WARNING! POLAR HEART RATE MONITORS DEFECTIVE!

124678

Replies

  • tenkesh
    tenkesh Posts: 81
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data

    Congratulations peterdt. We've just confirmed that you are the lucky person who said the word "data" for the millionth time. You just won a big pile of bupkis, tell us how you feel.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    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?

    Should start a thread dedicated to that. Otherwise will get lost in this thread. The title of this thread does not read "Looking for FT7 data" or anything remotely similar, nor does the original post.

    I have become quite interested in the topic, especially after seeing the website above give WEIRD results (537 pound, 27 year old female burns NOTHING with a bpm at 110 for 60 minutes >.> ).

    the title you suggest would not have gotten anyone to look at the post. :)
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data
    data

    Congratulations peterdt. We've just confirmed that you are the lucky person who said the word "data" for the millionth time. You just won a big pile of bupkis, tell us how you feel.

    care to share some actual data? lol
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    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.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    bump. gonna try this on my FT4

    awesome. please share when you can. :)
  • sammniamii
    sammniamii Posts: 669 Member
    Every person it DIFFERENT and even using the same devices/training/food, etc will get DIFFERENT readings.

    I did have the FT7, it DID allow me to input "max" rate. I mostly kept my avg heart rate closer to the 115-120 mark. Even walking. When I was larger, I did burn more cals, but the levels weren't drastically different than current levels.

    I currently have the WearLink Bluetooth model and as I need an app to link it, I can't enter my MAX rate. My avg heart rate is still around the 117-121 mark. This is after I've lost nearly 70 pounds. I burn less calories now, but only just slightly. My heart rate stays higher, but I have to work harder to get it there & keep it there.

    If you want to claim this (the monitor is defective), post scientific data collected from a Doctor's office - in order to verify your monitor is reporting accurate data, you need the full range of tests to back up/provide data. Just stating what you found on your machine doesn't mean that as a whole ALL POLAR monitors are defective. It is possible you managed to get 2 truly defective (or older) models. Rare, but conceivable.

    When I used the FT7 it tracked what I considered accurate numbers. The WearLink I use now also seems to have accurate numbers. Until I go to a doctor's office and get all the various tests done to back-up and prove my weight loss, I am more than content using Polar Units.

    Your repeated attempts to get people to post there "concrete" data is annoying and in my eyes, labels you a troll. You only have your calculations from the monitor and a calc, you haven't posted things like your VO2 levels and such.

    If you honestly had an issue with your Monitors, you should have contacted Polar for information and/or verification before screaming out that they are defective without more "proof" than your numbers.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    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.
  • TheWinman
    TheWinman Posts: 684 Member
    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.
  • Jennaissance
    Jennaissance Posts: 212
    I'm actually interested in the answer to this question. I never ended up using the calories on this device because I felt like they were so off. Maybe it's not set up correctly. I couldn't figure out how to enter my max heart rate. I don't have it on me, but I think the last time I used it was a 30 minute run with an average heart rate of 152ish... I'm 31, 161 lbs and female. The device said I burned less than 100 calories!!! WTF!!!

    That's why I ended up using an online calculator that takes that VO thing into account, too. Anywhoo, it's probably user error since I'm not that great with gadgets. If you figure it out, let me know!
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    Every person it DIFFERENT and even using the same devices/training/food, etc will get DIFFERENT readings.

    I did have the FT7, it DID allow me to input "max" rate. I mostly kept my avg heart rate closer to the 115-120 mark. Even walking. When I was larger, I did burn more cals, but the levels weren't drastically different than current levels.

    I currently have the WearLink Bluetooth model and as I need an app to link it, I can't enter my MAX rate. My avg heart rate is still around the 117-121 mark. This is after I've lost nearly 70 pounds. I burn less calories now, but only just slightly. My heart rate stays higher, but I have to work harder to get it there & keep it there.

    If you want to claim this (the monitor is defective), post scientific data collected from a Doctor's office - in order to verify your monitor is reporting accurate data, you need the full range of tests to back up/provide data. Just stating what you found on your machine doesn't mean that as a whole ALL POLAR monitors are defective. It is possible you managed to get 2 truly defective (or older) models. Rare, but conceivable.

    When I used the FT7 it tracked what I considered accurate numbers. The WearLink I use now also seems to have accurate numbers. Until I go to a doctor's office and get all the various tests done to back-up and prove my weight loss, I am more than content using Polar Units.

    Your repeated attempts to get people to post there "concrete" data is annoying and in my eyes, labels you a troll. You only have your calculations from the monitor and a calc, you haven't posted things like your VO2 levels and such.

    If you honestly had an issue with your Monitors, you should have contacted Polar for information and/or verification before screaming out that they are defective without more "proof" than your numbers.

    I did contact Polar. they did not reply.

    A troll is someone who posts something off topic. I am trying to get data about this very topic. The post title is true IMHO. But would like to get some more opinions. :)

    Actual data is useful. All else is mostly opinions.

    you have an old version of the FT7. New ones don't allow entry.
  • HeatherMN
    HeatherMN Posts: 3,821 Member
    I have a newer FT7 (purchased new from Target in October 2012) and it does allow me to set the max HR under Training Settings>Heart rate upper limit. You can manually adjust, so you don't have to choose the standard 220-age if you don't want to or if that doesn't make sense for your averages. However, when you have the max HR setting as OFF, it will use the standard 220-age.

    I previously had an F6 and the FT7 numbers are correlating very closely to the F6 and I was/am showing lower calorie burns as my weight drops. I am using the 220-age default on my watch at this time.

    With the F6, my weight ranged from 218 to 176 lbs. With the FT7, my weight has bounced around the 189-197 range, so I may still be in that range that appears to be showing more accurate numbers.

    Hope you find the answers you're looking for!
  • TheWinman
    TheWinman Posts: 684 Member
    I'm actually interested in the answer to this question. I never ended up using the calories on this device because I felt like they were so off. Maybe it's not set up correctly. I couldn't figure out how to enter my max heart rate. I don't have it on me, but I think the last time I used it was a 30 minute run with an average heart rate of 152ish... I'm 31, 161 lbs and female. The device said I burned less than 100 calories!!! WTF!!!

    That's why I ended up using an online calculator that takes that VO thing into account, too. Anywhoo, it's probably user error since I'm not that great with gadgets. If you figure it out, let me know!

    Yeah, something is not right. I'm guessing you should have burned about 300 calories or so.
  • imaginaryplaces
    imaginaryplaces Posts: 123 Member

    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...
  • Jennaissance
    Jennaissance Posts: 212
    I'm actually interested in the answer to this question. I never ended up using the calories on this device because I felt like they were so off. Maybe it's not set up correctly. I couldn't figure out how to enter my max heart rate. I don't have it on me, but I think the last time I used it was a 30 minute run with an average heart rate of 152ish... I'm 31, 161 lbs and female. The device said I burned less than 100 calories!!! WTF!!!

    That's why I ended up using an online calculator that takes that VO thing into account, too. Anywhoo, it's probably user error since I'm not that great with gadgets. If you figure it out, let me know!

    Yeah, something is not right. I'm guessing you should have burned about 300 calories or so.

    I know! I also have a HRM watch thing I got b/f the polar. It doesn't have calories, so before I got the polar I always had to try to estimate calories based on heart rate and I have to say this device is about 1/3 of what I was expecting based on what I was doing before.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    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.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member

    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.
  • Jennaissance
    Jennaissance Posts: 212
    [/quote]

    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.
    [/quote]

    Well I'm not in a very high range, but I think it's totally off for me too! I understand your frustration!
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    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.

    Not just that, they are male, which we know the calculation embedded has a positive correlation to calories burned. For women some reason most calcs include a negative correlation.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    I have a newer FT7 (purchased new from Target in October 2012) and it does allow me to set the max HR under Training Settings>Heart rate upper limit. You can manually adjust, so you don't have to choose the standard 220-age if you don't want to or if that doesn't make sense for your averages. However, when you have the max HR setting as OFF, it will use the standard 220-age.

    I previously had an F6 and the FT7 numbers are correlating very closely to the F6 and I was/am showing lower calorie burns as my weight drops. I am using the 220-age default on my watch at this time.

    With the F6, my weight ranged from 218 to 176 lbs. With the FT7, my weight has bounced around the 189-197 range, so I may still be in that range that appears to be showing more accurate numbers.

    Hope you find the answers you're looking for!

    Thank you for your feedback and info on setting max heart rate.

    I think the problem is for people at higher weights, like around 300 pounds or more.
  • AndreaGrace29
    AndreaGrace29 Posts: 51 Member
    peter - you sound like you are just killing time here. you have no proof that it's defective and you should have CALLED, not emailed, CALLED Polar for assistance. Then you could SPEAK with someone who knows what’s going on with your monitor. No matter how much "data" you collect from a forum, you will not get what you really need - and what you need will only come from the manufacturer directly.

    Everyone is only posting their experiences and opinions (no offense, everyone) and the factual info on the product you are questioning is best handled by a rep from Polar. Call them. Information over email and forums gets easily lost in translation. A phone call would have saved all of this.
  • dawlschic007
    dawlschic007 Posts: 636 Member
    I'm actually interested in the answer to this question. I never ended up using the calories on this device because I felt like they were so off. Maybe it's not set up correctly. I couldn't figure out how to enter my max heart rate. I don't have it on me, but I think the last time I used it was a 30 minute run with an average heart rate of 152ish... I'm 31, 161 lbs and female. The device said I burned less than 100 calories!!! WTF!!!

    That's why I ended up using an online calculator that takes that VO thing into account, too. Anywhoo, it's probably user error since I'm not that great with gadgets. If you figure it out, let me know!

    Yeah, something is not right. I'm guessing you should have burned about 300 calories or so.

    I know! I also have a HRM watch thing I got b/f the polar. It doesn't have calories, so before I got the polar I always had to try to estimate calories based on heart rate and I have to say this device is about 1/3 of what I was expecting based on what I was doing before.

    Did your watch beep to notify you that it wasn't getting a good signal from the transmitter? That sounds like one of the possible reasons why it didn't give you an accurate calorie burn. Sometimes my strap will move down a bit and it stops counting calories for awhile until it is fixed or moves back into the proper place.
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    peter - you sound like you are just killing time here. you have no proof that it's defective and you should have CALLED, not emailed, CALLED Polar for assistance. Then you could SPEAK with someone who knows what’s going on with your monitor. No matter how much "data" you collect from a forum, you will not get what you really need - and what you need will only come from the manufacturer directly.

    Everyone is only posting their experiences and opinions (no offense, everyone) and the factual info on the product you are questioning is best handled by a rep from Polar. Call them. Information over email and forums gets easily lost in translation. A phone call would have saved all of this.

    called also. yielded nothing. took my info and said would get back to me. offered a call tag to send mine in to have it checked. sigh.
  • neilisfat
    neilisfat Posts: 20 Member
    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.
  • siehatsdrauf
    siehatsdrauf Posts: 320 Member
    bump
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    I'm actually interested in the answer to this question. I never ended up using the calories on this device because I felt like they were so off. Maybe it's not set up correctly. I couldn't figure out how to enter my max heart rate. I don't have it on me, but I think the last time I used it was a 30 minute run with an average heart rate of 152ish... I'm 31, 161 lbs and female. The device said I burned less than 100 calories!!! WTF!!!

    That's why I ended up using an online calculator that takes that VO thing into account, too. Anywhoo, it's probably user error since I'm not that great with gadgets. If you figure it out, let me know!

    Yeah, something is not right. I'm guessing you should have burned about 300 calories or so.

    I know! I also have a HRM watch thing I got b/f the polar. It doesn't have calories, so before I got the polar I always had to try to estimate calories based on heart rate and I have to say this device is about 1/3 of what I was expecting based on what I was doing before.

    Did your watch beep to notify you that it wasn't getting a good signal from the transmitter? That sounds like one of the possible reasons why it didn't give you an accurate calorie burn. Sometimes my strap will move down a bit and it stops counting calories for awhile until it is fixed or moves back into the proper place.

    No problem there. I know exactly what you are talking about. It does happen once in awhile and I do notice it. But its usually for only a few seconds. I have also went to the trouble of cleaning connections with a mild solvent.
  • SavageFeast
    SavageFeast Posts: 325 Member
    I recently gave away my brand new Polar FT7 because it severely underestimated my calorie burns at 300-350 pounds.
  • skylark94
    skylark94 Posts: 2,036 Member
    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.
  • AndreaGrace29
    AndreaGrace29 Posts: 51 Member
    peter - you sound like you are just killing time here. you have no proof that it's defective and you should have CALLED, not emailed, CALLED Polar for assistance. Then you could SPEAK with someone who knows what’s going on with your monitor. No matter how much "data" you collect from a forum, you will not get what you really need - and what you need will only come from the manufacturer directly.

    Everyone is only posting their experiences and opinions (no offense, everyone) and the factual info on the product you are questioning is best handled by a rep from Polar. Call them. Information over email and forums gets easily lost in translation. A phone call would have saved all of this.

    called also. yielded nothing. took my info and said would get back to me. offered a call tag to send mine in to have it checked. sigh.



    Perfect. Let the professionals do their job. :)
  • peterdt
    peterdt Posts: 820 Member
    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.

    I suspect my HRM calculated calories burned are about 40-50% lower than they should be. This is not "some sort of fault". If it is true for other users at high weights Polar needs to address the issue. Since they ignored my calls and emails I'm trying to hash it out in public forum instead.
  • Proyecto_AN
    Proyecto_AN Posts: 387
    Not enough.

Categories