HRM comparison: Polar FT7 vs RS300x vs ...
EvgeniZyntx
Posts: 24,208 Member
Because of the recent discussions on HRM accuracy, I decided to run an experiment. I have a few HRMs and GPS devices that I have accumulated over the years. Recently added an RS300x and thought it might be interesting to run a few tests. I'll also be using a Garmin 800, Forerunner 405, a 60Cx and Strava, Trackmyfitness...
So, over hte next weeks - against my running and other cardio activity I'll post my findings about these HRMs versus some of the other devices that I have.
Today's test is just the FT7 vs the RS300x
Setting on both are in metric units
Weight: 85 Kg
Height: 180 cm
MaxHR: 189
Sex: Male
Age: 46
RS300x only data:
VO2Max: 47 (both lab tested and
Sitting HR: 62
Activity: High
--- Today's Test ---
Run 32 min with one HR detector and both watches. Both watches gave the same HR and HR profile (MaxHR 178 94% and Avr 167 88% (a little high for the run))
The calorie burns given are different: 522 for the RS300x and 489 for the FT7.
According to this, the FT7 is slightly under-estimating my cal burns (assuming the RS300x is more accurate because it takes into account resting HR and VO2Max).
The under-estimation for the FT7 vs the RS300x for me is 6.7% which is more than reasonable for MFP.
Hope that helps, I'll provide more info as I test.
So, over hte next weeks - against my running and other cardio activity I'll post my findings about these HRMs versus some of the other devices that I have.
Today's test is just the FT7 vs the RS300x
Setting on both are in metric units
Weight: 85 Kg
Height: 180 cm
MaxHR: 189
Sex: Male
Age: 46
RS300x only data:
VO2Max: 47 (both lab tested and
Sitting HR: 62
Activity: High
--- Today's Test ---
Run 32 min with one HR detector and both watches. Both watches gave the same HR and HR profile (MaxHR 178 94% and Avr 167 88% (a little high for the run))
The calorie burns given are different: 522 for the RS300x and 489 for the FT7.
According to this, the FT7 is slightly under-estimating my cal burns (assuming the RS300x is more accurate because it takes into account resting HR and VO2Max).
The under-estimation for the FT7 vs the RS300x for me is 6.7% which is more than reasonable for MFP.
Hope that helps, I'll provide more info as I test.
0
Replies
-
Long slow run today
FT 7: 617 cal
RS300x: 653 cal
At this lower HR the difference is less than 6%.
Forerunner 405: 608 cal for save average HR. distance 6.49 km
Trackmyfitness distance was 7.06 km and 808 calories. Clearly the iPhone app is way off. Not to be trusted.0 -
Interesting! I love data so thanks for sharing. Maybe I should do the same with my FT7 and FT60.0
-
Two notes, EZ.
1. Is there a non-zero chance that wearing multiple devices at the same time will cause interference with each other?
2. All the numbers are basically random without a control group. How do we know device's reading is correct, which is over, which is under? One device has already been labeled "way off", but where is the empirical evidence?0 -
Interesting. Could you try other apps on the iphone to measure distance, I don't use an iphone but many do. It's 8.8% off the mark !0
-
Two notes, EZ.
1. Is there a non-zero chance that wearing multiple devices at the same time will cause interference with each other?
2. All the numbers are basically random without a control group. How do we know device's reading is correct, which is over, which is under? One device has already been labeled "way off", but where is the empirical evidence?
1 - One sending unit, 2 receivers. No interference possible. Anyone with a receiver, including treadmills, could receive the signal without problem.
Verified by comment same AHR and MHR readings on the workout.
2 - This is testing to see how far off might the FT7 be that has no VO2max stat available for entry, meaning it is calculating a value based on what is entered, basically BMI. Compared to the RS300X that does have VO2max value, which will have better chance of accuracy.
And there's my bump to follow this.0 -
Because of the recent discussions on HRM accuracy, I decided to run an experiment. I have a few HRMs and GPS devices that I have accumulated over the years. Recently added an RS300x and thought it might be interesting to run a few tests. I'll also be using a Garmin 800, Forerunner 405, a 60Cx and Strava, Trackmyfitness...
So, over hte next weeks - against my running and other cardio activity I'll post my findings about these HRMs versus some of the other devices that I have.
