WARNING! POLAR HEART RATE MONITORS DEFECTIVE!

Options
12467…12

Replies

  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    I would suggest contacting Polar directly.

    ^^this. Call Polar and get some answers from them before going off and accusing the products of being defective.

    I have. no reply.

    Care to share some actual data? At lower weights it seems to be more accurate, 190 or less.
  • Goosiesnougs
    Goosiesnougs Posts: 420
    Options
    109 seems a very low heart rate. I am pretty fit (cardio 5 days a week and heavy lifting 5 days as well)

    MY heart rate when I'm running is in the 160's-170's. 109 for BPM seems like you're not working very hard at all.
  • jamie31
    jamie31 Posts: 568 Member
    Options
    http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html

    I used this site and put in 3 different weight, with the same heartrate and and time( as well as same gender and age)

    The first weight I used was 280lbs. HR was 124 for 45 minutes- the total calories burned was 227
    The second weigth i used was 220 everything else was the same and the total calories burned was 264
    At the weight of 190 the calories burned were 282
  • AllonsYtotheTardis
    AllonsYtotheTardis Posts: 16,947 Member
    Options
    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 it does. It defaults to the formula standard. It's under the user settings with weight/height/age/etc. It's the last option. I have the FT7 too.

    okaaaaaay.... found the setting... but I have NO IDEA how to figure what I should enter there.
  • rwhawkes
    rwhawkes Posts: 117 Member
    Options
    The burn goes down as you become more cardio fit not because you have lost weight. Running 3 miles unfit will result in a higher HR average. Running the same 3 miles as a more cardio fit person your burn will go down because you are not pushing your cardio level as you once were. Weight is not involved with that part of it.
    This I strongly doubt since a calorie is a measure of energy, and in this case the energy required to move a certain mass for a certain period of time over a certain distance. To my way of thinking, if the mass changes then less energy is required to move it, and cardiovascular fitness wouldn't be part of the equation.

    In my experience, cardiovascular fitness (or lower heart rate) tends to be linked to weight loss. In other words, if I bust my *kitten* at the gym I will be getting fitter, but my bod will also be changing.
  • Jennaissance
    Jennaissance Posts: 212
    Options
    Why don't you put your stats into one of those online calculators that asks for weight, activity duration and average heart rate and see what it says for calories burned compared to the polar?
  • ShannonMpls
    ShannonMpls Posts: 1,936 Member
    Options
    Regarding the calorie burn, play around with this calculator:

    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    I enter stats as follows:
    33 yo female, exercising 60 minutes with an average HR of 155

    At 300 pounds, she burns 489.48 per hour
    At 170 pounds, she burns 596.5 per hour

    (I am not including v02max in these equations, assuming it is unknown).

    I wonder if the underlying assumption is that the 170 pound woman is fitter than the 300 pound woman, and therefore she is working much harder to sustain a HR of 155 despite her relatively lower body weight. For the 300 pound woman, perhaps the exertion needed to sustain a 155 HR is much lower and therefore her calorie burn is lower.

    I don't know the answer to why the heavier woman is burning fewer calories than the lighter woman per this formula, but the author of the tool includes a discussion for the formulas used to calculate the burn.

    (FWIW, my Polar FT7 shows results very similar to this calculator)
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    109 seems a very low heart rate. I am pretty fit (cardio 5 days a week and heavy lifting 5 days as well)

    MY heart rate when I'm running is in the 160's-170's. 109 for BPM seems like you're not working very hard at all.

    not looking for your comments.

    looking for data. please share. :)
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Options
    http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html

    I used this site and put in 3 different weight, with the same heartrate and and time( as well as same gender and age)

    The first weight I used was 280lbs. HR was 124 for 45 minutes- the total calories burned was 227
    The second weigth i used was 220 everything else was the same and the total calories burned was 264
    At the weight of 190 the calories burned were 282

    Hmm, looking at that calculator was ODD... male and female are different. In males, the calories spent goes up and for females it goes down...

    Settings: 110 bpm, 60 min, age 27
    Male
    500 pounds - 929
    400 pounds - 800
    300 pounds - 671
    200 pounds - 541
    Female
    500 pounds - 30
    400 pounds - 112
    300 pounds - 195
    200 pounds - 277

    This is not correct results at all. If any heart rate monitor is using the same formula as is this website, then it would indeed be defective.
  • BlackTimber
    BlackTimber Posts: 230 Member
    Options
    Your BMR is definitely not accurate. It is just a close guess.

    The amount of calories you burn doing whatever is just an estimate, no matter what.

