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?
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?
I dont think they should be ignored as much as just used as a reference tool to see how you are doing day to day on your workouts. I have a polar f4 , i used to have a ft7 and saw that there was never really a huge difference in calories burned. I do not use those caloies burned down to the exact number. i have a set amount of calories i try to eat each day. If i have one day where i worked out for twice as long i eat a little bit more for that day. I do track my caloris burned but more for me just to see if i am burning more or slacking off. I know you want specific data on the polar model but honestly i dont think anyone here will have the answer you want. I just think you best bet is to use a tool online to figure out calories needed for specific amount of activity ( mod active or extremly active ) and set that as your calories. Just use the calories burned on your HRM to see how you are doing. I just try to make sure that my HR stays above a certain range so that i know i worked hard for that workout0 -
I can't help but wonder if your relatively low HR during your workouts is not a factor here - if perhaps the FT7 becomes less accurate at lower HRs. (For the record, I am older than you by a decade with a resting HR of 48 and a max HR of at least 169).
I've begun to suspect that, for me, once I get under *about* 115 bpm, the calorie burn is exaggerated. I have noticed that when I do relatively high intensity cardio (HR 150-160+) I can record calorie burns of 8 to 10 or more cal/minute. When I'm doing cool-down sessions on the treadmill and with a sustained HR of 100 to 120, I start to see calorie burns that are clearly over-stated.
For example, this morning I did a 10 minute very low intensity cool-down (after a HIT workout) on treadmill with an average HR of 114- my FT7 showed 55 calories burned in that ten minutes. Based on the treadmill's own readout and my own experience, that's just way too high.
I hope that Polar gets back to you - this is an interesting question/discussion. BTW I've noticed that Polar does have a user forum on its web site - I wonder if you would get a quicker response there.0 -
I've had 2 FT4s. When I passed my first one on to my husband I tested it against my new one. I got pretty much the same numbers from both.
My husband (much heavier than me) did the same test and also got similar results.
how heavy was your husband? his results?0 -
Everyone, everywhere, will find some sort of fault with HRM's. Shut up and exercise. Work hard, listen to your body, rest when you feel tired.
Indeed. :-)0 -
I recently gave away my brand new Polar FT7 because it severely underestimated my calorie burns at 300-350 pounds.
This is interesting. For me, I think it is underestimating by 30-50%. How about you?0 -
I dont think they should be ignored as much as just used as a reference tool to see how you are doing day to day on your workouts. I have a polar f4 , i used to have a ft7 and saw that there was never really a huge difference in calories burned. I do do use those caloies burned down to the exact number. i have a set amount of calories i try to eat each day. If i have one day where i worked out for twice as long i eat a little bit more for that day. I do track my caloris burned but more for me just to see if i am burning more or slacking off. I know you want specific data on the polar model but honestly i dont think anyone here will have the answer you want. I just think you best bet is to use a tool online to figure out calories needed for specific amount of activity ( mod active or extremly active ) and set that as your calories. Just use the calories burned on your HRM to see how you are doing. I just try to make sure that my HR stays above a certain range so that i know i worked hard for that workout
Agree. I use mine as a way of gauging the relative intensity of my workouts from day to day and, also, for making sure I'm getting my HR up where I want it to be during HIT. I don't eat back my exercise calories (well maybe once in a while to justify a treat :-) so I'm not too concerned with that aspect of it.
Nonetheless, I'm enough of a geek that I'd like to know what kinds of calculations/assumptions the HR makes.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?
I dont think they should be ignored as much as just used as a reference tool to see how you are doing day to day on your workouts. I have a polar f4 , i used to have a ft7 and saw that there was never really a huge difference in calories burned. I do do use those caloies burned down to the exact number. i have a set amount of calories i try to eat each day. If i have one day where i worked out for twice as long i eat a little bit more for that day. I do track my caloris burned but more for me just to see if i am burning more or slacking off. I know you want specific data on the polar model but honestly i dont think anyone here will have the answer you want. I just think you best bet is to use a tool online to figure out calories needed for specific amount of activity ( mod active or extremly active ) and set that as your calories. Just use the calories burned on your HRM to see how you are doing. I just try to make sure that my HR stays above a certain range so that i know i worked hard for that workout
hard to use the Polar numbers when you suspect they are 30-50% off.0 -
so, you are saying all HRM calorie burn estimates should be ignored?
Yes. That is why they are called "HEART RATE" monitors, not "CALORIE" monitors.
Just as you don't trust your odometer in your car to tell you how fast you are driving or the temperature reading on your GPS to pick out your clothing for the day.0 -
I don't think that the HRM under estimates at all. My husband and I both have the FT7 and we both always show more calories burned on the HRM than on the readings from the machines at the gym. My husband's weight range for the HRM has been between 255 down to 226, but his average heart rate for workouts is a lot higher than 109. I think it's typically in the 140s to 150s now that he is fitter - and that is running a 8.5 min mile.
Also, have you done any workouts outside of the gym to see if there is a difference? It could be that the machines at your gym are affecting the transmitter or maybe too many are trying to connect wirelessly to it at once.0 -
I have the Polar FT4 and it works great.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?
I dont think they should be ignored as much as just used as a reference tool to see how you are doing day to day on your workouts. I have a polar f4 , i used to have a ft7 and saw that there was never really a huge difference in calories burned. I do do use those caloies burned down to the exact number. i have a set amount of calories i try to eat each day. If i have one day where i worked out for twice as long i eat a little bit more for that day. I do track my caloris burned but more for me just to see if i am burning more or slacking off. I know you want specific data on the polar model but honestly i dont think anyone here will have the answer you want. I just think you best bet is to use a tool online to figure out calories needed for specific amount of activity ( mod active or extremly active ) and set that as your calories. Just use the calories burned on your HRM to see how you are doing. I just try to make sure that my HR stays above a certain range so that i know i worked hard for that workout
hard to use the Polar numbers when you suspect they are 30-50% off.
But if they are consistantly off then there should be no problem. If you are not using the calories burned as part of your calorie intake then just simply using them to base how much effort is put into each workout ( higher HR) . I would say if doing your same workout 2 days in a row and one day showing 500 calories burned and the next day showing 900 calories burned then there is a problem, but if the same workout is showing roughly the same number of calories burned each time then you should be able to use that0 -
Apparently there is something in the instructions stating the specific parameters for most reliability.
109 is quite a low heart rate for exercise so maybe you are working outside of their most reliable zones?
I'm almost your weight but get an average of 131-146bpm depending on day and what I do but when I have worn my partner's FT7 (set to my details) it's always been very close to the calorie readings the gym machine records.0 -
Readings probably not right cause your heart rate isn't that high, a HRM is meant for active more strenuous calorie counts for the estimates, when your heart rate is lower the readings aren't accurate.. I have the FT7 and when I am very active and moving my readings are probably as accurate as they are going to be. This is why you don't wear the HRM for walks or all day events.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, there is a setting for max heart rate. Mine set it automatically when I purchased it and put in my data. However, it can be changed. Check again and yes, I have the FT7!0 -
You need to seriously up your workrate to get your HR into an actual zone. I don't care if you're 16, 26, 36 or 46, your using your HRM outside the "normal" range at which it's algorithms will be closer to (but not) accurate.
BTW, HRM's are useful for telling you if you're slacking off in a steady state cardio type workout, or if you're getting in and out of zones in an interval workout. For accuracy in calories burnt? Not so much....0 -
My FT7 works fine. Or appears to be.0
-
Mine seems to work fine. Honestly I kind of stopped reading when you indicated your heart rate at 109.....The only time mine is there is when I am warming up/cooling down.0
-
the new versions of the FT7 do NOT allow you to enter zones, VO2 max, or max heart rate.
You might want to re-check - I have a FT7 purchased one month ago. It allows me to set max heart rate under "User Information". Of course, I suppose it's possible that mine had been on the shelf a really long time before I bought it...
Nope. does not allow it. for sure. 100%, on both of mine.
Got a brand spanking new one 2 weeks ago and it does..... it's the last setting.0 -
Checking my ft7 logs, I have averages between 144-158 on majority of my runs... with max in the 180's on the hills... from as little as a mile to a half marathon. I'm 41 and 6'1"/ 205. My burns on said runs average 16-17 cal/min.
Are you upset that you aren't getting the burn you want? I seriously doubt if it was wrong that no one would have noticed it before now. I mean there are tens of thousands of overweight people using Polar HRM's.
Also- With all due respect, not knowing or understanding the formula that Polar uses, you can't very well say it's any more flawed than any other method.
109 is very low for an average. And since you keep saying that 100 and under are way too low to be accurate, than 109 is too close to 100 to be trusted IMO.
Checking a HRM against a gym equipment estimate is not a good way to check it. You are checking an estimate with a less accurate estimate.
I think your only decent answer / conclusion will come from Polar's response, whenever that happens.
Good luck0 -
This.so, you are saying all HRM calorie burn estimates should be ignored?
Yes. That is why they are called "HEART RATE" monitors, not "CALORIE" monitors.
Just as you don't trust your odometer in your car to tell you how fast you are driving or the temperature reading on your GPS to pick out your clothing for the day.0 -
This is why I gave up on heart rate monitors in the first few months after I started losing. They just aren't worth the money.
Also... and I'm not sure where I read this, but...
I think the formula used to calculate the calorie burn on the HRM cannot be applied to those who are morbidly obese. I think there are some additional factors that come into play and the HRM's just aren't programmed to account for it.
Again, I could be wrong on that.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.
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.
yeah, that was kind of rude. I apologize to the original poster and everyone else here. Just a bit frustrated with not much data.
But really, I'd like to know what is going on. Again, this applies to really a relatively small amount of people. Not many people are in the very high range so not many can really reply with significant data since most replies will be at lower weights and their data is not in question. By high weight I'm saying 300+, but it could be lower. not sure.
Ok, cool, I'm glad that you can admit it and apologized. Yeah, I can understand being frustrated because something is not right with the HRM! Good luck getting data and answers.0 -
so, you are saying all HRM calorie burn estimates should be ignored?
Yes. That is why they are called "HEART RATE" monitors, not "CALORIE" monitors.
Just as you don't trust your odometer in your car to tell you how fast you are driving or the temperature reading on your GPS to pick out your clothing for the day.
Thank you. Saying what we tried to say on page one or two, and making me giggle while doing it :flowerforyou:0 -
Been using my Polar FT60 for a few years now and rely on my calorie burn number to eat back 85% of those exercise calories leaving 15% for error and have managed to lose a few pounds so in my own personal opinion, I think I will continue on with the status quo, whats the old saying "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." For the record my avg. burns are 14 calories a minute and that is with a heart rate running between 145-160 with a few peaks towards the end pushing 170.... This has not changed a whole heck of a lot from the time I was over 400 (couldn't walk back at 560 lbs. so I spent over a year walking in a therapy pool before I could get fitted with braces and walk on dry ground and is when I started using a heart rate monitor.) til now maybe 4 cal. burn a minute difference roughly between now and back then which amounts to around 200 calories over a 65 minute period...... Best of Luck...0
-
so, you are saying all HRM calorie burn estimates should be ignored?
Yes. That is why they are called "HEART RATE" monitors, not "CALORIE" monitors.
Just as you don't trust your odometer in your car to tell you how fast you are driving or the temperature reading on your GPS to pick out your clothing for the day.
If the temperature on my GPS says 20º F, then I think I'm dressing warm and wearing a coat. 0 -
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.
Err, no, it demonstrates that the equation is, at least on my watch not showing the same issue as yours with respect to weight. Higher weight = higher burn (all other variables constant). BTW using avr HR in your calc assumes that burn is linear with increase in HR, it isn't.
Eta: this thread is all over the place - are you trying to test the HR equation dependency at higher weight or just putting in a lot of doubt on HRM. I'm nt even sur that the data set includes enough people for the equations at weights higher than 300 lbs.
