New HRM- Polar FT4-

katmarsc · January 2011

I am kind of kicking myself right now. I purchased aPolar FT4. Since, I am a novice when it comes to this, I was looking for a user friendly one that told me my HRM, calories burned, progress. I work on the elliptical, walk and use weights, and will pop in a DVD now and then. No hardcore runner, or anything like that. I was doing just fine without the HRM and for the longest time was thinking, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But I kept hearing how HRMs are so much more accurate that I decided to fix it anyway.

I use a elliptical the machine, that reading and MFP are the same. When I used the Polar it came in 100 calories burned lower. I know many of the other posts say that might happen.. I am still looking for confirmation.
160, 5'4", Today I used it for 22 minutes MFP - 293 burned, Polar- 184 calories..
Anyone with similiar stats coming up the same using your HRM.
I am already at 1200 calorie intake, so difference can hinder my results.. My body fat count is high, so I not eating back calories at the moment.
Thanks

If you also think that the Polar FT4 is more than I needed for my fitness regime, I would like to hear feedback on that too.

countryrunner · January 2011

I would trust the HRM. I've always read that elliptical calorie readings are much higher than they should be. I've also noticed in many of the message boards lately that a lot of the MFP entries for exercises are wrong. I believe this enough that yesterday I ordered a Polar FT7 so that I can be calculating my calories more accurately.

sas16 · January 2011

I have the FT4. I got it to track my cals burned during my workouts, as well. Not a runner or anything, just wanted something a little more accurate. I did find that my cals burned per HRM were lower than MFP's estimates. I use the HRM number. It hasn't hindered my weight loss and my cal goal is also at 1200.

beckem · March 2011

i also just brought a ft7 but after using i found my calorie loss was twice what the machine was sayin, especially on the treadmill. i believe this is due to my weight and is correct

JenniferVegas · March 2011

This is strange. I don't know which to believe.

The Treadmill at 45 minutes at roughly 1.2 walking speed. I'm 6'1 with a weight of about 289.

The treadmill says I'm losing 137 calories. While the Polar FT4 says I'm lost 316. Certainly the 316 isn't accurate... is it?

Now with the treadmill I'm not able to enter my weight and I've heard they just assume you're a pre-decided average weight and it doesn't really compensate for heavier people.

So which reading should I use?

Thanks in Advance.

-Jen

madaughters · March 2011

This is strange. I don't know which to believe.

The Treadmill at 45 minutes at roughly 1.2 walking speed. I'm 6'1 with a weight of about 289.

The treadmill says I'm losing 137 calories. While the Polar FT4 says I'm lost 316. Certainly the 316 isn't accurate... is it?

Now with the treadmill I'm not able to enter my weight and I've heard they just assume you're a pre-decided average weight and it doesn't really compensate for heavier people.

So which reading should I use?

Thanks in Advance.

-Jen

If you can't enter your weight on the treadmill, the calorie report is going to be incorrect. I would go by your HRM.

JenniferVegas · March 2011

If you can't enter your weight on the treadmill, the calorie report is going to be incorrect. I would go by your HRM.

That's one for the HRM.

I just finished a 62 minute walk at roughly 1.2 miles (using a treadmill desk). The final count was 404 calories.

It just seems too good to be true.

I tried searching other calorie converters but they don't go below 2.0 miles per hour.

Is 404 calories in one hour reasonable for the work out I did?

Edit. I just remembered I used the heart rate monitor that came with the treadmill. It said 453 calories in 83 minutes with a rough 1.2 - 1.4 walking speed.

Again... it just seems too good to be true.

New HRM- Polar FT4-

Replies

Categories