THE POLAR HRM VS. THE MACHINE (AND MFP) CALORIE COUNTERS

Options
2»

Replies

  • Naomi0222
    Naomi0222 Posts: 84
    Options
    I just got the polar ht7 and found the same thing. I am going by the numbers on my HRM, which I trust way more!!!!
  • the3erwins
    the3erwins Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    Remember that the machines are made by people who want to sell more machines. If their monitors tell you that you burn a lot of calories on their machine, maybe you'll buy another machine. Trust your HRM.
  • daphnemoon
    daphnemoon Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    Not sure where you read on a Les Mills site that CX Worx would burn 500 cals in 30 mins, here it says a much more believable figure: http://www.lesmills.com/cx30/about-cxworx.aspx

    Also find it hard to believe that any decent instructor would claim 500 cals for a class which, although very hard (and I'll have the pain tomorrow to testify) only consists of hovers, planks, the occasional lunge and squat. And those tubes, ouch! You can get your heart rate up but this isn't cardio that is going to give you that kind of calorie burn in half an hour. I wish! The most I've burned in CX Worx is 320, and that was because I had done a lot of other classes on a special charity day before doing it. Ordinarily I would probably get a figure closer to yours. All the calorie burns listed on LMI site are averages, and as other posters have said, the variables will greatly depend on exertion level and which mix the instructor uses.
  • h0026
    h0026 Posts: 4
    Options
    What I'm getting from this thread is that the Polars are good. I was thinking about getting one for the reason your questioning (not trusting the machines). Now that I'm hearing this big of a difference in numbers I think I'm going to take the plunge and get one.
  • skadoosh33
    skadoosh33 Posts: 353 Member
    Options
    Well I am the complete opposite. It seems that my Polar FT7 is really high. I would love to trust it but it is so much higher than the machines. I understand the machine doesn't use the same algorithm but still concerned. This is what I get:

    Stationary bike-18miles, 60 mins, 813 calories (average HR=150)
    Treadmill 5 miles 60 mins, 1015 calories (average HR=168)
    Treadmill 10k 78 mins, 1336 calories

    Now I weigh 184lbs and I have actually set my FT7 to 170lbs to help decrease the calories in order to be more accurate. However, it is still hard to believe that I burn that much. Anyone else think my numbers are high? Or having problems as well?
  • caroldeanda
    caroldeanda Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    It also depends on how old you are, but when I do my 3 miles in 45min on the treadmill I was at around 800 calories, I'm 24 and 223
  • z_kickingkilos
    z_kickingkilos Posts: 15
    Options
    I bought a Polar FT4 HRM. It is very basic and just gives me my HR and total calories burned. I entered all my settings (age 42, 4'11 and 161 lbs yikes!). I bought it because I was not losing weight. I was relying on the calories displayed on MFP and the Precor. Then, I was probably overeating my calories based upon those calorie counts.

    I am amazed and actually pretty shocked at the reading from the HRM on the total calories that I burned today:

    CXWorks - HRM said 110 calories (Les Mills Site and Instructors previously claimed that class burned up to 500 calories).

    PreCor Elliptical 60 Minutes - HRM said 375 calories. Machine said 650 calories burned (note that the machine does read my HRM strap so the HRM on the machine and on my watch did match).

    I felt the same amount of exertion and effort that I did prior to wearing the HRM. I am just so shocked at how low the HRM calories compared to readings on the machine and claims on the Les Mills site.

    I am unsure which numbers to trust.

    I have a polar hrm too. the chest strap is there for a reason, plus we enter our age weight height etc. So you go girl!
  • Serenstar75
    Serenstar75 Posts: 258 Member
    Options
    I have a Polar ft4...it is pretty accurate. I knock off about 15% to account for BMR calories per session...when I do that and compare it to a VO2 calorie calculator, it's almost dead on. When it comes to calorie burn, there are just too many variable to simply take a number off a database. Numbers in a database were someone else's burn...they may or may not have been more fit..may be taller or shorter...heavier or lighter, etc. Too many variables. Trust your HRM.

    So I'm not understanding. In the 15% taken off, what does that do? I know to account for BMR, I'm just not understanding what that means.
  • rvicini
    rvicini Posts: 252 Member
    Options
    Trust your Polar. Since I have one my life has changed. Now I exercise anywhere easier knowing how much I am burning.
    Now I know how many cals from exercise I can really eat and have lost a lot of weight. Highly recommend.
  • dallas4u
    dallas4u Posts: 57
    Options
    Well I am the complete opposite. It seems that my Polar FT7 is really high. I would love to trust it but it is so much higher than the machines. I understand the machine doesn't use the same algorithm but still concerned. This is what I get:

    Stationary bike-18miles, 60 mins, 813 calories (average HR=150)
    Treadmill 5 miles 60 mins, 1015 calories (average HR=168)
    Treadmill 10k 78 mins, 1336 calories

    Now I weigh 184lbs and I have actually set my FT7 to 170lbs to help decrease the calories in order to be more accurate. However, it is still hard to believe that I burn that much. Anyone else think my numbers are high? Or having problems as well?

    My HR averages about 130. I usually select "fat burn" or "weight loss" option when on the Precor Elliptical. I suppose if I picked 5k, Hill Climb, or another high cardio setting my HR would be 150. Right now - my goal is to lose 40 lbs and get back in shape. I am not in shape enough at this time to do things that would make my HR 150-160. Sometimes, I get winded going up stairs.
  • harric88
    harric88 Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    I have a polar - I ignore the gym equipment now and always go off what it says - this was my best fitness investment!!
  • dallas4u
    dallas4u Posts: 57
    Options
    Not sure where you read on a Les Mills site that CX Worx would burn 500 cals in 30 mins, here it says a much more believable figure: http://www.lesmills.com/cx30/about-cxworx.aspx

    Also find it hard to believe that any decent instructor would claim 500 cals for a class which, although very hard (and I'll have the pain tomorrow to testify) only consists of hovers, planks, the occasional lunge and squat. And those tubes, ouch! You can get your heart rate up but this isn't cardio that is going to give you that kind of calorie burn in half an hour. I wish! The most I've burned in CX Worx is 320, and that was because I had done a lot of other classes on a special charity day before doing it. Ordinarily I would probably get a figure closer to yours. All the calorie burns listed on LMI site are averages, and as other posters have said, the variables will greatly depend on exertion level and which mix the instructor uses.

    That site still says average burned calories is 230. My HRM said 110 and I was busting myself in CxWorks. I was surprised I wasn't at 200. Throughout my life, I have heard many instructors overestimate or claim a class burned 400-700 calories. The only time I have ever heard an instructor mention HRMs was in the 90s when Spinning was the new craze.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Well I am the complete opposite. It seems that my Polar FT7 is really high. I would love to trust it but it is so much higher than the machines. I understand the machine doesn't use the same algorithm but still concerned. This is what I get:

    Stationary bike-18miles, 60 mins, 813 calories (average HR=150)
    Treadmill 5 miles 60 mins, 1015 calories (average HR=168)
    Treadmill 10k 78 mins, 1336 calories

    Now I weigh 184lbs and I have actually set my FT7 to 170lbs to help decrease the calories in order to be more accurate. However, it is still hard to believe that I burn that much. Anyone else think my numbers are high? Or having problems as well?

    At your weight, if you are running the 5 miles in 60 mins, your actual calorie burn is about 700 calories per hour.

    There are several possible reasons for the elevated calorie count. One: sometimes people enter their weight incorrectly, or they use english numbers on a metric scale. Two: your actual max heart rate is much higher than what is calculated in the HRM. That 168 heart rate is 90% of your age-predicted HR max. Since you did that for an hour, that suggests that your actual HR max is probably over 200. Three: this is rare anymore, but sometimes interference can mess with the signal (or contact issues w/the strap) and cause the HR on the display to shoot up. Chances are, you would have noticed that by now.

    If you are running on a commercial treadmill, I would use that the help calibrate your HRM. Treadmill running numbers at your speed are probably high by about 10%-15%. I would increase the HR max on your HRM and see if that doesn't bring the numbers closer.
  • mjrkearney
    mjrkearney Posts: 408 Member
    Options
    I seem to have the opposite problem as almost everybody else. Every machine I was on would give a vastly different read for calories burned so I got a Polar FT4. It rates my burn as almost twice as much as some of the machines, but at some point I realized the machines assumed that if I wasn't giving it a HR input, then my HR would gradually decrease over time. Today I ran just over two miles straight (for the first time ever), and my HR was in the red for all but the first 5 minutes and was only in the "zone" during my post-run hills. The machine put my calories burned at somewhere around 400 but my Polar read back at 615.

Categories