WARNING! POLAR HEART RATE MONITORS DEFECTIVE!
Replies
-
Latest data from min, yesterday's run and test.
Total run 53 min or so. Ft7 vs Garmin 405 vs iPhone app.
1) Avr HR 152 193 kcal 13 min 14.8 kcal/ min weight set at 199 kg
2) Avr HR 152 537 kcal 40 min 13.4 kcal/min weight set at 85 kg
10% difference
As comparison mapmyfitness gave me 14.5 kcal/min (90 kg setting, can't get it to change) and the Garmin gave 12 kcal/min (85 kg) based on distance.
So something between 13.4 to 12 seems ok for me. 14.8 does seem too low for 199 kg.0 -
Latest data from min, yesterday's run and test.
Total run 53 min or so. Ft7 vs Garmin 405 vs iPhone app.
1) Avr HR 152 193 kcal 13 min 14.8 kcal/ min weight set at 199 kg
2) Avr HR 152 537 kcal 40 min 13.4 kcal/min weight set at 85 kg
10% difference
As comparison mapmyfitness gave me 14.5 kcal/min (90 kg setting, can't get it to change) and the Garmin gave 12 kcal/min (85 kg) based on distance.
So something between 13.4 to 12 seems ok for me. 14.8 does seem too low for 199 kg.
yeah, no way that can even be close to accurate at the higher weight for the ft7.0 -
After spending almost $300 on mine.... :mad: :mad: :mad:
I've heard the high end ones work better. they allow you to enter more data about yourself.0 -
mine works.
are you 300+ pounds?0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?
Yes, kilos.
You've piqued my data fixation. I'll likely do a whole bunch of evaluations in my runs and I'll let you know. Today's run was more of a focus on my girls who where riding next to me. Even though I used the three tools (polar/Garmin/iPhone) I didn't bother with variations or even differential readings. I'll keep you posted.0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?
Yes, kilos.
You've piqued my data fixation. I'll likely do a whole bunch of evaluations in my runs and I'll let you know. Today's run was more of a focus on my girls who where riding next to me. Even though I used the three tools (polar/Garmin/iPhone) I didn't bother with variations or even differential readings. I'll keep you posted.
The energy is measured by carrying a weight across a distance not time. It's the kcal/mile that matters.0 -
Hardly defective. MY average rate on my run is 158, doing zumba its 121 , doing my steps it's 130. Sorry but I'm guessing it's IS you.
But then I have a FT60 & an FT40 -
Hardly defective. MY average rate on my run is 158, doing zumba its 121 , doing my steps it's 130. Sorry but I'm guessing it's IS you.
But then I have a FT60 & an FT4
If you read the whole post the problem seems to get worse the higher your weight. Seems that you did not bother to really read.0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?
Yes, kilos.
You've piqued my data fixation. I'll likely do a whole bunch of evaluations in my runs and I'll let you know. Today's run was more of a focus on my girls who where riding next to me. Even though I used the three tools (polar/Garmin/iPhone) I didn't bother with variations or even differential readings. I'll keep you posted.
The energy is measured by carrying a weight across a distance not time. It's the kcal/mile that matters.
the more weight you are carrying, certainly more calories or energy will be expended.0 -
I didn't read all of the posts but I do have a question. I don't understand how you can work out for 60 or 90 minutes at your weight and only average 109 bpm? Even when I was 180, my pulse would shoot up to 160 if I walked 20 feet. Now that I've lost 40lbs, my pulse is much lower but I still probably average at least 130 bpm when I'm working out for an hour, with a peak of 160bpm. Unless someone is doing finger exercises, I don't get the average of 109 bpm. Just curious.0
-
I didn't read all of the posts but I do have a question. I don't understand how you can work out for 60 or 90 minutes at your weight and only average 109 bpm? Even when I was 180, my pulse would shoot up to 160 if I walked 20 feet. Now that I've lost 40lbs, my pulse is much lower but I still probably average at least 130 bpm when I'm working out for an hour, with a peak of 160bpm. Unless someone is doing finger exercises, I don't get the average of 109 bpm. Just curious.
For my age it is considered at the lower end of the fat burning zone, 60% of max for me would be 105 bpm for me. So, no problems there. In one phone conversation I had with a Polar employee they also told me that would not be an issue for accuracy. In other words, it is high enough for it to be accurate. I also do some warning down, get a drink between machines which brings the average down a bit. While on the machine I average about 110-120.
I'm talking to a guy from Polar next week and will report. He called me back finally.0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?
Yes, kilos.
You've piqued my data fixation. I'll likely do a whole bunch of evaluations in my runs and I'll let you know. Today's run was more of a focus on my girls who where riding next to me. Even though I used the three tools (polar/Garmin/iPhone) I didn't bother with variations or even differential readings. I'll keep you posted.
The energy is measured by carrying a weight across a distance not time. It's the kcal/mile that matters.
the more weight you are carrying, certainly more calories or energy will be expended.
The more energy expended, the higher the heart rate. If you put weight on my back I will burn more and it will be reflected by a higher heart rate. You can't increase the weight at the same heart rate and wonder why cal/min is going down.0 -
Hardly defective. MY average rate on my run is 158, doing zumba its 121 , doing my steps it's 130. Sorry but I'm guessing it's IS you.
But then I have a FT60 & an FT4
The algorithm for his device does seem wrong for someone weighing 300ish pounds. I'm more concerned about everyone being so hung up on all these calculated guesses and using them like they are real. With everyone's goal being to change their lifestyle to get healthy and many to lose weight, wouldn't it be better to find something fun to do? How long can it keep your interest to keep track of all these wrong numbers. How long before your bored with all this data?0 -
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?
Yes, kilos.
You've piqued my data fixation. I'll likely do a whole bunch of evaluations in my runs and I'll let you know. Today's run was more of a focus on my girls who where riding next to me. Even though I used the three tools (polar/Garmin/iPhone) I didn't bother with variations or even differential readings. I'll keep you posted.
The energy is measured by carrying a weight across a distance not time. It's the kcal/mile that matters.
the more weight you are carrying, certainly more calories or energy will be expended.
The more energy expended, the higher the heart rate. If you put weight on my back I will burn more and it will be reflected by a higher heart rate. You can't increase the weight at the same heart rate and wonder why cal/min is going down.
We aren't carrying more weight we are fiddling with the watch settings which should give a higher burn at a higher weight setting all other parameters being constant.0 -
I've had no problems with my FT4. It gives EXACTLY the same reading as the cardio equipment at my gym after I punch in my details It gave me about a 5000 odd calorie reading for my last marathon and my g'friend who is same age, similar build to me clocked similar results on her FT4 over a same distance. Check your battery, check that you have the strap on properly and the sensors are wet. Remember to adjust your weight in the settings as it changes too. Hope you find a better result.0
-
I love data crunching. Data crunching doesn't exclude doing fun things. I suggest you look at my profile - it suggests that I'm here for the fitness, endurance and "doing things" of it all. Weight loss, body composition and data crunching are just icings on the cake. And I'm a nerd. Seriously.Hardly defective. MY average rate on my run is 158, doing zumba its 121 , doing my steps it's 130. Sorry but I'm guessing it's IS you.
But then I have a FT60 & an FT4
The algorithm for his device does seem wrong for someone weighing 300ish pounds. I'm more concerned about everyone being so hung up on all these calculated guesses and using them like they are real. With everyone's goal being to change their lifestyle to get healthy and many to lose weight, wouldn't it be better to find something fun to do? How long can it keep your interest to keep track of all these wrong numbers. How long before your bored with all this data?0 -
bump0
-
Y'know. I had a mate who was a mad cyclist. He was a really big boy though, but after checking his stats and heart rate, he turned out to be amazingly fit even though his weight never shifted. Mym mum's the same. Built like a bullock and keeps a low heart rate despite her slightly generous size. You might be working at a lower heart rate than you expect. I have trouble getting mine up above the 130s/140s even when powering up really tough hills. Try different intensities and see if you can get variations there. Otherwise just send the watch back for a refund.0
-
Todays data set
Total run 55 min on treadmill
warm up
Avr HR 143 171 kcal 14:30 Weight set 85 --> 11.8 kcal/min
--
Avr HR 163 150 kcal 10:14 Weight set 95 --> 14.6 kcal/min
Avr HR 166 129 kcal 9:12 Weight set 115--> 14.0 kcal/min** yep something fishy from 95kg to 115kg**
Avr HR 162 165 kcal 13.38 weight set 145 --> 12.1 kcal/min** something very fishy **
You could probably graph kcal/min vs Weight for different HRs curves and see how the function shows up.
Thank you for posting your results!
yes, this is inverse of what you would expect.
To confirm those weights entered are in kilos, not pounds?
Yes, kilos.
You've piqued my data fixation. I'll likely do a whole bunch of evaluations in my runs and I'll let you know. Today's run was more of a focus on my girls who where riding next to me. Even though I used the three tools (polar/Garmin/iPhone) I didn't bother with variations or even differential readings. I'll keep you posted.
The energy is measured by carrying a weight across a distance not time. It's the kcal/mile that matters.
the more weight you are carrying, certainly more calories or energy will be expended.
The more energy expended, the higher the heart rate. If you put weight on my back I will burn more and it will be reflected by a higher heart rate. You can't increase the weight at the same heart rate and wonder why cal/min is going down.
We aren't carrying more weight we are fiddling with the watch settings which should give a higher burn at a higher weight setting all other parameters being constant.
Why should it give you a higher burn at a higher weight ? This assumption is wrong.0 -
Good for you, EvgeniZyntx. I love data crunching for the same reasons too. Just part of my personality.0
-
I'm not sure if you got the correct answer in all these pages, because probably only half-dozen that I've seen on MFP has the answers.
That cheaper Polar model has NO stat for VO2max, which is then required to estimate.
Because calories burned is totally related to that stat and HRmax.
So how do you estimate VO2max with no stat?
BMI - Polar assumes that if you weigh more and your BMI is worse, you are less in shape, therefore an elevated HR means you burned say 500 calories to accomplish a given workload for your weight.
But, if you are actually in shape at that weight, your lower HR to accomplish the same work still means you burned 500 calories, but Polar sees the lower HR and assumes being unfit, you didn't work as hard, so they show you only burned 400 calories.
Same thing works if you kept the HR exactly the same, but your weight went down.
Heavy weight, HR of 150, burned 500.
Lower weight, HR of 150, burned 600.
It's not a defect - except for people expecting a HRM with missing stats to give a great estimate of calories burned what that isn't even the tool's primary purpose.
This is why those cheaper models really under-report calories burned as you get fit but don't lose weight as fast.
If you did a treadmill walk at 4 mph at given weight and 1 week into working out, your HR may have been 150.
You kept doing it, you got fit.
You do the same walk at the same weight. Did the workload change? The calories burned is the same. But now your HR only needs to be 120 to do the same amount of work.
Calories burned is the same.
But for the Polar with no VO2max stat, the first walk at 150 gets bigger calorie burn reported than the second walk at 120 - even though the calories burned would be exactly the same!
Which is right? Probably inbetween. That BMI method assumes an average fitness level for given BMI.
Try experimenting - change the height now by about 20 inches and see what happens. Make it taller for given weight so BMI is in healthy zone.0 -
Hardly defective. MY average rate on my run is 158, doing zumba its 121 , doing my steps it's 130. Sorry but I'm guessing it's IS you.
But then I have a FT60 & an FT4
The algorithm for his device does seem wrong for someone weighing 300ish pounds. I'm more concerned about everyone being so hung up on all these calculated guesses and using them like they are real. With everyone's goal being to change their lifestyle to get healthy and many to lose weight, wouldn't it be better to find something fun to do? How long can it keep your interest to keep track of all these wrong numbers. How long before your bored with all this data?
It is demotivating when the data is off by 30-50%.
The data is motivating because net calories lost = weight loss.
I agree its good to find something fun to do is the long term key to staying active and fit.0 -
I'd like to see other people report their data result at different weight. The lower weight seem fine. But the higher the weight it seems the less accurate the results.Y'know. I had a mate who was a mad cyclist. He was a really big boy though, but after checking his stats and heart rate, he turned out to be amazingly fit even though his weight never shifted. Mym mum's the same. Built like a bullock and keeps a low heart rate despite her slightly generous size. You might be working at a lower heart rate than you expect. I have trouble getting mine up above the 130s/140s even when powering up really tough hills. Try different intensities and see if you can get variations there. Otherwise just send the watch back for a refund.0 -
I'm not sure if you got the correct answer in all these pages, because probably only half-dozen that I've seen on MFP has the answers.
That cheaper Polar model has NO stat for VO2max, which is then required to estimate.
Because calories burned is totally related to that stat and HRmax.
So how do you estimate VO2max with no stat?
BMI - Polar assumes that if you weigh more and your BMI is worse, you are less in shape, therefore an elevated HR means you burned say 500 calories to accomplish a given workload for your weight.
But, if you are actually in shape at that weight, your lower HR to accomplish the same work still means you burned 500 calories, but Polar sees the lower HR and assumes being unfit, you didn't work as hard, so they show you only burned 400 calories.
Same thing works if you kept the HR exactly the same, but your weight went down.
Heavy weight, HR of 150, burned 500.
Lower weight, HR of 150, burned 600.
It's not a defect - except for people expecting a HRM with missing stats to give a great estimate of calories burned what that isn't even the tool's primary purpose.
This is why those cheaper models really under-report calories burned as you get fit but don't lose weight as fast.
If you did a treadmill walk at 4 mph at given weight and 1 week into working out, your HR may have been 150.
You kept doing it, you got fit.
You do the same walk at the same weight. Did the workload change? The calories burned is the same. But now your HR only needs to be 120 to do the same amount of work.
Calories burned is the same.
But for the Polar with no VO2max stat, the first walk at 150 gets bigger calorie burn reported than the second walk at 120 - even though the calories burned would be exactly the same!
Which is right? Probably inbetween. That BMI method assumes an average fitness level for given BMI.
Try experimenting - change the height now by about 20 inches and see what happens. Make it taller for given weight so BMI is in healthy zone.
I think most people trying to lose weight the calories burned is the most important stat for them.
Just looking at the raw data though you must see something is amiss. Without changing any other variables when you increase the weight the calories burned goes down. It simply does not make sense.0 -
Y'know. I had a mate who was a mad cyclist. He was a really big boy though, but after checking his stats and heart rate, he turned out to be amazingly fit even though his weight never shifted. Mym mum's the same. Built like a bullock and keeps a low heart rate despite her slightly generous size. You might be working at a lower heart rate than you expect. I have trouble getting mine up above the 130s/140s even when powering up really tough hills. Try different intensities and see if you can get variations there. Otherwise just send the watch back for a refund.
Done the finger to neck thing to check against reality. heart rate of Polar is accurate.0 -
My suggestion in the end would be to go and get a full fitness test done. Then you know whether it's you or your Polar.0
-
I wonder if at the higher weight the "connection" between the HRM and the HR was not as good. My weight has not changed for the last few years but when I am cold my HRM is all wonky. The "connection" to my body is not as good. Could it have been the extra fat getting in the way of a proper HR reading. You know those handheld body fat indicators they use at the gym to tell you how out of shape you are? I was told those don't get as good of a reading if one is dehydrated, has already worked out, it is late in the day etc...if these devices are that sensitive then it is possible that at a certain body fat percentage the HR readings just are not as good?0
-
I'm not sure if you got the correct answer in all these pages, because probably only half-dozen that I've seen on MFP has the answers.
That cheaper Polar model has NO stat for VO2max, which is then required to estimate.
Because calories burned is totally related to that stat and HRmax.
So how do you estimate VO2max with no stat?
BMI - Polar assumes that if you weigh more and your BMI is worse, you are less in shape, therefore an elevated HR means you burned say 500 calories to accomplish a given workload for your weight.
But, if you are actually in shape at that weight, your lower HR to accomplish the same work still means you burned 500 calories, but Polar sees the lower HR and assumes being unfit, you didn't work as hard, so they show you only burned 400 calories.
Same thing works if you kept the HR exactly the same, but your weight went down.
Heavy weight, HR of 150, burned 500.
Lower weight, HR of 150, burned 600.
It's not a defect - except for people expecting a HRM with missing stats to give a great estimate of calories burned what that isn't even the tool's primary purpose.
This is why those cheaper models really under-report calories burned as you get fit but don't lose weight as fast.
If you did a treadmill walk at 4 mph at given weight and 1 week into working out, your HR may have been 150.
You kept doing it, you got fit.
You do the same walk at the same weight. Did the workload change? The calories burned is the same. But now your HR only needs to be 120 to do the same amount of work.
Calories burned is the same.
But for the Polar with no VO2max stat, the first walk at 150 gets bigger calorie burn reported than the second walk at 120 - even though the calories burned would be exactly the same!
Which is right? Probably inbetween. That BMI method assumes an average fitness level for given BMI.
Try experimenting - change the height now by about 20 inches and see what happens. Make it taller for given weight so BMI is in healthy zone.
I think most people trying to lose weight the calories burned is the most important stat for them.
Just looking at the raw data though you must see something is amiss. Without changing any other variables when you increase the weight the calories burned goes down. It simply does not make sense.
He just gave you a very detailed, educated answer as to why you are wrong about this (thank you heybales !).
Increasing your weight without changing any other variables *should* give you a lesser calorie count. Higher weight at the same HR means slower speed, less distance, less work.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