    It will not take you very long to figure out how many calories you can eat to lose weight. Fixating on the numbers (calories in vs calories out) will never be accurate. Just keep moving and try to have as much fun doing it as you can.

    I understand the slight disappointment that there is an illogical result to the calories on your HRM, but HRM's are more about your heart rate/fitness and confirming that you are working hard enough.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html

    I used this site and put in 3 different weight, with the same heartrate and and time( as well as same gender and age)

    The first weight I used was 280lbs. HR was 124 for 45 minutes- the total calories burned was 227
    The second weigth i used was 220 everything else was the same and the total calories burned was 264
    At the weight of 190 the calories burned were 282

    looking for Polar FT7 data. not site data. site data for calories burn is probably high for most people IMO.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_By_Heart_Rate.html

    I used this site and put in 3 different weight, with the same heartrate and and time( as well as same gender and age)

    The first weight I used was 280lbs. HR was 124 for 45 minutes- the total calories burned was 227
    The second weigth i used was 220 everything else was the same and the total calories burned was 264
    At the weight of 190 the calories burned were 282

    Hmm, looking at that calculator was ODD... male and female are different. In males, the calories spent goes up and for females it goes down...

    Settings: 110 bpm, 60 min, age 27
    Male
    500 pounds - 929
    400 pounds - 800
    300 pounds - 671
    200 pounds - 541
    Female
    500 pounds - 30
    400 pounds - 112
    300 pounds - 195
    200 pounds - 277

    This is not correct results at all. If any heart rate monitor is using the same formula as is this website, then it would indeed be defective.

    I retract my statement: the site is probably not accurate. but I'm looking for actual data from other users who are using the FT7? Care to contribute?
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    Why don't you put your stats into one of those online calculators that asks for weight, activity duration and average heart rate and see what it says for calories burned compared to the polar?

    online calculators are probably not accurate. I posted one and everyone jumped on that. lol.

    what I'm really looking for is actual FT7 data. have any?
  • likemeinvisible
    likemeinvisible Posts: 309
    Options
    My HRM (sigma sport rc 14.11 ) won't register any calories at a heart rate lower than 100. I know the polar does the same but don't know the exact value. Also, it takes me a few minutes to reach my average HR as I warm up.
    So maybe a good portion of your workout is under the cutoff number.
  • cindyhoney2
    cindyhoney2 Posts: 603 Member
    Options
    bump. gonna try this on my FT4
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options

    Point taken. But calories burned has everything to do with heart rate? this is widely accepted. When you get more fit your heart rate gets slower and thus you burn less calories if all other variables are the same.

    You do understand that right?

    This is wrong.

    Calories burned are not directly related to HR. The HRM's use HR as an estimate of perceived exertion (% of max HR) in order to estimate the oxygen uptake. The amount you weigh, Lean body mass, VO2 Max, actual oxygen uptake, and Mets, are much more related to the amount you actually burn vs. HR.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    The burn goes down as you become more cardio fit not because you have lost weight. Running 3 miles unfit will result in a higher HR average. Running the same 3 miles as a more cardio fit person your burn will go down because you are not pushing your cardio level as you once were. Weight is not involved with that part of it.
    This I strongly doubt since a calorie is a measure of energy, and in this case the energy required to move a certain mass for a certain period of time over a certain distance. To my way of thinking, if the mass changes then less energy is required to move it, and cardiovascular fitness wouldn't be part of the equation.

    In my experience, cardiovascular fitness (or lower heart rate) tends to be linked to weight loss. In other words, if I bust my *kitten* at the gym I will be getting fitter, but my bod will also be changing.

    hey there Friend!

    any data to share along with your physics lesson? :)
  • Healthydiner65
    Healthydiner65 Posts: 1,579 Member
    Options
    I disagree. I use the FT7 and it works perfectly!
  • AlichiaMJohnson73
    AlichiaMJohnson73 Posts: 186 Member
    Options
    Class Action Lawsuit...
    do the study...research then consult a lawyer...I bet you have a lawsuit if they don't replace these..which I doubt especially if enough people ask for their money back!
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Options

    Point taken. But calories burned has everything to do with heart rate? this is widely accepted. When you get more fit your heart rate gets slower and thus you burn less calories if all other variables are the same.

    You do understand that right?

    This is wrong.

    Calories burned are not directly related to HR. The HRM's use HR as an estimate of perceived exertion (% of max HR) in order to estimate the oxygen uptake. The amount you weigh, Lean body mass and VO2 Max, oxygen uptake, Mets, etc. are much more related to the amount you actually burn vs. HR.

    understood. so, you are saying all HRM calorie burn estimates should be ignored?

Categories