HRM - Polar FT7

bluiz13
bluiz13 Posts: 3,550 Member
edited September 22 in Fitness and Exercise
i have a question for those that wear the Polar FT7 HRM....
after my workouts my reading on the monitor shows readings for fat burn and fitness....i just do not understand what the numbers mean....can you guys give me some input....there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to my calculations...well not that i get anyway LOL....what is better - fat burning or fitness????

here are a few examples of the workouts/readings i have had i the last few days....thanks in advance for the insight...

saturday i did weight lifting class for 54 mins and burned 267 cals/average HR110/max 137- reading was 45;44 fat burning & 7:15 fitness....
last night i did 41 mins of run/walking intervals and burned 332 cals/average HR 140/max 159 - reading was 2:54 fat burning & 38:15 fitness....
today i did 46 mins of steady walking and burned just over 200 cals/average HR106/max 184 - the reading was 35:01 fat burning & 10:52 fitness...

Replies

  • jrich1
    jrich1 Posts: 2,408 Member
    THe FT7 has ranges of HR and the higher numbers are fitness and lower HR ranges are considered fatburning, I dont know the exact ranges, but the HRM tracks how long your heart rate was in each range.
  • Mahooka
    Mahooka Posts: 21 Member
    I don't have one of these but it appears that it is calculating the time Heart Rate is in the different modes of "Fat Burning" & "Fitness"

    Example using today

    35:01 Fat Burning Heart Rate
    10:52 Fitness Heart Rate
    ______
    46:00 Minute Workout

    I think a little mix of both is good. I like intervals where you jack your heart up for a short burst and then recover. Changing the interval times makes it a little more interesting to run/jog/walk. When I'm lifting weights I always warm-up and get my heart rolling, then lift for 20 minutes and get it rolling again, repeat until your weight lifting is over.
  • MisdemeanorM
    MisdemeanorM Posts: 3,493 Member
    I believe that the fat burn it the % of calories burned that came from fat, vs from muscle etc. There is a slight misconception that working out a lower heart rate will burn more fat - true, working out at (let me make up some stats losely based on what I know my readouts usually are, to make a point) say 130 HR for an hour will burn 350 calories at 60% fat (210 cals from fat), while working out at 165 for an hour will burn 600 cals at 40% fat (240 cals from fat). So, you're burning a higher % of fat, but a lower # overall of fat calories at the lower heart rate. (Not ALWAYS true that you burn more fat cals at the higher rate, depending on the actual stats, but you get the idea). Providing you are eating enough food and protein to build up your muscles at the higher cal burn (so that you don't "eat" your muscles as fuel), you'll burn more fat, plus the added benefit of the harder workout (ie more muscle = more fat burned later). I know that you just wanted to know it means and this goes a little further :)

    I would guess, based on my PolarF6, which i think is pretty much the FT7 but an outdated model (it's 2 yrs old) that "fitness" is the amount of time spent in your target heart zone. I have mine set to hard workout by default so it tells me how long I stay between 155 and 172.

    Ah, and just rereading your post, I realized that that fist # is not a %. Though your watch might have the % I mentioned above in the readout somewhere. It does sound like time in each designated heart rate zone. But, keep in mind the above when targeting what zone(s) to stay in!
  • justahorsen
    justahorsen Posts: 234
    I have the same model and as near as I can tell it is by your range...if you put it on the screen where it says "effect" at the top and has the line it will show you your pulse rate...and the word "effect" changes to "fat burn" or "fitness"....when my heart rate goes over 109 it changes to fitness. I imagine that this is different for everyone depending on the weight etc you logged into it to start. That reminds me don't forget to change those settings as you lose weight. Good luck on your journey!!!
  • bluiz13
    bluiz13 Posts: 3,550 Member
    yes my readings are set to BPM instead of percentages....
    not really sure i got an answer i understand....

    tonight i just did the treadmill at 3-3.5mph for 75 mins and had 65 mins of fat burning and 10 mins of fitness....
    is that good or should i aim for the other way around and if that is the answer than how do i do that???
  • BoresEasily
    BoresEasily Posts: 582
    Basically ignore the so-called fat-burning zone, it's a load of bullocks. It just means that of the calories you burn during your workout that you will burn a higher % from fat calories but at the higher zone you will burn more calories, more fat but the % of fat calories will be less than in the fat-burning zone. You want to workout to maximize calorie burn so ignore the fat-burning zone crap. If you are in good shape fitness wise than the so-called fat-burning zone should be your recovery zone. Otherwise build up to the fitness zone by increasing your intensity a bit at a time until you're able to be in your fitness zone rather than fat-burning zone.
  • BoresEasily
    BoresEasily Posts: 582
    yes my readings are set to BPM instead of percentages....
    not really sure i got an answer i understand....

    tonight i just did the treadmill at 3-3.5mph for 75 mins and had 65 mins of fat burning and 10 mins of fitness....
    is that good or should i aim for the other way around and if that is the answer than how do i do that???

    If you're able to do 65 minutes in your lower zone and 10 in your higher zone then look to reduce your over-all time spent working out by working out longer in your higher zone. IE maybe do 30 minutes in your higher zone and 10 minutes in your lower zone and the lower zone would be your 5 minute warm-up and 5 minute cool-down. Only if you're physically able that is.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories