WARNING! POLAR HEART RATE MONITORS DEFECTIVE!
Replies
-
My test - elliptical
Polar Ft7
Avr 102
Max 109
Time 7:01
Cal 41
Weight setting: 85 kg
Avr 100
Max 116
Time 7:01
Cal 36
Weight setting: 158 kg
So is the 0.7 cal/min difference due to the 2 heartbeat average difference or an error in the formula at these higher weights? I guess you'll need to do a set of 20 or more measures at each weight and at different HRs to test. I'm going to stop here.
Again, calories burned in not a linear function of HR - there are some second order elements at rates near HRmax so calculations based on averages are slightly off.
Anyway, trying to pin a small difference of 5 to 10% here has little value as our food calculations already vary at least 15-20% from "nutritional" values.
What makes you think yours is off by up to 50%?
Btw, my garmin gave 0 cals for both, I had forgotten that this unit calculates burn on gps data and sport mode.0 -
My test - elliptical
Polar Ft7
Avr 102
Max 109
Time 7:01
Cal 41
Weight setting: 85 kg
Avr 100
Max 116
Time 7:01
Cal 36
Weight setting: 158 kg
So is the 0.7 cal/min difference due to the 2 heartbeat average difference or an error in the formula at these higher weights? I guess you'll need to do a set of 20 or more measures at each weight and at different HRs to test. I'm going to stop here.
Again, calories burned in not a linear function of HR - there are some second order elements at rates near HRmax so calculations based on averages are slightly off.
Anyway, trying to pin a small difference of 5 to 10% here has little value as our food calculations already vary at least 15-20% from "nutritional" values.
What makes you think yours is off by up to 50%?
Btw, my garmin gave 0 cals for both, I had forgotten that this unit calculates burn on gps data and sport mode.
so your result look about even at both weights. Someone at a higher weight definitely burns more calories than someone at a lesser weight so if you ask me though not as drastic as my results are inverse to what you would expect to your results do support my theory that there is something wrong.
I think the idea is that it takes a lot more energy to move a larger mass at that heart rate than a smaller mass.
And I do understand that it is not linear. In fact, there are quite a number of factors involved. But weight is a big one when there is a large gap.
Still no word from Polar. Very interested to see what they have to say. Love it if they got involved in the post here.0 -
After having a day to digest responses I have a few thoughts. First, I wan't to thank all the people who responded. Next, I did not get the data I was looking for. Some people gave some decent responses, a few verified that they had similar wacky results, others said they had no such problem (but all were people at lower weights where I am not claiming there to be any problems). The few that were at high weights did verify that they had similar problems, but really did not give much data either.
I still can't get by the actual facts. Without changing any other variable other than weight DOWN by 138 pounds my calories burned INCREASED from 6.5 to 8.1 per minute. This is simply ridiculous. Heavier people burn more calories. That's the fact. Many of you pointed out some potential flaws in my assertions, but none of them were valid IMHO.
Frankly none of anyone's objections hold water with me since I only changed one variable making it a valid experiment. I just can't ignore the data. THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH THE POLAR FT7 FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE AT HIGHER WEIGHTS.
Many of you said it's just an estimate, don't take the number seriously. Well, that does not work either since many people use those numbers above machines and online calculators to decide how much to eat and in their goal setting. It can also have a psychological effect when you think you did all this work and so low a calorie burn. If the Polar FT7 is off by 30-50% as I suspect it is that will hinder the ability of people to effectively manage their weight loss plan.
Polar has not gotten back to me either. When they do I will post what they said.0 -
ive own 3 polars in my life so far and ive used two to see if the calories were accurate (with same stats in both watches), one was burning 100 calories more than the other, In a way it does not bother me. Realistically no HRM is dead on.0
-
ive own 3 polars in my life so far and ive used two to see if the calories were accurate (with same stats in both watches), one was burning 100 calories more than the other, In a way it does not bother me. Realistically no HRM is dead on.
not debating stats for people less than 300 pounds and your results are not surprising.0 -
I'll keep this in mind if I ever break 300 but for right now, my FT4 (yeah don't make fun of my dinosaur HRM) works just fine for me at my current weight
0 -
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.
Crap, I meant to say tachometer (which reports engine RPMs) and killed my own analogy.
Given that heart rate itself is highly variable (it goes up in the heat, down in the cold, up when physically tired, down when neurologically tired, up when nervous, up when scared, up when annoyed, up when dehydrated, up when you have been exercising more than about 30 minutes... and on and on and on), you really can't expect any monitor to give you an accurate calorie burn on heart rate alone (even if you include VO2max, body weight, and body fat stats).Many of you said it's just an estimate, don't take the number seriously. Well, that does not work either since many people use those numbers above machines and online calculators to decide how much to eat and in their goal setting. It can also have a psychological effect when you think you did all this work and so low a calorie burn. If the Polar FT7 is off by 30-50% as I suspect it is that will hinder the ability of people to effectively manage their weight loss plan.
The same could be said for every piece of fitness equipment in every gym and every website that provides calorie information.
It's not news, but I think I lot of people like the artificially high calorie burn numbers so they accept it. It's one likely explanation for why so many machines reading high, but none reading low.
Someone decided that HRMs and fitness machines should report calories, and suddenly they all did it, whether it was accurate or not.0 -
Peter
Did you retest several times? Did you try this with Kgs vs lbs?
While your HRM might not work, I'm not seeing evidence that this is a general issue with all FT7 especially since setting resting HR and MaxHR are parameters that can be set on mine and others but not in yours. Perhaps you have a faulty/counterfeit/old one?
I'm going for a long run this weekend, might do a more extensive test.0 -
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.
Okay, I did that website, and it said I would only burn about 3.59 calories per minute with a heart rate of 109 BPM. I then looked at the formula they are using:
(age*.074 + kg*.1263 + hrmBPM*.4472 -20.4022) * time / 4.184
Using this formula, entering the exact same stats, it gave me a calories burned per minute of 11.07 for my stats. I played around in Excel to see where the discrepency is coming in, and it appears that the calculator, for some reason, is SUBTRACTING the (kg*.1263) part instead of adding it. Maybe the HRM is doing something similar?
Conversely, using the calculations for male seems to be match up with the calculator and with the formula. I think there must be a glich somewhere because logic tells me that a person weighing 2x what another person does would burn more calories if their HR and ages and sexes were the same, no matter what the other factors.
ETA: Just found this same formula on a Livestrong article, however it does have that you subtract the weight and not add it. The men's formula adds the weight on the Livestrong article. I'm not understanding why a man's caloric burned would be positively effected by the weight but a woman's would be negatively effected? Granted, men generally have more LBM, but having more weight is still going to have a positive effect on caloric burn, right? Am I missing something here?0 -
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.
Okay, I did that website, and it said I would only burn about 3.59 calories per minute with a heart rate of 109 BPM. I then looked at the formula they are using:
(age*.074 + kg*.1263 + hrmBPM*.4472 -20.4022) * time / 4.184
Using this formula, entering the exact same stats, it gave me a calories burned per minute of 11.07 for my stats. I played around in Excel to see where the discrepency is coming in, and it appears that the calculator, for some reason, is SUBTRACTING the (kg*.1263) part instead of adding it. Maybe the HRM is doing something similar?
Conversely, using the calculations for male seems to be match up with the calculator and with the formula. I think there must be a glich somewhere because logic tells me that a person weighing 2x what another person does would burn more calories if their HR and ages and sexes were the same, no matter what the other factors.
ETA: Just found this same formula on a Livestrong article, however it does have that you subtract the weight and not add it. The men's formula adds the weight on the Livestrong article. I'm not understanding why a man's caloric burned would be positively effected by the weight but a woman's would be negatively effected? Granted, men generally have more LBM, but having more weight is still going to have a positive effect on caloric burn, right? Am I missing something here?
yes, something is wrong to be certain. still no word from Polar. Great customer service. sigh.0 -
Peter
Did you retest several times? Did you try this with Kgs vs lbs?
While your HRM might not work, I'm not seeing evidence that this is a general issue with all FT7 especially since setting resting HR and MaxHR are parameters that can be set on mine and others but not in yours. Perhaps you have a faulty/counterfeit/old one?
I'm going for a long run this weekend, might do a more extensive test.
HR can be set in mine. Someone here clued me in on it.
But it is a non factor since that variable didn't change in the experiment.
I did a lot of minutes multiple times at both setting. Reading are consistent at both weights with what I had posted. I have 6 MONTHS of data. Not just a few sessions.
I did this with 2 different Polar FT7. Exact same results for both.
I highly doubt it is counterfeit. Bought from a very reputable source here in USA. you never know though.0 -
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.
Crap, I meant to say tachometer (which reports engine RPMs) and killed my own analogy.
Given that heart rate itself is highly variable (it goes up in the heat, down in the cold, up when physically tired, down when neurologically tired, up when nervous, up when scared, up when annoyed, up when dehydrated, up when you have been exercising more than about 30 minutes... and on and on and on), you really can't expect any monitor to give you an accurate calorie burn on heart rate alone (even if you include VO2max, body weight, and body fat stats).Many of you said it's just an estimate, don't take the number seriously. Well, that does not work either since many people use those numbers above machines and online calculators to decide how much to eat and in their goal setting. It can also have a psychological effect when you think you did all this work and so low a calorie burn. If the Polar FT7 is off by 30-50% as I suspect it is that will hinder the ability of people to effectively manage their weight loss plan.
The same could be said for every piece of fitness equipment in every gym and every website that provides calorie information.
It's not news, but I think I lot of people like the artificially high calorie burn numbers so they accept it. It's one likely explanation for why so many machines reading high, but none reading low.
Someone decided that HRMs and fitness machines should report calories, and suddenly they all did it, whether it was accurate or not.
That is an interesting point. Maybe all calories burned estimates are a big scam. This is a problem though if you are trying to manage your weigh loss program. "Experts" say you should not consume less calories than 2-30% of your TDEE. You need to know how many calories you burned in the gym to get an idea. But it seems like you should be able to get the number right say within 10-20% of the actual even in the estimates? That is just pulling it out of this air. I'm sure someone has done a study somewhere on the range of accuracy of these calorie burned estimates. anyone? Buehler? Buehler? anyone?0 -
In 2008 I started off at 310lbs and used a basic polar watch (can't remember the model)
I started off slow to build up my fitness and my average calorie burn in an hour was about 500(ish) with an av hr in the 140's
I changed my watch to the ft40 which had the fitness test in it and looking at my average burns about 6 months later - burns are up to the 700's for the same time period my av hr is about the same - although my max hr seemed to be higher. Obviously after spending a lot of time in the gym my fitness levels were improved and I was doing more effective training.
My watch stopped working, so I got an ft7 - and I didn't know what to make of it as the calorie burns I was getting for the hour were a lot less - (in the 400's) - so I thought either a) I was getting fitter so was not having to exert myself as much b) I was not working out as hard as I used to.
I found it very demotivating and realised that my old watch worked with the new watches chest strap - so for the sake of consistency with my burns - I went back to my old watch.
I am obviously 85lbs lighter than when I re-started a year ago and I have to work harder to get higher burns, my max heart rate and average heart rate is higher now - but I do change my weight on the watch regularly -
To check what you are saying - the easiest way would be for me to do a session to calibrate both watches - track the differences then change the weight on one of the watches for the next similar session and re-calibrate - that would be enough to do a quick ration calculation - it would be interesting all the same as it annoys me that my newer watch reports less.
I don't typically eat all my exercise calories because of the discrepancy, and use my hrm more as a fitness gauge and motivator for the session.
I don't know if that helps you or not?0 -
DISCLAIMER: I haven't read through all the posts, so I'm not sure if any of what I'm about to say has been addressed.
I've had a Polar FT6 for almost two years, and found it to be surprisingly accurate -- even tested it with my doctor.
But 109 *does* seem a tad low for a good calorie burn on a larger person. I'm 5'2", 43 (almost 44) years old, weigh between 120-125 pounds, and my Polar tells me that my optimum "zone" is between 141-158. It's been said that they're not as accurate at calculating calorie burn for lower heart rates, so that may be the issue.
Then again... damnit Jim, I'm a "cardio bunny" not an engineer!!!0 -
I have an FT7. But I won't test it to give you data because mine has the max HR setting, and you claim yours does not. Ergo, you have a totally different HRM than I do. Does ANYONE else have an FT7 that does NOT have the max HR setting? Those are the people who you would want to have data from. Because if there's a flaw, it appears to be only in the new FT7... Though I have a hard time understanding why Polar would suddenly change their design rather than just pump out the same hardware with a different model number.
You could test the byte theory by setting your watch to 254lbs and taking data, then 255lbs, then 256lbs, then 257lbs. If you see a big discrepency in there, the byte theory would be very credible.
I love my Polar FT7, but I always notice my burns going down when I adjust my weight down, though I was just under 300 when I first got it. And again, mine is the original FT7 with max HR setting, which I suspect has no defect.0 -
Here's the best I can do for data. I used the FT7 from 3/14 to 9/21, changed HRM's because I wanted a unit with GPS. The data below reflects the two furthest dates where the maxHR was set the same (189). maxHR was determined by taking the highest HR from running a 5K at race speed with a 2 minute uphill sprint at the end (183) and adding 5. I will also note that I have equaled but not eclipsed the 183 HR at any time, including periodical retesting of the above test or doing sprint intervals. Both runs were done outside on almost the same route. Where I live the weather could have been very different. Normally in May it's still cool and not as humid as compared to September but I can't be specific as I don't track weather onditions. Both runs were early in the morning (pre-sunrise). I do set my weight on my HRM's to a lower 5lb increment.
5/8/12-305.2 lbs (HRM weight set to 305 lbs)
45:00 min-AveHR 137-MaxHR 147-Cal 518
9/21/12-245.8 lbs (HRM weight set to 245 lbs)
46:34 min-AveHR 138-MaxHR 145-Cal 619
Using the online calculator, the 5/8 run burned 734 cal, the 9/21 704 cal.0 -
As promised, another test set.
Today's run
I had some issues getting the gps synced on the Garmin, but here are my readings:
Garmin 405 (gps only, HR strap off, started with 4 min delay): 684cal 56 min 7:36 km 12.2 cal/min
Polar FT7: 731 cal 59 min 12.3 cal/min
Mapmyfitness(weight in profile was wrong by 10 kgs, my old weight (woot!)) : 993 cal 60 min 8.44 km 16.55 cal/min
I did not change the weight setting on the FT7 in the middle of the run, had enough issues with the GPS today.
So, my conclusion is that my FT7 gives me results close to the Garmin (< 0.8% difference!) and is sufficiently reliable, for me. I'll continue using the combo as I like the track and distance info from the Garmin. I also have a Garmin 800, so I could try a run with all 4 tracking devices but I might get struck by lightning.0 -
Here's the best I can do for data. I used the FT7 from 3/14 to 9/21, changed HRM's because I wanted a unit with GPS. The data below reflects the two furthest dates where the maxHR was set the same (189). maxHR was determined by taking the highest HR from running a 5K at race speed with a 2 minute uphill sprint at the end (183) and adding 5. I will also note that I have equaled but not eclipsed the 183 HR at any time, including periodical retesting of the above test or doing sprint intervals. Both runs were done outside on almost the same route. Where I live the weather could have been very different. Normally in May it's still cool and not as humid as compared to September but I can't be specific as I don't track weather onditions. Both runs were early in the morning (pre-sunrise). I do set my weight on my HRM's to a lower 5lb increment.
5/8/12-305.2 lbs (HRM weight set to 305 lbs)
45:00 min-AveHR 137-MaxHR 147-Cal 518
9/21/12-245.8 lbs (HRM weight set to 245 lbs)
46:34 min-AveHR 138-MaxHR 145-Cal 619
Using the online calculator, the 5/8 run burned 734 cal, the 9/21 704 cal.
These numbers look really odd, right? 60 pounds lighter and 100 more calories burned with very close heart rates. Something is up, right?
Congrats on the weight loss by the way!!!! Way to go!
And thank you for the actual data. This is what we need to get some idea of what is going on. 0 -
RESPONSE IN CAPS:In 2008 I started off at 310lbs and used a basic polar watch (can't remember the model)
I started off slow to build up my fitness and my average calorie burn in an hour was about 500(ish) with an av hr in the 140's
I changed my watch to the ft40 which had the fitness test in it and looking at my average burns about 6 months later - burns are up to the 700's for the same time period my av hr is about the same - although my max hr seemed to be higher. Obviously after spending a lot of time in the gym my fitness levels were improved and I was doing more effective training.
My watch stopped working, so I got an ft7 - and I didn't know what to make of it as the calorie burns I was getting for the hour were a lot less - (in the 400's) - so I thought either a) I was getting fitter so was not having to exert myself as much b) I was not working out as hard as I used to.
I found it very demotivating and realised that my old watch worked with the new watches chest strap - so for the sake of consistency with my burns - I went back to my old watch.
I am obviously 85lbs lighter than when I re-started a year ago and I have to work harder to get higher burns, my max heart rate and average heart rate is higher now - but I do change my weight on the watch regularly -
To check what you are saying - the easiest way would be for me to do a session to calibrate both watches - track the differences then change the weight on one of the watches for the next similar session and re-calibrate - that would be enough to do a quick ration calculation - it would be interesting all the same as it annoys me that my newer watch reports less.
I don't typically eat all my exercise calories because of the discrepancy, and use my hrm more as a fitness gauge and motivator for the session.
I don't know if that helps you or not?
YOU WROTE: In 2008 I started off at 310lbs and used a basic polar watch (can't remember the model)
I started off slow to build up my fitness and my average calorie burn in an hour was about 500(ish) with an av hr in the 140's
ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT FOR YOUR HEART RATE AND WEIGHT THIS BURN SOUNDS VERY LOW.
YOU WROTE:
I changed my watch to the ft40 which had the fitness test in it and looking at my average burns about 6 months later - burns are up to the 700's for the same time period my av hr is about the same - although my max hr seemed to be higher. Obviously after spending a lot of time in the gym my fitness levels were improved and I was doing more effective training.
ASSUMING YOU WERE AT THE SAME WEIGHT WITH THE NEW WATCH THIS SHOWS ABOUT 30% REDUCTION IN CALORIES BURNED WHEN YOU SIMPLY CHANGED TO A NEW WATCH. AM I READING THIS WRONG?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE, IT DOES GIVE SOME VALUABLE DATA BUT I'M NOT SURE QUITE WHAT TO MAKE OF IT. IT SEEMS THAT YOU THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG TOO, RIGHT?0 -
As promised, another test set.
Today's run
I had some issues getting the gps synced on the Garmin, but here are my readings:
Garmin 405 (gps only, HR strap off, started with 4 min delay): 684cal 56 min 7:36 km 12.2 cal/min
Polar FT7: 731 cal 59 min 12.3 cal/min
Mapmyfitness(weight in profile was wrong by 10 kgs, my old weight (woot!)) : 993 cal 60 min 8.44 km 16.55 cal/min
I did not change the weight setting on the FT7 in the middle of the run, had enough issues with the GPS today.
So, my conclusion is that my FT7 gives me results close to the Garmin (< 0.8% difference!) and is sufficiently reliable, for me. I'll continue using the combo as I like the track and distance info from the Garmin. I also have a Garmin 800, so I could try a run with all 4 tracking devices but I might get struck by lightning.
This test was done at lower weight right? Not at 300 plus pounds?0 -
As promised, another test set.
Today's run
I had some issues getting the gps synced on the Garmin, but here are my readings:
Garmin 405 (gps only, HR strap off, started with 4 min delay): 684cal 56 min 7:36 km 12.2 cal/min
Polar FT7: 731 cal 59 min 12.3 cal/min
Mapmyfitness(weight in profile was wrong by 10 kgs, my old weight (woot!)) : 993 cal 60 min 8.44 km 16.55 cal/min
I did not change the weight setting on the FT7 in the middle of the run, had enough issues with the GPS today.
So, my conclusion is that my FT7 gives me results close to the Garmin (< 0.8% difference!) and is sufficiently reliable, for me. I'll continue using the combo as I like the track and distance info from the Garmin. I also have a Garmin 800, so I could try a run with all 4 tracking devices but I might get struck by lightning.
This test was done at lower weight right? Not at 300 plus pounds?
Yes, sorry for not providing that info.
Polar and Garmin at 85 kg. Mapmyfitness at 95 kg.
I did not test at a higher weight setting because I was annoyed with my GPS. This does not provide info for what you are looking at but does compare 2 methods of measure (pure GPS&weight vs HR&weight) for running with a consistent result (NOTE: not necessarily accurate) across the two systems.0 -
As promised, another test set.
Today's run
I had some issues getting the gps synced on the Garmin, but here are my readings:
Garmin 405 (gps only, HR strap off, started with 4 min delay): 684cal 56 min 7:36 km 12.2 cal/min
Polar FT7: 731 cal 59 min 12.3 cal/min
Mapmyfitness(weight in profile was wrong by 10 kgs, my old weight (woot!)) : 993 cal 60 min 8.44 km 16.55 cal/min
I did not change the weight setting on the FT7 in the middle of the run, had enough issues with the GPS today.
So, my conclusion is that my FT7 gives me results close to the Garmin (< 0.8% difference!) and is sufficiently reliable, for me. I'll continue using the combo as I like the track and distance info from the Garmin. I also have a Garmin 800, so I could try a run with all 4 tracking devices but I might get struck by lightning.
This test was done at lower weight right? Not at 300 plus pounds?
Yes, sorry for not providing that info.
Polar and Garmin at 85 kg. Mapmyfitness at 95 kg.
I did not test at a higher weight setting because I was annoyed with my GPS. This does not provide info for what you are looking at but does compare 2 methods of measure (pure GPS&weight vs HR&weight) for running with a consistent result (NOTE: not necessarily accurate) across the two systems.
Thank you for getting back to me on this.
Yeah, I thought the Polar reading looked good for weights that you registered there and many people report it is fine at lower weights just like you.
Something funky though is surely happening at higher weights. It's strange everything perfect about the watch otherwise, they just their algorithm breaks down at higher weights.
The only people who have used it at higher weights here have reported the same problem as me.0 -
Here's the best I can do for data. I used the FT7 from 3/14 to 9/21, changed HRM's because I wanted a unit with GPS. The data below reflects the two furthest dates where the maxHR was set the same (189). maxHR was determined by taking the highest HR from running a 5K at race speed with a 2 minute uphill sprint at the end (183) and adding 5. I will also note that I have equaled but not eclipsed the 183 HR at any time, including periodical retesting of the above test or doing sprint intervals. Both runs were done outside on almost the same route. Where I live the weather could have been very different. Normally in May it's still cool and not as humid as compared to September but I can't be specific as I don't track weather onditions. Both runs were early in the morning (pre-sunrise). I do set my weight on my HRM's to a lower 5lb increment.
5/8/12-305.2 lbs (HRM weight set to 305 lbs)
45:00 min-AveHR 137-MaxHR 147-Cal 518
9/21/12-245.8 lbs (HRM weight set to 245 lbs)
46:34 min-AveHR 138-MaxHR 145-Cal 619
Using the online calculator, the 5/8 run burned 734 cal, the 9/21 704 cal.
These numbers look really odd, right? 60 pounds lighter and 100 more calories burned with very close heart rates. Something is up, right?
Congrats on the weight loss by the way!!!! Way to go!
And thank you for the actual data. This is what we need to get some idea of what is going on.
I will say looking at the numbers now they were not what I would expect. Granted, the raw data does not equal an actual test as there were variables not equal, but I would have expected the Polar data to be along a similar vein to what the calculator would have been (lower weight, "same" workout data, less calories burned). I would had not noticed this as my running/biking data was also being tracked by my Endomondo app and I use the calories burned from that. I used the HRM for real time HR tracking. Also note though that I have not had difficulties loosing weight and by using only one calorie burn calculator (Endomondo in this case) I am able to adjust my calories in to meet my goals, even if the actual calorie burn calculation may not be true. I've also been able to maintain so far my weight goal (220 lbs +/- 2 lbs) 9/10 days (though it's a big adjustment after being in loosing mode for 13 months). Calories burned are like calories in, we want to be as accurate as possible but true numbers will never happen. I just try to find consist ways of measurement and stick with them and make adjustments as necessary.0 -
I have had nothing but trouble with my FT70
-
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.
yes, no response from Polar.
0 -
I have had nothing but trouble with my FT7
What trouble?0 -
After spending almost $300 on mine.... :mad: :mad: :mad:0
-
mine works. 0
-
After spending almost $300 on mine.... :mad: :mad: :mad:
If you are not over 300 pounds I don't think you will have any problems.0 -
mine works.
I guess that they work just fine for 95% of people. But for the 5% who are over 300 they work fine too. BUT the estimated calorie burn is definitely NOT accurate.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