Polar FT7 HRM Calories burnt way off

Options
vkmoorthy
vkmoorthy Posts: 64 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I am 5ft6" female 149 pounds. I got a Polar FT7. Entered height, weight, gender in the watch per manual. Did my first workout today. It was my W3D3 of C25K so was on the treadmill. I did a total of 45 min including the 5 min cool down. The machine said I burnt 249 calories. My heart rate monitor says I burn 450 Calories. This is wayyy off. What should I do. I always underestimate my calories so that I can eat back without jeopardizing my weight loss. Any advice on how much I should enter for calories burnt? Some background on my exercise routine - I have been exercising for the last 40 days almost every day average of 1 hour. I

Did I waste my $$ buying the HRM as my main purpose was to get accurate calories burnt.

Thanks for your help in advance

Replies

  • d2footballJRC
    d2footballJRC Posts: 2,684 Member
    Options
    I am 5ft6" female 149 pounds. I got a Polar FT7. Entered height, weight, gender in the watch per manual. Did my first workout today. It was my W3D3 of C25K so was on the treadmill. I did a total of 45 min including the 5 min cool down. The machine said I burnt 249 calories. My heart rate monitor says I burn 450 Calories. This is wayyy off. What should I do. I always underestimate my calories so that I can eat back without jeopardizing my weight loss. Any advice on how much I should enter for calories burnt? Some background on my exercise routine - I have been exercising for the last 40 days almost every day average of 1 hour. I

    Did I waste my $$ buying the HRM as my main purpose was to get accurate calories burnt.

    Thanks for your help in advance

    First question, did you program your watch right?

    Proper Height, weight, age, and Vo2Max?

    Secondly how do you know the watch isn't right and the machine isn't wrong? If you are working it, you can burn 7-10 calories a minute working out. You didn't say how hard you were working out, your heart rate compared to max or anything. You didn't give enough data. At 45 minutes and 450 calories you'd be looking at 10 calories a minute which is very much possible doing cardio.
  • vkmoorthy
    vkmoorthy Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    I went through the manual and it only lets me put in height weight, gender and age. I do not know what Vo2 is( will look it up), but I did not see an option for V02. I am not saying watch is wrong or machine is right. I know all of them are estimates. I am just looking for some help on which one might be more accurate.

    heart rate per HRM - average 150. Max 178

    Thanks for your answer
  • d2footballJRC
    d2footballJRC Posts: 2,684 Member
    Options
    I went through the manual and it only lets me put in height weight, gender and age. I do not know what Vo2 is( will look it up), but I did not see an option for V02. I am not saying watch is wrong or machine is right. I know all of them are estimates. I am just looking for some help on which one might be more accurate.

    Thanks for your answer

    give us a bit more details on what you were doing.. Where you just walking? Running? Jogging? Walking at an incline? Biking?

    Reason I ask.. At 249 calories and 45 minutes you were burning roughly 5 calories a minute. Now I'm a 250lb man, but I burn 3 calories a minute just sitting around. That is why I'm trying to see what your activity level was, to help judge what is more likely to be accurate as well.

    Just saw you added your heart rate, with your age and what you got your heart rate to, and so forth you were working it some. It's probably honestly closer to the watch then you might think.

    If you want to be for sure, you can check with your local university or clinics and see if any of them do metabolic testing. I got it done, they have you breathe into this tube thing for awhile and then you can get your average daily metabolism, then they'll have you come back and you'll workout with the tube on and you get a heart rate average and a metabolism from working out. I forgot what the system was called.. Something leaf. I paid around $150 for both sessions.
  • vkmoorthy
    vkmoorthy Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    I was doing C25K on treadmill

    Incline - 1

    5 mins warm up started at 2.5 MPH and ended at 4.0 MPH in the last min
    Ran at 4.5 MPH for 90s
    walked at 4.0 MPH for 90s
    Ran at 4.5 MPH for 3min
    walk at 4.0MPH for 3 min
    run at 4,5 MPH for 90s
    walk at 4.0 MPH for 90s
    run at 4.5 mph for 3 min
    walk at 4.0 mph for 10 min
    run at 4.5 mph for 5 min
    walk at 4.0 mph for 5 min
    cool down walk for 5 min

    Run means jog for me :D I am a beginner at this
  • loseit4ever12
    loseit4ever12 Posts: 53
    Options
    Interested in answers here because I posted a similar thread and no one will answer me.
    I had an average heartrate of 171 and I jogged at 5 mph for 30 mins and my Polar FT4 said I burnt 574 cals!!!!! The machine and MFP were at about 400ish.

    BIG difference and I hope I didn't waste my money!!!!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,868 Member
    Options
    Interested in answers here because I posted a similar thread and no one will answer me.
    I had an average heartrate of 171 and I jogged at 5 mph for 30 mins and my Polar FT4 said I burnt 574 cals!!!!! The machine and MFP were at about 400ish.

    BIG difference and I hope I didn't waste my money!!!!

    I have an FT4...I find it to be quite accurate if I deduct about 20% to account for BMR calories and estimation error. I've done this and compared those burns to online calculators that use your VO2 max and it comes out almost dead on (give or take 5-10 calories).

    Keep in mind, the machine just takes averages...you don't program it with anything...it's just an average based on distance and speed/intensity. It doesn't account for your weight, your level of fitness or anything...its about as blind an estimate as the ones in the MFP data base. Your HRM is much more accurate because YOUR data has been input and YOUR actual HR is being used to determine the burn.
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    Options
    most machines will be off. some more than others.

    generally, machines that don't ask for your info before starting assume calories burned for a 35-year-old man in good physical shape. so that's not gonna be helpful for most folks. even the ones that have you input some basic information, while closer, aren't going to be quite on. the HRM has all your stats and is monitoring your workout the whole time. while it is all estimates, the HRM is going to be right.
  • d2footballJRC
    d2footballJRC Posts: 2,684 Member
    Options
    Interested in answers here because I posted a similar thread and no one will answer me.
    I had an average heartrate of 171 and I jogged at 5 mph for 30 mins and my Polar FT4 said I burnt 574 cals!!!!! The machine and MFP were at about 400ish.

    BIG difference and I hope I didn't waste my money!!!!

    I have an FT4...I find it to be quite accurate if I deduct about 20% to account for BMR calories and estimation error. I've done this and compared those burns to online calculators that use your VO2 max and it comes out almost dead on (give or take 5-10 calories).

    Keep in mind, the machine just takes averages...you don't program it with anything...it's just an average based on distance and speed/intensity. It doesn't account for your weight, your level of fitness or anything...its about as blind an estimate as the ones in the MFP data base. Your HRM is much more accurate because YOUR data has been input and YOUR actual HR is being used to determine the burn.

    From looking, looks like FT7 doesn't do V02Max. I use a Polar Ft-80 and it's always seemed really accurate with the calculators. It has a V02 max input though.
  • HoneyRiot
    HoneyRiot Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    As others have probably already said, double-check your entries for height, weight, gender, and age. It is easy to accidentally enter the wrong info. Also, make sure you're wearing your heart strap correctly.

    It is possible, as d2footballJRC has said, you probably just burned more calories than what the machine told you. I would trust the accuracy of the HRM, as it is familiar with your personal details and has your heart rate readings. My elliptical can't even read my heart rate correctly, let alone even ask me for my age.

    Before I bought the (FT7) HRM, I would record my average heart rate using the machine and would use this formula to calculate my calorie burn:

    Women's Formula, Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.074) -- (Weight x 0.05741) + (Heart Rate x 0.4472) -- 20.4022] x Time / 4.184.

    Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/221621-formula-for-calories-burned-during-exercise/#ixzz2MJ5EzLq5

    I made a spreadsheet with this formula, so I don't have to do the math every time. So, I input my average HR into the spreadsheet and I have found that my HRM has calculated my calorie burn to either be 11 or 17 calories more than the formula's result.

    So, in my personal experience, I think the HRM is fairly accurate.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,868 Member
    Options
    I was doing C25K on treadmill

    Incline - 1

    5 mins warm up started at 2.5 MPH and ended at 4.0 MPH in the last min
    Ran at 4.5 MPH for 90s
    walked at 4.0 MPH for 90s
    Ran at 4.5 MPH for 3min
    walk at 4.0MPH for 3 min
    run at 4,5 MPH for 90s
    walk at 4.0 MPH for 90s
    run at 4.5 mph for 3 min
    walk at 4.0 mph for 10 min
    run at 4.5 mph for 5 min
    walk at 4.0 mph for 5 min
    cool down walk for 5 min

    Run means jog for me :D I am a beginner at this

    I do a similar routine once per week and burn about 375 calories or so (keep in mind I'm a different weight, fitness level, etc.). A 10 calorie per minute burn is quite common with some good interval training.
  • mfoster1019
    mfoster1019 Posts: 152 Member
    Options
    I have the FT7 also and I go by what it says I burned rather than what MFP estimates. Personally, I trust the HRM more. But I also don't eat my exercise calories back.
  • K_Serz
    K_Serz Posts: 1,299 Member
    Options
    I am 5ft6" female 149 pounds. I got a Polar FT7. Entered height, weight, gender in the watch per manual. Did my first workout today. It was my W3D3 of C25K so was on the treadmill. I did a total of 45 min including the 5 min cool down. The machine said I burnt 249 calories. My heart rate monitor says I burn 450 Calories. This is wayyy off. What should I do. I always underestimate my calories so that I can eat back without jeopardizing my weight loss. Any advice on how much I should enter for calories burnt? Some background on my exercise routine - I have been exercising for the last 40 days almost every day average of 1 hour. I

    Did I waste my $$ buying the HRM as my main purpose was to get accurate calories burnt.

    Thanks for your help in advance

    First question, did you program your watch right?

    Proper Height, weight, age, and Vo2Max?

    Secondly how do you know the watch isn't right and the machine isn't wrong? If you are working it, you can burn 7-10 calories a minute working out. You didn't say how hard you were working out, your heart rate compared to max or anything. You didn't give enough data. At 45 minutes and 450 calories you'd be looking at 10 calories a minute which is very much possible doing cardio.

    My thoughts exactly. I was also wondering what your avg HR was, how long you were in fat burn zone, exercise zone, what the max HR was also. The HRM should know this....the machine probably does not (was it synced with the HRM Transmitter also?) If so you would also need to program the treadmill with the same info as your receiver/watch. I assume this wasnt the case.

    I burn about 17 calories a minute when doing cardio at 90% of my max, but im also 225lbs.
  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    Options
    One of the primary factors for calorie burn is the VO2 that was mentioned earlier in the thread. This is a measure of your metabolism or "fitness' and goes to how effectively you move oxygen for muscle burn. I am not sure if the FT7 has a "Fitness" test or not some of the polar models do and it is a way for them to approximate a VO2 estimate. Entering a personal metabolism figure makes your calorie burn more accurate for you personally. If it doesn't have that feature it inputs an average. I know from experience that a change in VO2 makes a big difference in how many calories my HRM calculates and shifts my target zones as well. I would tend to favor the HRM in most cases over a machine if it is getting good contact.
  • vkmoorthy
    vkmoorthy Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    Thanks a lot everyone. I feel better now. Will go with HRM subtract 20% to arrive at net calories and use that to eat back my exercise calories. Thanks for being so supportive and answering my questions.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,868 Member
    Options
    Interested in answers here because I posted a similar thread and no one will answer me.
    I had an average heartrate of 171 and I jogged at 5 mph for 30 mins and my Polar FT4 said I burnt 574 cals!!!!! The machine and MFP were at about 400ish.

    BIG difference and I hope I didn't waste my money!!!!

    I have an FT4...I find it to be quite accurate if I deduct about 20% to account for BMR calories and estimation error. I've done this and compared those burns to online calculators that use your VO2 max and it comes out almost dead on (give or take 5-10 calories).

    Keep in mind, the machine just takes averages...you don't program it with anything...it's just an average based on distance and speed/intensity. It doesn't account for your weight, your level of fitness or anything...its about as blind an estimate as the ones in the MFP data base. Your HRM is much more accurate because YOUR data has been input and YOUR actual HR is being used to determine the burn.

    From looking, looks like FT7 doesn't do V02Max. I use a Polar Ft-80 and it's always seemed really accurate with the calculators. It has a V02 max input though.

    Yeah...the FT4 and FT7 don't do VO2 max...they're pretty cheap...FT4 comes in around $90 and the FT7 around $110. I do my VO2 max monthly using an on-line calculator then regularly compare my calories burned per my HRM to a calorie calculator on-line that uses my VO2 max...actually, haven't felt compelled to do that in awhile as I've grown quite confident in my HRM over the last 4 months or so.
  • d2footballJRC
    d2footballJRC Posts: 2,684 Member
    Options
    Thanks a lot everyone. I feel better now. Will go with HRM subtract 20% to arrive at net calories and use that to eat back my exercise calories. Thanks for being so supportive and answering my questions.

    Keep it up! Looks like you are almost half way there on your ticker!!!
  • ecw3780
    ecw3780 Posts: 608 Member
    Options
    I burn 250 walking for 30 minutes at a comfortable pace. That seems low for a 45 min jog.
  • WarriorCupcakeBlydnsr
    WarriorCupcakeBlydnsr Posts: 2,150 Member
    Options
    I've been on a treadmill that told me when I finished that I burned about 300 cals (I don't remember the exact amount since it was a while ago) and had a max heart rate of 148 at my highest level now, during the time I was on the treadmill, I never touched the heart rate bars on the treadmill for it to determine my heart rate, never entered any information into it about height, weight, ect. I now have a HRM (polar FT7) that actually links to the treadmill at my gym (same one from before) and when I wore it the last time I was on the treadmill, for the same amount of time, same distance, same pattern of walking/jogging and was given 503 as my burn with a max heart rate of 175. I'm more inclined to belive my FT7 on this one since it has the height, weight, gender, ect information

Categories