Today's test is just the FT7 vs the RS300x
Setting on both are in metric units
Weight: 85 Kg
Height: 180 cm
MaxHR: 189
Sex: Male
Age: 46
RS300x only data:
VO2Max: 47 (both lab tested and
Sitting HR: 62
Activity: High
--- Today's Test ---
Run 32 min with one HR detector and both watches. Both watches gave the same HR and HR profile (MaxHR 178 94% and Avr 167 88% (a little high for the run))
The calorie burns given are different: 522 for the RS300x and 489 for the FT7.
According to this, the FT7 is slightly under-estimating my cal burns (assuming the RS300x is more accurate because it takes into account resting HR and VO2Max).
The under-estimation for the FT7 vs the RS300x for me is 6.7% which is more than reasonable for MFP.
Hope that helps, I'll provide more info as I test.
So the Polar formula as is gave 574.
The Polar formula tweaked for HRmax gave 542.
I'm guessing your VO2max is considered about avg then for your BMI, tad better actually it sounds like.
Haven't found the means of digging into the study that estimated VO2max from BMI, at least without paying some money to view it.0 -
Two notes, EZ.
1. Is there a non-zero chance that wearing multiple devices at the same time will cause interference with each other?
2. All the numbers are basically random without a control group. How do we know device's reading is correct, which is over, which is under? One device has already been labeled "way off", but where is the empirical evidence?
1 - One sending unit, 2 receivers. No interference possible. Anyone with a receiver, including treadmills, could receive the signal without problem.
Verified by comment same AHR and MHR readings on the workout.
2 - This is testing to see how far off might the FT7 be that has no VO2max stat available for entry, meaning it is calculating a value based on what is entered, basically BMI. Compared to the RS300X that does have VO2max value, which will have better chance of accuracy.
And there's my bump to follow this.
For the first rest one sending unit, 2 receivers so little chance of interference. With the second test I'm running a second belt but again there is litte cance of interference because these are digital signaling. There might be some interference possible but I'm not seeing it. High frequency tension lines do interfere with the belt but not signal sending.
The criticisms about the absence of a control test are valid - I do not have a gold standard and my assumption that the watch with the VO2 data is more accurate could be false. However, by testing several devices over a large set of variables (65% to 90% HR activity) I can see the cross-HRM variability. It isn't random numbers but certainly unverified accuracy.0 -
Because of the recent discussions on HRM accuracy, I decided to run an experiment. I have a few HRMs and GPS devices that I have accumulated over the years. Recently added an RS300x and thought it might be interesting to run a few tests. I'll also be using a Garmin 800, Forerunner 405, a 60Cx and Strava, Trackmyfitness...
So, over hte next weeks - against my running and other cardio activity I'll post my findings about these HRMs versus some of the other devices that I have.
Today's test is just the FT7 vs the RS300x
Setting on both are in metric units
Weight: 85 Kg
Height: 180 cm
MaxHR: 189
Sex: Male
Age: 46
RS300x only data:
VO2Max: 47 (both lab tested and
Sitting HR: 62
Activity: High
--- Today's Test ---
Run 32 min with one HR detector and both watches. Both watches gave the same HR and HR profile (MaxHR 178 94% and Avr 167 88% (a little high for the run))
The calorie burns given are different: 522 for the RS300x and 489 for the FT7.
According to this, the FT7 is slightly under-estimating my cal burns (assuming the RS300x is more accurate because it takes into account resting HR and VO2Max).
The under-estimation for the FT7 vs the RS300x for me is 6.7% which is more than reasonable for MFP.
Hope that helps, I'll provide more info as I test.
So the Polar formula as is gave 574.
The Polar formula tweaked for HRmax gave 542.
I'm guessing your VO2max is considered about avg then for your BMI, tad better actually it sounds like.
Haven't found the means of digging into the study that estimated VO2max from BMI, at least without paying some money to view it.
Apparently my VO2max is considered better than average for my age. So likely the difference is from the average value HR calc which you did and time integrated on the watch? Not sure. The difference on tweaked vs measured seems small.0 -
Interesting. Could you try other apps on the iphone to measure distance, I don't use an iphone but many do. It's 8.8% off the mark !
I'll test against Strava and others.0 -
Soooooo, which do you recommend?0
-
Soooooo, which do you recommend?
Oh, easily the RS300X - it has the stat for VO2max and self test, allowing for continued best estimates as you get fit.
The cheaper FT7 is missing that stat totally, so VO2max is assumed based on your BMI (height and weight, right).
Bad BMI, assumed bad VO2max.
And that's a bad assumption.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions