    weight 89 kg

    3 min
    6 kcal
    avr 55
    weight 199 kg

    This HRM (polar FT7) does not go higher than 199 kg. Real world test above shows no issue.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    bump. gonna try this on my FT4

    awesome. please share when you can. :)
  • sammniamii
    sammniamii Posts: 669 Member
    Options
    Every person it DIFFERENT and even using the same devices/training/food, etc will get DIFFERENT readings.

    I did have the FT7, it DID allow me to input "max" rate. I mostly kept my avg heart rate closer to the 115-120 mark. Even walking. When I was larger, I did burn more cals, but the levels weren't drastically different than current levels.

    I currently have the WearLink Bluetooth model and as I need an app to link it, I can't enter my MAX rate. My avg heart rate is still around the 117-121 mark. This is after I've lost nearly 70 pounds. I burn less calories now, but only just slightly. My heart rate stays higher, but I have to work harder to get it there & keep it there.

    If you want to claim this (the monitor is defective), post scientific data collected from a Doctor's office - in order to verify your monitor is reporting accurate data, you need the full range of tests to back up/provide data. Just stating what you found on your machine doesn't mean that as a whole ALL POLAR monitors are defective. It is possible you managed to get 2 truly defective (or older) models. Rare, but conceivable.

    When I used the FT7 it tracked what I considered accurate numbers. The WearLink I use now also seems to have accurate numbers. Until I go to a doctor's office and get all the various tests done to back-up and prove my weight loss, I am more than content using Polar Units.

    Your repeated attempts to get people to post there "concrete" data is annoying and in my eyes, labels you a troll. You only have your calculations from the monitor and a calc, you haven't posted things like your VO2 levels and such.

    If you honestly had an issue with your Monitors, you should have contacted Polar for information and/or verification before screaming out that they are defective without more "proof" than your numbers.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    My test on my watch:

    3 min
    3 kcal
    avr 55
    weight 89 kg

    3 min
    6 kcal
    avr 55
    weight 199 kg

    This HRM (polar FT7) does not go higher than 199 kg. Real world test above shows no issue.

    your heart rate is not high enough to be reliable. should be at least 95.

    thanks for trying though.
  • TheWinman
    TheWinman Posts: 700 Member
    Options
    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. :)

    How about quit being rude and repeating the same thing to just about every other person. I was going to chime in and add my input, but why should I give you that respect when you do not give respect to all have contributed in this thread.
  • Jennaissance
    Jennaissance Posts: 212
    Options
    I'm actually interested in the answer to this question. I never ended up using the calories on this device because I felt like they were so off. Maybe it's not set up correctly. I couldn't figure out how to enter my max heart rate. I don't have it on me, but I think the last time I used it was a 30 minute run with an average heart rate of 152ish... I'm 31, 161 lbs and female. The device said I burned less than 100 calories!!! WTF!!!

    That's why I ended up using an online calculator that takes that VO thing into account, too. Anywhoo, it's probably user error since I'm not that great with gadgets. If you figure it out, let me know!
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    Every person it DIFFERENT and even using the same devices/training/food, etc will get DIFFERENT readings.

    I did have the FT7, it DID allow me to input "max" rate. I mostly kept my avg heart rate closer to the 115-120 mark. Even walking. When I was larger, I did burn more cals, but the levels weren't drastically different than current levels.

    I currently have the WearLink Bluetooth model and as I need an app to link it, I can't enter my MAX rate. My avg heart rate is still around the 117-121 mark. This is after I've lost nearly 70 pounds. I burn less calories now, but only just slightly. My heart rate stays higher, but I have to work harder to get it there & keep it there.

    If you want to claim this (the monitor is defective), post scientific data collected from a Doctor's office - in order to verify your monitor is reporting accurate data, you need the full range of tests to back up/provide data. Just stating what you found on your machine doesn't mean that as a whole ALL POLAR monitors are defective. It is possible you managed to get 2 truly defective (or older) models. Rare, but conceivable.

    When I used the FT7 it tracked what I considered accurate numbers. The WearLink I use now also seems to have accurate numbers. Until I go to a doctor's office and get all the various tests done to back-up and prove my weight loss, I am more than content using Polar Units.

    Your repeated attempts to get people to post there "concrete" data is annoying and in my eyes, labels you a troll. You only have your calculations from the monitor and a calc, you haven't posted things like your VO2 levels and such.

    If you honestly had an issue with your Monitors, you should have contacted Polar for information and/or verification before screaming out that they are defective without more "proof" than your numbers.

    I did contact Polar. they did not reply.

    A troll is someone who posts something off topic. I am trying to get data about this very topic. The post title is true IMHO. But would like to get some more opinions. :)

    Actual data is useful. All else is mostly opinions.

    you have an old version of the FT7. New ones don't allow entry.

Categories