And I don't buy the dea that weight is coded on a bit level that would invalidate beyond 256 lbs, I'm using kg and my watch is limited to 199 kgs. You might try to set your watch to kg and see if you get the same results.0 -
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.
Err, no, it demonstrates that the equation is, at least on my watch not showing the same issue as yours with respect to weight. Higher weight = higher burn (all other variables constant). BTW using avr HR in your calc assumes that burn is linear with increase in HR, it isn't.
Eta: this thread is all over the place - are you trying to test the HR equation dependency at higher weight or just putting in a lot of doubt on HRM. I'm nt even sur that the data set includes enough people for the equations at weights higher than 300 lbs.
And I don't buy the dea that weight is coded on a bit level that would invalidate beyond 256 lbs, I'm using kg and my watch is limited to 199 kgs. You might try to set your watch to kg and see if you get the same results.
It is commonly accepted that HRM don't work well at lower heart rates.
I really would like to see what kind of numbers people at high weights have to see if they have gotten similar suspect readings as I have.0 -
so, you are saying all HRM calorie burn estimates should be ignored?
Yes. That is why they are called "HEART RATE" monitors, not "CALORIE" monitors.
Just as you don't trust your odometer in your car to tell you how fast you are driving or the temperature reading on your GPS to pick out your clothing for the day.
You don't trust the odometer on your car? I think you actually prove my point. It should be quite close, within 5%. I think HRM should be within say 10-20% of actual. 20% is not very good either, but you know without doing all the fancy tests you don't really know. I believe my reading are off by 30-50%, which is beyond acceptable range of variance IMO.0 -
You need to seriously up your workrate to get your HR into an actual zone. I don't care if you're 16, 26, 36 or 46, your using your HRM outside the "normal" range at which it's algorithms will be closer to (but not) accurate.
BTW, HRM's are useful for telling you if you're slacking off in a steady state cardio type workout, or if you're getting in and out of zones in an interval workout. For accuracy in calories burnt? Not so much....
I am in a "zone", the "Burn Fat" zone. See below. Age 46. My max heart rate is 176. x by .6 and you get 105.6. So not sure what you are talking about?
Ideal For Benefit Desired Intensity Level (% Maximum heart rate)
Light Exercise Maintain Healthy Heart/Get Fit 50% - 60%
Weight Management Lose Weight/ Burn Fat 60% - 70%
Aerobic Base Building Increase Stamina Aerobic Endurance 70% - 80%
Optimal Conditioning Maintain Excellent Fitness Condition 80% - 90%
Elite Athlete Maintain Superb Athletic Condition 90% - 100%0 -
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.
Err, no, it demonstrates that the equation is, at least on my watch not showing the same issue as yours with respect to weight. Higher weight = higher burn (all other variables constant). BTW using avr HR in your calc assumes that burn is linear with increase in HR, it isn't.
Eta: this thread is all over the place - are you trying to test the HR equation dependency at higher weight or just putting in a lot of doubt on HRM. I'm nt even sur that the data set includes enough people for the equations at weights higher than 300 lbs.
And I don't buy the dea that weight is coded on a bit level that would invalidate beyond 256 lbs, I'm using kg and my watch is limited to 199 kgs. You might try to set your watch to kg and see if you get the same results.
It is commonly accepted that HRM don't work well at lower heart rates.
I really would like to see what kind of numbers people at high weights have to see if they have gotten similar suspect readings as I have.
HR monitors work at lower HRs, what they do not do is calculate the calorie burn accurately as the calorie equation has a higher variance at low HRs. But the HR capture is accurate. Therefore if you test at two weights - it will tell you if the function to cals is higher/lower based on that single parameter even at low HR. It is what I tested for you. It has nothing to do with accuracy but difference of results at two weight settings.
I'll do a test at a higher HR later today, just to provide you with the info. I expect I will get a higher burn reading at a higher weight setting. I'll even do it with two HRMs (yes, I'm a HRM junky).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