Burned Calories on Polar FT4 accurate??

SuperSaiyanEva
SuperSaiyanEva Posts: 39 Member
edited November 9 in Fitness and Exercise
I just got the Polar FT4 heart rate monitor and used it for the first time today with my workout. I use Leslie Sansone's 5 Mile Fat Burning Walk video. I set up the watch with all my info and it said I burned 549 calories doing this video. I can't believe it. I'm 5'0" and weigh around 157. My heart rate average was 156. I was "in zone" for 55 minutes out of 62. Leslie Sansone's web site does say that you burn about 100 calories every mile but I thought that was a bit high. Or maybe not according to the heart rate monitor. Do you find your Polar heart rate monitors to be accurate?

Replies

  • brirandle1
    brirandle1 Posts: 22 Member
    I have had a Polar FT4 heart rate monitor for about a year now and workout at club using it. Its more accurate than the heart rate monitors on the machines and I have lost 43 pounds since may using it along with the food diary here so it is working for me
  • malcolmjcooper
    malcolmjcooper Posts: 79 Member
    I have a ft7 and trust it 100% and I've lost 47kg or 104 in pounds haha
  • maryalicejohn
    maryalicejohn Posts: 6 Member
    I think it's pretty accurate or as accurate as a HRM can be. When you lose weight be sure to adjust your stats though. As you continue losing and your weight lowers, it's near impossible to reach those burns again. Now I can barely burn 300-400 calories in 55 mins in the zone.
  • htimpaired
    htimpaired Posts: 1,404 Member
    I have an FT4-like the other poster said, make sure you enter your stats in correctly, and update them as you lose weight (your calorie burn will go down a bit). I am 5ft 1, 122 lbs, and in a cardio workout where my heartrate is between 150-70, I will burn approx 400 calories in 45 minutes, give or take depending on the intensity.
  • asdowe13
    asdowe13 Posts: 1,951 Member
    HRM - any brand are all good guestimators

    and only mostly accurate for steady state cardio, any other type of exercise it isn't going to be anywhere near accurate.

    it also doesn't take into consideration the calories you would have burned regardless of the exercise(s) you partook in while wearing it.
  • baremington
    baremington Posts: 12
    adowe wrote: »
    HRM - any brand are all good guestimators

    and only mostly accurate for steady state cardio, any other type of exercise it isn't going to be anywhere near accurate.

    it also doesn't take into consideration the calories you would have burned regardless of the exercise(s) you partook in while wearing it.

    i use a website that will subtract the calories i would have burned naturally during that time from the total calories my polar says i've burned:

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn-conversion-calculator.aspx

    i just have to enter the total cals my hrm says i've burned, the duration of the activity, and my age/height/weight. it will then tell me what i've burned (approximately) JUST from the exercise. it makes me feel that i'm estimating at least a bit more accurately!
  • Phildog47
    Phildog47 Posts: 255 Member
    trust the Polar
  • NicoleisQuantized
    NicoleisQuantized Posts: 344 Member
    I used to have an FT4 for years and Polar-FT# is a great product. I switched to an FT60 because it calculates your resting heart rate (which is used to estimate your VO2 max) to give an accurate reading. For example, for a 32 minute run on the treadmill my stats were:

    MAX HR: 190 bpm
    AVG HR: 176 bpm

    Zone 1 Duration: 00 min 28 sec (117 - 136 bpm)
    Zone 2 Duration: 00 min 45 sec (137 - 155 bpm)
    Zone 3 Duration: 29 min 46 sec (156 - 176 bpm)

    I weight ~186 lbs and am 5'2". This HRM takes into account your height, gender, and MAX and resting HR.

    As long as you adjust the stats as you use it, it should be accurate for steady state cardio.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited December 2014
    "I was in zone for 55 minutes out of 62" - so pretty much steady state cardio. Good use of a HRM.

    "Leslie Sansone's web site does say that you burn about 100 calories every mile but I thought that was a bit high" - too high for some, too low for others (probably).

    "Do you find your Polar heart rate monitors to be accurate?" - not really, but accurate enough for successful weight loss and maintenance.
  • asdowe13
    asdowe13 Posts: 1,951 Member
    baremington wrote: »
    adowe wrote: »
    HRM - any brand are all good guestimators

    and only mostly accurate for steady state cardio, any other type of exercise it isn't going to be anywhere near accurate.

    it also doesn't take into consideration the calories you would have burned regardless of the exercise(s) you partook in while wearing it.

    i use a website that will subtract the calories i would have burned naturally during that time from the total calories my polar says i've burned:

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn-conversion-calculator.aspx

    i just have to enter the total cals my hrm says i've burned, the duration of the activity, and my age/height/weight. it will then tell me what i've burned (approximately) JUST from the exercise. it makes me feel that i'm estimating at least a bit more accurately!

    i would trust your numbers then
  • SuperSaiyanEva
    SuperSaiyanEva Posts: 39 Member
    Thanks everyone!

    I used the calculator at shapesense.com and got 478 for net calories burned. So to be on the safe side, I guess I'll say I'm burning about 450-500 with my workout. It still seems so high to me. I just can't believe it lol. Thanks again guys!
    baremington wrote: »
    adowe wrote: »
    HRM - any brand are all good guestimators

    and only mostly accurate for steady state cardio, any other type of exercise it isn't going to be anywhere near accurate.

    it also doesn't take into consideration the calories you would have burned regardless of the exercise(s) you partook in while wearing it.

    i use a website that will subtract the calories i would have burned naturally during that time from the total calories my polar says i've burned:

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn-conversion-calculator.aspx

    i just have to enter the total cals my hrm says i've burned, the duration of the activity, and my age/height/weight. it will then tell me what i've burned (approximately) JUST from the exercise. it makes me feel that i'm estimating at least a bit more accurately!

  • beautifulwarrior18
    beautifulwarrior18 Posts: 914 Member
    edited December 2014
    accurate for cardio, not for weight training. If you were in the zone for 55 minutes you probably did burn 500 calories. I love my FT4. I hate working out without it.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories