Heart Rate Monitor Question :)

annamc18
annamc18 Posts: 198 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
hellooo!

I finally ordered myself a heart rate monitor, the Polar FT4, I heard it's one of the most popular and well-liked out of the majority

Anyways, I was just wondering if you really need to use that electrode gel stuff for it to be more accurate?

Also, is it in your opinion far more accurate than what MFP calculates on here?

Thanks in advance! :bigsmile:

Replies

  • MadisonLeo
    MadisonLeo Posts: 89
    It is 1000 times more accurate due to the fact that it accounts for your heart rate. MFP can only take an educated guess and where your heart rate was based on the amount of time you exercised.

    I have a MIO Drive HRM and I love it. IT uses your own sweat instead of the gel. If you sweat a lot then you shouldn't really need the gel.

    Hope this helps and have fun! That HRM is gonna motivate you to squeeze in a few extra minutes so you can burn more lol.
  • annamc18
    annamc18 Posts: 198 Member
    It is 1000 times more accurate due to the fact that it accounts for your heart rate. MFP can only take an educated guess and where your heart rate was based on the amount of time you exercised.

    I have a MIO Drive HRM and I love it. IT uses your own sweat instead of the gel. If you sweat a lot then you shouldn't really need the gel.

    Hope this helps and have fun! That HRM is gonna motivate you to squeeze in a few extra minutes so you can burn more lol.

    awesome! thanks!

    I figured it'd be waaay more accurate than MFP on the calories & hopefully I won't need the gel stuff either, but like you said - I've heard if you sweat enough then it's fine without it. I cant wait to start using it though!!!
  • annamc18
    annamc18 Posts: 198 Member
    *bump*
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    You just need to have the strap wet before you put it on. Which means sometimes it will stop if it dries though, but it's only happened to me once during a 1h lifting session.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Since you bumped ....

    Many people will tell you that HRMs are far more accurate, but they are assuming it is. The accuracy of HRMs is very overstated here. There are any number of things that affect accuracy of HRMs and lots of people have run into trouble blindly following the calories the HRM told them.

    MFP doesn't need to know your heart rate. Heart rate does not have a direct relationship with calories burned.

    In some cases, it might be a closer estimate but certainly not always.

    Do I think it is useful? Sure. Is it necessary? No. Should it be blindly trusted? Absolutely not. In the end, they are all estimates.

    A great read
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak?month=201003
  • Sara2184
    Sara2184 Posts: 183 Member
    Does Polar (or any other HRM) count your steps as well, like a pedometer?
  • brent001
    brent001 Posts: 3 Member
    I have a Polar HRM and it's been great.

    I've never used the gel. Just put a little bit of water on the pads when you put the chest strap on and you'll be good to go.
  • SassyClassyandALittleBadAssy
    SassyClassyandALittleBadAssy Posts: 165 Member
    I LOVE my FT4! Honestly half the time i forget to wet mine! It works just fine either way :smile:

    Make sure to wash often though! I have found that you get a much better reading with a nice clean strap!
  • annamc18
    annamc18 Posts: 198 Member
    thanks everyone!
  • woodsy0912
    woodsy0912 Posts: 323
    I love mine! I don't eat back my exercise calories back though. I just use it to know where I am in my cardio workouts. If I am not working hard enough, that kind of thing. Kind of like a benchmark to how hard I am working.

    Mine will start to get wonky readings if it dries so I am getting some gel to try.

    Also have to second the washing of it. Works much better when it is clean.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    It is 1000 times more accurate due to the fact that it accounts for your heart rate. MFP can only take an educated guess and where your heart rate was based on the amount of time you exercised.

    I have a MIO Drive HRM and I love it. IT uses your own sweat instead of the gel. If you sweat a lot then you shouldn't really need the gel.

    Hope this helps and have fun! That HRM is gonna motivate you to squeeze in a few extra minutes so you can burn more lol.

    Wow. I had no idea that this type of accuracy was even possible. I stand corrected. I guess
  • EmilyOfTheSun
    EmilyOfTheSun Posts: 1,548 Member
    I have a Polar FT7. I've never used any gel with mine and it works just great. I think it's pretty darn accurate because I always "eat back my exercise calories." Every single one, lol. And I've been steadily losing weight.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    It is 1000 times more accurate due to the fact that it accounts for your heart rate. MFP can only take an educated guess and where your heart rate was based on the amount of time you exercised.

    I have a MIO Drive HRM and I love it. IT uses your own sweat instead of the gel. If you sweat a lot then you shouldn't really need the gel.

    Hope this helps and have fun! That HRM is gonna motivate you to squeeze in a few extra minutes so you can burn more lol.

    Wow. I had no idea that this type of accuracy was even possible. I stand corrected. I guess

    Does this mean that if I use the MFP estimate, my numbers are off by a magnitude of 1000? A 50 minute run that I thought burned 600 calories actually burned as little as 0.6 or as much as 600,000? Dang. That's a pretty large range.

    It's going to take some serious work to eat all my exercise calories back too.
  • annamc18
    annamc18 Posts: 198 Member
    It is 1000 times more accurate due to the fact that it accounts for your heart rate. MFP can only take an educated guess and where your heart rate was based on the amount of time you exercised.

    I have a MIO Drive HRM and I love it. IT uses your own sweat instead of the gel. If you sweat a lot then you shouldn't really need the gel.

    Hope this helps and have fun! That HRM is gonna motivate you to squeeze in a few extra minutes so you can burn more lol.

    Wow. I had no idea that this type of accuracy was even possible. I stand corrected. I guess

    Does this mean that if I use the MFP estimate, my numbers are off by a magnitude of 1000? A 50 minute run that I thought burned 600 calories actually burned as little as 0.6 or as much as 600,000? Dang. That's a pretty large range.

    It's going to take some serious work to eat all my exercise calories back too.

    ...YEAH SHE LITERALLY MEANS 1000 TIMES..... seriously? ...dont be ****'s lol
  • HeartRateMonitorsUSA
    HeartRateMonitorsUSA Posts: 5
    If you are using the new style Soft Strap, just water will work fine, You do need moisture for conductivity until you build up a sweat.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    It is 1000 times more accurate due to the fact that it accounts for your heart rate. MFP can only take an educated guess and where your heart rate was based on the amount of time you exercised.

    I have a MIO Drive HRM and I love it. IT uses your own sweat instead of the gel. If you sweat a lot then you shouldn't really need the gel.

    Hope this helps and have fun! That HRM is gonna motivate you to squeeze in a few extra minutes so you can burn more lol.

    Wow. I had no idea that this type of accuracy was even possible. I stand corrected. I guess

    Does this mean that if I use the MFP estimate, my numbers are off by a magnitude of 1000? A 50 minute run that I thought burned 600 calories actually burned as little as 0.6 or as much as 600,000? Dang. That's a pretty large range.

    It's going to take some serious work to eat all my exercise calories back too.

    ...YEAH SHE LITERALLY MEANS 1000 TIMES..... seriously? ...dont be ****'s lol

    Given that the topic is focused on accuracy, perhaps people should be more careful about their claims.

    Admittedly, had she even said that the HRM is 50% more accurate, I would have challenged that claim too. It is my belief that people just *assume* that the HRM is a more accurate determination of calories burned without any real basis. I am not yet convinced.
  • watfordjc
    watfordjc Posts: 304 Member
    12 mile walk with a Wahoo HRM: 1,073 kcal.
    Same 12 mile walk with a Ki Fit: 2,645 kcal (- 1.8 kcal/min RMR for 275 minutes) = 2,150 kcal.
    MFP, walking, 3mph for 275 minutes: 1,509 kcal.

    862-1,292 calories is a lot to be out by, assuming the Ki Fit is +/- 10% accurate (or is it +/- 5%?)

    ETA: It depends on how accurate it is for you. My HRM is for heart rate, my Foot Pod is for steps, my GPS is for distance, my Ki Fit is for calories, and MFP is for food. Depending on your exercise and body you may well fit with what MFP or a HRM estimates for calorie expenditure - they are both OK for my 3 mile walks, but after 5-6 miles when I appear to go from 8-9 kcal/min to 11-12 kcal/min with no noticeable change in heart rate the 3 different methods get further and further apart for me.
  • kistockman
    kistockman Posts: 80 Member
    [quote}


    ...YEAH SHE LITERALLY MEANS 1000 TIMES..... seriously? ...dont be ****'s lol
    [/quote]

    Given that the topic is focused on accuracy, perhaps people should be more careful about their claims.

    Admittedly, had she even said that the HRM is 50% more accurate, I would have challenged that claim too. It is my belief that people just *assume* that the HRM is a more accurate determination of calories burned without any real basis. I am not yet convinced.
    [/quote]

    *sigh*
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member

    ...YEAH SHE LITERALLY MEANS 1000 TIMES..... seriously? ...dont be ****'s lol

    Given that the topic is focused on accuracy, perhaps people should be more careful about their claims.

    Admittedly, had she even said that the HRM is 50% more accurate, I would have challenged that claim too. It is my belief that people just *assume* that the HRM is a more accurate determination of calories burned without any real basis. I am not yet convinced.

    This. While everyone will yell up and down about how much more accurate their Polarmin GT40000 is, they have no empirical evidence to make a that statement. No one knows how many calories they actually burn, but since they paid X dollars for the Polarmin they will tell you, in no uncertain terms, how dead on exact it is. And then they will give you some mumbo jumbo about heart rates.

    Do this. Go download the owner's manual for whichever HRM you own or are thinking about buying. Look for the section on calorie counting. I'm betting any amount of money that the calorie counting feature is listed like an afterthought, about 17 pages deep into a 25 page manual. "Oh, by the way, this thing will give you a calorie count" The footnotes might even say don't trust it. These are not the actions of a device with 1000% accuracy. Nobody hides a feature like that unless they are afraid of getting sued.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member


    ...YEAH SHE LITERALLY MEANS 1000 TIMES..... seriously? ...dont be ****'s lol

    Given that the topic is focused on accuracy, perhaps people should be more careful about their claims.

    Admittedly, had she even said that the HRM is 50% more accurate, I would have challenged that claim too. It is my belief that people just *assume* that the HRM is a more accurate determination of calories burned without any real basis. I am not yet convinced.

    *sigh*

    Indeed. This is also my usual reaction when I read of the claims of accuracy calories burned by a HRM.


    (Full disclosure: I will probably be buying a HRM later this month. What I will not be doing, however, is believing that its calories burned estimation is inherently more accurate than some other estimate.)
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member


    ...YEAH SHE LITERALLY MEANS 1000 TIMES..... seriously? ...dont be ****'s lol

    Given that the topic is focused on accuracy, perhaps people should be more careful about their claims.

    Admittedly, had she even said that the HRM is 50% more accurate, I would have challenged that claim too. It is my belief that people just *assume* that the HRM is a more accurate determination of calories burned without any real basis. I am not yet convinced.

    *sigh*

    Indeed. This is also my usual reaction when I read of the claims of accuracy calories burned by a HRM.


    (Full disclosure: I will probably be buying a HRM later this month. What I will not be doing, however, is believing that its calories burned estimation is inherently more accurate than some other estimate.)

    I feel the same way. I also recently bought a Garmin with HRM.
    Like I said above many people on here have run into trouble by blinding following their HRM's estimate
  • 1980karen
    1980karen Posts: 92 Member
    i have just bought a polar ft4 and have been using it during every cardio session i have done.

    while out running (also using runtastic on iphone to measure distance) my calorie count was alot lower than runtastic. however when i did a session at the gym and entered my age, weight etc. into the machines (treadmill, bike, x-trainer and stairmill) i got exactly the same calorie count on both machine and HRM.
  • phjorg
    phjorg Posts: 252 Member
    12 mile walk with a Wahoo HRM: 1,073 kcal.
    Same 12 mile walk with a Ki Fit: 2,645 kcal (- 1.8 kcal/min RMR for 275 minutes) = 2,150 kcal.
    MFP, walking, 3mph for 275 minutes: 1,509 kcal.

