Polar HRM calorie burn estimate accuracy - study

Options
13567

Replies

  • jerber160
    jerber160 Posts: 2,606 Member
    Options
    Personally I don't care if mine is off, just having one in itself, seeing the results makes me WANT to workout more. It makes me want to get more exercise in to see the numbers go up. Ever since I got it I've been in love with it :P Interesting study I guess, mine's an FT60 so I would assume it's a least a little more accurate either way I'm happy, was $130 or whatever it cost well spent imo :D

    this. getting an hrm bumped up my physical activity..
  • gsager
    gsager Posts: 977 Member
    Options
    I have a polar FT4. Been using it for about a year and have had wonderful results. Hate it when people want to put doubt in people's minds.
  • Josie_lifting_cats
    Josie_lifting_cats Posts: 949 Member
    Options
    So in layman's terms, my FT7 is giving me the wrong results in terms of calories burnt?

    That's disappointing.

    How accurate is your calories you're supposed to consume?? That's probably inaccurate too. Everything comes with inaccuracies. So don't worry about it.

    This.

    Just because something is supposed to have x calories, there is quite a variety - a 100 calorie snack pack means it has APPROXIMATELY 100 calories.

    This is why I don't usually eat back exercise calories. On long bike ride days when I burn 1,500+ I will eat a little more, but you just never know.

    This is also why I went past the FT4 and the FT7 and got the FT40 with VO2Max test - not that it's 100% accurate, but it's a little closer. And honestly, I totally agreed with the max heart rate on the test originally - I would reach that point and I would feel like my head was going to explode. The fun part is that now I hit that point a lot. I need to redo my VO2Max test. :happy: (Which essentially is one of the reasons I wanted the HRM - to see myself improving!)
  • UpEarly
    UpEarly Posts: 2,555 Member
    Options
    Just in my experience, my heart rate monitor gives MUCH higher readings that my BodyMedia. I have both a Polar FT4 and a BodyMedia Fit. I use the HRM very infrequently - I don't trust it at all.

    For example, we went on a tough hike last Thursday. Just for kicks, I wore both my BodyMedia and my Polar FT4. The Polar said I burned 1829 calories and the BodyMedia said I burned 889.

    Here are a few other examples of the discrepancy between the two devices:

    65 minutes of circuit training
    Body Media Fit: 284 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 537 calories

    65 minutes of circuit training
    Body Media Fit: 284 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 537 calories

    35 minutes of step aerobics and 30 minutes hiking
    Body Media Fit: 439 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 738 calories

    60 minutes of cardio drills
    Body Media Fit: 361 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 627 calories

    I stopped using my HRM regularly a couple months ago and have been using the BodyMedia to determine my TDEE. It's been very effective. I finally feel like I'm not struggling to accurately figure my maintenance calories.

    Using the BodyMedia, I've stayed a 137 pounds (female, 5'9", 20%bf) for six weeks now - which is exactly where I want to be!
  • gsager
    gsager Posts: 977 Member
    Options
    Bottom line: If you're female and 'eating back' based on your Polar, you probably should cut its estimate in half (33% for the overestimate and some for double counting your BMR). So if it says you burned 500 in Zumba, maybe eat back 250 to really reflect your incremental calorie burn from the workout.
    I have a Polar FT4 and eat back my exercise calories and have had no problem losing weight.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I have a polar FT4. Been using it for about a year and have had wonderful results. Hate it when people want to put doubt in people's minds.

    It's not doubts, it's about how to make it more accurate.

    I love how someone that has never had a HRM before will comment "I love mine, very accurate" - based on what exactly?
    How in the world would someone know it's accurate?
    Because it's different or lower value than MFP?
    Wow.

    Not denying that some level of users will have as decent accuracy as possible. But they would never know that.

    But for women, the majority have a better chance NOT being within HRmax of 220-age by 10 bpm, women are all over the board.

    Hence the benefit of testing for real HRmax, getting stat correct on HRM, and getting better calorie estimate - if purpose is to maximize weight loss, but keep a safe deficit.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Just in my experience, my heart rate monitor gives MUCH higher readings that my BodyMedia. I have both a Polar FT4 and a BodyMedia Fit. I use the HRM very infrequently - I don't trust it at all.

    For example, we went on a tough hike last Thursday. Just for kicks, I wore both my BodyMedia and my Polar FT4. The Polar said I burned 1829 calories and the BodyMedia said I burned 889.

    Here are a few other examples of the discrepancy between the two devices:

    65 minutes of circuit training
    Body Media Fit: 284 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 537 calories

    65 minutes of circuit training
    Body Media Fit: 284 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 537 calories

    35 minutes of step aerobics and 30 minutes hiking
    Body Media Fit: 439 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 738 calories

    60 minutes of cardio drills
    Body Media Fit: 361 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 627 calories

    I stopped using my HRM regularly a couple months ago and have been using the BodyMedia to determine my TDEE. It's been very effective. I finally feel like I'm not struggling to accurately figure my maintenance calories.

    Using the BodyMedia, I've stayed a 137 pounds (female, 5'9", 20%bf) for six weeks now - which is exactly where I want to be!

    Ya, if you think the HRM has chance of inaccuracy, that BMF really does for any exercise related. Just because it's higher doesn't mean that is the one that is inaccurate, not sure the logic on that.

    Even the study quoted above recognized the fact the BMF and others like it are fine for daily non-exercise activity, but not decent exercise.

    Your HRM is much more correct than BMF on every single one of those things.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15126727

    Sensewear makes the BodyMedia and Bodybugg units. Study pointed out when Sensewear provided specific algorithms to be used on the different exercises, much better estimate.
    But do you get to tell the BMF site what your exercise was? No, they still use the general formula's.

    the SenseWear Pro Armband significantly underestimated total energy expenditure by 14.9 +/- 17.5 kcal (6.9 +/- 8.5%) during walking exercise, 32.4 +/- 18.8 kcal (28.9 +/- 13.5%) during cycle ergometry, 28.2 +/- 20.3 kcal (17.7 +/- 11.8%) during stepping exercise, and overestimated total energy expenditure by 21.7 +/- 8.7 kcal (29.3 +/- 13.8%) during arm ergometer exercise (P < or = 0.001).
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    I have a polar FT4. Been using it for about a year and have had wonderful results. Hate it when people want to put doubt in people's minds.

    Yeah, God damn those that throw around facts and research papers done at universities specifically on polar watches that contain math that proves they are inaccurate for women and list it right down to the standard deviations and educating the public. I read the study. It's fact, they published it was inaccurate.
  • UpEarly
    UpEarly Posts: 2,555 Member
    Options
    Just in my experience, my heart rate monitor gives MUCH higher readings that my BodyMedia. I have both a Polar FT4 and a BodyMedia Fit. I use the HRM very infrequently - I don't trust it at all.

    For example, we went on a tough hike last Thursday. Just for kicks, I wore both my BodyMedia and my Polar FT4. The Polar said I burned 1829 calories and the BodyMedia said I burned 889.

    Here are a few other examples of the discrepancy between the two devices:

    65 minutes of circuit training
    Body Media Fit: 284 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 537 calories

    65 minutes of circuit training
    Body Media Fit: 284 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 537 calories

    35 minutes of step aerobics and 30 minutes hiking
    Body Media Fit: 439 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 738 calories

    60 minutes of cardio drills
    Body Media Fit: 361 calories
    Polar FT4 Heart Rate Monitor: 627 calories

    I stopped using my HRM regularly a couple months ago and have been using the BodyMedia to determine my TDEE. It's been very effective. I finally feel like I'm not struggling to accurately figure my maintenance calories.

    Using the BodyMedia, I've stayed a 137 pounds (female, 5'9", 20%bf) for six weeks now - which is exactly where I want to be!

    Ya, if you think the HRM has chance of inaccuracy, that BMF really does for any exercise related. Just because it's higher doesn't mean that is the one that is inaccurate, not sure the logic on that.

    Even the study quoted above recognized the fact the BMF and others like it are fine for daily non-exercise activity, but not decent exercise.

    Your HRM is much more correct than BMF on every single one of those things.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15126727

    Sensewear makes the BodyMedia and Bodybugg units. Study pointed out when Sensewear provided specific algorithms to be used on the different exercises, much better estimate.
    But do you get to tell the BMF site what your exercise was? No, they still use the general formula's.

    the SenseWear Pro Armband significantly underestimated total energy expenditure by 14.9 +/- 17.5 kcal (6.9 +/- 8.5%) during walking exercise, 32.4 +/- 18.8 kcal (28.9 +/- 13.5%) during cycle ergometry, 28.2 +/- 20.3 kcal (17.7 +/- 11.8%) during stepping exercise, and overestimated total energy expenditure by 21.7 +/- 8.7 kcal (29.3 +/- 13.8%) during arm ergometer exercise (P < or = 0.001).

    Meh

    My weight is finally stable/predictable with the BodyMedia numbers. So, whatever... it seems to work for me.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,238 Member
    Options
    So in layman's terms, my FT7 is giving me the wrong results in terms of calories burnt?

    That's disappointing.

    That would be saying too much. It would be more accurate to say it quite likely may be doing so, but the variation could be above or below the actual calories burned.
  • orishp
    orishp Posts: 214 Member
    Options
    Why do women always get the short end of the stick???????

    Oh, well, whatever I am doing is working, so I will continue to do it :)
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    Why do women always get the short end of the stick???????

    Oh, well, whatever I am doing is working, so I will continue to do it :)
    Because they keep dating men who are not well endowed :laugh:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    This is also why I went past the FT4 and the FT7 and got the FT40 with VO2Max test - not that it's 100% accurate, but it's a little closer. And honestly, I totally agreed with the max heart rate on the test originally - I would reach that point and I would feel like my head was going to explode. The fun part is that now I hit that point a lot. I need to redo my VO2Max test. :happy: (Which essentially is one of the reasons I wanted the HRM - to see myself improving!)

