Polar FT4M vs LifeFitness Calorie Burn

jbush82
jbush82 Posts: 2 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So I'm trying to figure out which calorie burn to track given such a large discrepancy between the Polar FT4M and LifeFitness cardio machine. Maybe I simply average the two, but I'd like to try and understand why the difference and determine if maybe one uses a more scientifically accurate methodology for calculations.

This is the situation... I wear the Polar heart rate monitor that came with the Polar FT4M wrist band. The heart rate information is provided to both the wrist band and the Life Fitness cardio machine simultaneously. On the LifeFitness machine, I put in my weight, track my heart rate, and it tracks my pace (not age or sex). On the wrist band, I've programmed it to know my weight, sex, age / birthday, and it tracks my heart rate (not pace). At the end of a 40 minute workout, LifeFitness shows a calorie burn of 554 whereas my Polar FT4M shows a calorie burn of 849. A minor difference I wouldn't worry about, but a 53% increase for the FT4M over the LifeFitness cardio machine... is to much to ignore. Over the course of two weeks, that could account for 1 pound.. and over a year, 26 pounds.

Thoughts anybody?

Replies

  • knra_grl
    knra_grl Posts: 1,566 Member
    That is a huge difference I am just trying to figure out what hrm to purchase as I don't have one yet and would like to start tracking more accurately.
  • jbush82
    jbush82 Posts: 2 Member
    That is a huge difference I am just trying to figure out what hrm to purchase as I don't have one yet and would like to start tracking more accurately.

    My wife spent a lot of time looking over reviews on various HRMs and the Polar F4TM appears to have the most positive feedback. My suspicion is that pace is mostly irrelevant, simply because what matters is how hard *you* workout, not how fast you workout (quantity vs quality). For more information on the Polar F4TM, take a look at Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Heart-Monitor-Watch-Silver/dp/B001U0OFCS/

    Nearly a 5-star rating with over 2,200 reviews... almost unheard of for any product, let alone a fitness product.
  • janessafantasma
    janessafantasma Posts: 312 Member
    I just purchased a Polar FT4 and currently using a Mio Active Petite. I'm curious to compare the two since the Mio does not use a transmitter and also has difficulty taking my HR when I am still moving. It will definitely be nice to not have to slow down my pace or stop to check my HR. I do know that my MHR has consistently been 70 but when I went to the clinic awhile back, my HR was 65 and that was after moving around and only sitting for a short period of time while waiting for the doctor. I bought my FT4 based solely on the Amazon reviews, I do not know anyone personally that has ever used it.
  • knra_grl
    knra_grl Posts: 1,566 Member
    That is a huge difference I am just trying to figure out what hrm to purchase as I don't have one yet and would like to start tracking more accurately.

    My wife spent a lot of time looking over reviews on various HRMs and the Polar F4TM appears to have the most positive feedback. My suspicion is that pace is mostly irrelevant, simply because what matters is how hard *you* workout, not how fast you workout (quantity vs quality). For more information on the Polar F4TM, take a look at Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Heart-Monitor-Watch-Silver/dp/B001U0OFCS/

    Nearly a 5-star rating with over 2,200 reviews... almost unheard of for any product, let alone a fitness product.

    Thank you for the info :bigsmile:

Categories