    862-1,292 calories is a lot to be out by, assuming the Ki Fit is +/- 10% accurate (or is it +/- 5%?)

    ETA: It depends on how accurate it is for you. My HRM is for heart rate, my Foot Pod is for steps, my GPS is for distance, my Ki Fit is for calories, and MFP is for food. Depending on your exercise and body you may well fit with what MFP or a HRM estimates for calorie expenditure - they are both OK for my 3 mile walks, but after 5-6 miles when I appear to go from 8-9 kcal/min to 11-12 kcal/min with no noticeable change in heart rate the 3 different methods get further and further apart for me.
    in the interest of accuracy, there is zero chance you are burning 8-12cal/min from walking. prob closer to 2-3 after you lose the 2-3 from your BMR.

    marathon pace is aprox 13-15cal/min from exercise fyi. which is magnitudes more intense than walking is.
  • watfordjc
    watfordjc Posts: 304 Member
    12 mile walk with a Wahoo HRM: 1,073 kcal.
    Same 12 mile walk with a Ki Fit: 2,645 kcal (- 1.8 kcal/min RMR for 275 minutes) = 2,150 kcal.
    MFP, walking, 3mph for 275 minutes: 1,509 kcal.

    862-1,292 calories is a lot to be out by, assuming the Ki Fit is +/- 10% accurate (or is it +/- 5%?)

    ETA: It depends on how accurate it is for you. My HRM is for heart rate, my Foot Pod is for steps, my GPS is for distance, my Ki Fit is for calories, and MFP is for food. Depending on your exercise and body you may well fit with what MFP or a HRM estimates for calorie expenditure - they are both OK for my 3 mile walks, but after 5-6 miles when I appear to go from 8-9 kcal/min to 11-12 kcal/min with no noticeable change in heart rate the 3 different methods get further and further apart for me.
    in the interest of accuracy, there is zero chance you are burning 8-12cal/min from walking. prob closer to 2-3 after you lose the 2-3 from your BMR.

    marathon pace is aprox 13-15cal/min from exercise fyi. which is magnitudes more intense than walking is.

    Well, since I eat back my exercise calories, perhaps you can explain this?

    Bod Pod results #1: http://pi.thejc.me.uk/weight-loss/Bod-Pod-2012-12-06.pdf
    Bod Pod results #2: http://pi.thejc.me.uk/weight-loss/Bod-Pod-2013-01-30.pdf
    Ki Fit weight loss chart: http://pi.thejc.me.uk/weight-loss/weight-loss-graph-2013-06-04.png

    The red line in that image is a straight line from getting my Ki Fit to my goal weight, so my expectation is that I will deviate below the line the closer to the halfway point I get, after which both lines start to come closer together again (1% mass loss per week rather than the same amount per week throughout).

    Considering I did very little exercise between 10th Feburary and 19th March due to illness, how can you say with 100% certainty that my RMR and exercise calories are incorrect? Discounting water weight due to my sodium intake being correlative with my calorie intake, and assuming the possibility of the gravity in my bathroom fluctuating is insignificant enough to not factor it in, the results so far are indicative that the Ki Fit may be accurate for me minute-by-minute (my RMR between 10th February and 19th March was 1.5-1.9 kcal/min, I lost the weight I expected to lose).

    I'm not drawing conclusions from my Bod Pod results without the one scheduled in 3 weeks time since two data points don't make a pattern.
  • airangel59
    airangel59 Posts: 1,887 Member
    FT 7 here and I only use water with mine
  • watfordjc
    watfordjc Posts: 304 Member
    Ignore what I've wrote about my HRM - the data and conclusion are invalid.

    Just got back from a 15.75 mi walk and drilled down into the settings in the app I use to work out why the longer walks are so far off and discovered an error on my part - the app doesn't sync settings between devices.

    So, when I switched to my iPad for the longer walks (better battery life for bluetooth ANT+ and GPS) the calories burned were based on heart rate, terrain, steps, distance, and speed. It made the assumption I weigh 140 lb (IIRC) so will likely be more accurate after I enter my weight and measurements on another day (it needs two days of data).

Categories