    If you want to see how Polar is doing that test without really giving you a VO2max test, they are basing it on a study, and tweaking it.
    But they are using BMI in formula, not the more accurate bodyfat% the study found.

    Here is the study and method of calculating your own VO2max to decent accuracy, probably more than HRM.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/577839-hrm-s-with-vo2max-stat-improve-calorie-estimate

    And here is spreadsheet in this topic that has HRM tab at bottom that has it easier to do. Might see how it compares to what the HRM figured out.
    Because your true HRmax doesn't change with exercise, except for the time of doing none to doing some, but you can't train it higher. VO2max is mostly genetics too, and not that much movement, though some possible if specific training.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/677905-spreadsheet-for-bmr-tdee-deficit-calc-macro-calc-hrm
  • jjl0412
    jjl0412 Posts: 278 Member
    Options
    So in layman's terms, my FT7 is giving me the wrong results in terms of calories burnt?

    That's disappointing.

    So FT7 my wife & I bought are crap.... DAMN!! I'M SUEING THE *kitten* FOR LYING AND RIPPING EVERYBODY OFF!!!!!
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    I have a polar FT4. Been using it for about a year and have had wonderful results. Hate it when people want to put doubt in people's minds.

    It's not doubts, it's about how to make it more accurate.

    I love how someone that has never had a HRM before will comment "I love mine, very accurate" - based on what exactly?
    How in the world would someone know it's accurate?
    Because it's different or lower value than MFP?
    Wow.

    Not denying that some level of users will have as decent accuracy as possible. But they would never know that.

    But for women, the majority have a better chance NOT being within HRmax of 220-age by 10 bpm, women are all over the board.

    Hence the benefit of testing for real HRmax, getting stat correct on HRM, and getting better calorie estimate - if purpose is to maximize weight loss, but keep a safe deficit.

    I am always amazed at how people will dismiss exercise machine calorie numbers out of hand but will accept HRM calorie numbers as "truth" without any question whatsoever.

    Whoever designed human brains had a wicked sense of humor. :tongue:
  • ivikatasha
    ivikatasha Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    I am starting to feel a little stupid. I used your spread sheet to compare the VO2 max thing because I have a polar.

    I got 22.11 for the BMI VO2 max and 21.65 for the BF one. I put it in the website you had a link for in there and there was only a difference of like 2 calories burned. I hope I did this right.....


    On a side note, if my polar is overestimating my calorie burn, it tends to lose my heart rate when I am on the floor doing crunches (it just drops a lot, into the 120s or 110s), which would drop my average heart rate a little bit, so I guess in a way that would somewhat compensate for the overestimation.....


    *brain asplodes!*
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I am always amazed at how people will dismiss exercise machine calorie numbers out of hand but will accept HRM calorie numbers as "truth" without any question whatsoever.

    Whoever designed human brains had a wicked sense of humor. :tongue:

    Do you think the machine values are perhaps way off because the calibration of actual speed is bad?

    I was on a treadmill at gym that was flashing a warning about lubricating the belt or such, so I told the staff.
    "we'll reset the warning"

    Not we'll fix it, not they need oil from time to time, ect. We'll get rid of the warning.

    Made me wonder if they ever did the required re-calc after so many belt miles. I got the manual for it awhile back to use the trainer's features on it (nothing like saving your interval routine under a trainer's code for access later, if I get that machine anyway!) and noticed re-calc is supposed to be part of normal routine on it.

    If belt is off, then speed is off, then calc's is off. Because I just don't see why they wouldn't use the standard calc's for MET's when they know the weight, pace, incline, ect and could nail the calories needed for that effort.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I am starting to feel a little stupid. I used your spread sheet to compare the VO2 max thing because I have a polar.

    I got 22.11 for the BMI VO2 max and 21.65 for the BF one. I put it in the website you had a link for in there and there was only a difference of like 2 calories burned. I hope I did this right.....

    On a side note, if my polar is overestimating my calorie burn, it tends to lose my heart rate when I am on the floor doing crunches (it just drops a lot, into the 120s or 110s), which would drop my average heart rate a little bit, so I guess in a way that would somewhat compensate for the overestimation.....

    You got it exactly. It just means your bodyfat% is probably close to expected for your BMI.
    So the formula's end up with close enough result.

    But for someone very muscular, whose BMI is high but in excellent health and low bodyfat% - they would have a big difference of perhaps 9 VO2.
    Which would still only lead to a difference of 60 calories per hr more. But over the course of a week say 6 hrs of exercise, that's 360 calories, over 1/4 lb difference in potential weight loss.

    I guess I should add a section to spreadsheet on getting HR zone training based on VO2max figure, it is a valid training method too.
    Think that would be useful?
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Options
    As always, great post (and subsequent responses) Heybales. I love when people show up to the party with real information!

    And to those whose HRM numbers are producing the results you want- then stick with it! You may well fall within the population of people for whom the algorithm works. Check back on this thread if and when you hit a plateau. You don't have to take the information presented as a personal affront. It's not- it's just information- the more the better.
  • gogojodee
    gogojodee Posts: 1,261 Member
    Options
    Bump

Categories