Anyone with a "Polar A360" Fitness Watch

Options
carolgrn
carolgrn Posts: 657 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I am starting to think I don't understand what I thought was obvious.
Everyday I check my training sessions - I record everything in my MFP exercise notes - steps, distance, calories burned

I Take the "calories burned" (from Polar) - - and subtract my food diary calorie set for the day - - And also subtract my training session calories and (=) end up with what I thought was still extra calories burned.

I keep coming up excellent, good, or okay on achieving more burned calories than eaten calories, but have not seen any weight loss in at least 2 months.
Actually I am fighting not gaining
«1

Replies

  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    Ok, so while calories burned from a watch are a good indicator of relative effort - they aren't necessarily 100% exact. In order to avoid overeating, here is what I do.

    If my watch says I burned 800 cals - I'm going to "I've myself permission" to eat back somewhere between 200-400 cals of those, if I feel hungry. It's ok to use that to create a small additional deficit of a few hundred cals to "push" weight loss.

    Let's say I have 1600 cals for the day normally, that day with 800 cals burned, I'm going to eat 2000 at most (my normal plus half of the exercise).
  • daweasel
    daweasel Posts: 68 Member
    Options
    The accuracy of the calories burned from the watch will depend a bit on what sort of activity you're doing (steady-state cardio they're generally quite good, but for interval training it can over-estimate because it's based on heart rate and it can take a while for your heart rate to go up and especially down with the effort, and weight lifting will really throw it out).

    How do the values compare to what MFP estimates for the calorie expenditure? In my experience (and reported by others) the MFP values are a bit high, so if your watch values are a little below those then it should be reasonably accurate.

    I use a different Polar watch, and assuming you have the same interface online, make sure all your settings as accurate as you can, like your weight, max heart rate, etc, because it'll be basing the calorie calculation off that (eg if it's predicting your max HR at 180 but it's actually 200, when you get up to say 130bpm it thinks you're working harder than you are because it thinks you're at a greater percentage of your maximum. 220-age is a good starting point if you don't know your max, but it can be very inaccurate for some people).

    Sorry if I'm telling you things you already know, just trying to think of anything that might cause it.
  • carolgrn
    carolgrn Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    My watch numbers are always below MFP calorie burn #s
    I always record my Polar numbers
  • daweasel
    daweasel Posts: 68 Member
    Options
    Yep, then the numbers are probably accurate. In my experience the Polar numbers are pretty reasonable when it's set up correctly.

    Plateau's are fairly common in weight loss. The body can be very efficient, unfortunately. Sometimes you have to further increase the calorie deficit, or something else you can try is to try different types of exercise. If you always do one type of cardio, try doing something else one or two days a week to challenge your body and force it to work harder or differently.

    If you're lifting weights, it might also be possible that you're still losing fat but gaining muscle? You could try tracking measurements or body fat (if you have access to something that will let you) to see if there is any change there.
  • carolgrn
    carolgrn Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    daweasel wrote: »
    try different types of exercise. If you always do one type of cardio, try doing something else one or two days a week to challenge your body and force it to work harder or differently.
    If you're lifting weights, it might also be possible that you're still losing fat but gaining muscle? You could try tracking measurements or body fat (if you have access to something that will let you) to see if there is any change there.
    All Good ideas - I am trying variety of things

    Am I figuring my numbers correctly from my watch?
    I Take the "calories burned total" (from Polar) - - and subtract my food diary calorie set (1300) for the day - - And also subtract my training session calories and (=) end up with what I thought was still extra calories burned.

  • ScubaSteve1962
    ScubaSteve1962 Posts: 612 Member
    Options
    You can enable polar negative calorie adjustments, this will go by your calorie from your A360 instead of MFP
  • taco_inspector
    taco_inspector Posts: 7,223 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    carolgrn wrote: »
    Am I figuring my numbers correctly from my watch?
    I Take the "calories burned total" (from Polar) - - and subtract my food diary calorie set (1300) for the day - - And also subtract my training session calories and (=) end up with what I thought was still extra calories burned.
    I would question the order of operations...

    Take a look at your math sequence -- As I'm reading your post, I'm interpreting that your taking your WatchCaloriesBurned, then subtracting your FeedIntakeCalories (backwards, but a slightly positive number here would be a slight caloric deficit ...) and THEN you're subtracting "Training Session Calories" ??? If these are NOT included on your watch they would need to be accounted for in your caloric burn; subtracting them as you've written things out in your post would toss a wrench into the basic math (you've written it as "Burn" - "Intake" - "Burn" = not right :( )

    you're looking to establish the difference between intake and usage ("feeding" and "burning")

    If you begin with your caloric intake (feed) you would then want to subtract the number of calories used (for the period).

    If your watch is giving you a "Total Calories Burned" that includes 100% of your daily activities, then your math would go more like this: 
    EATING - WatchTotal Calories Burned

    In the scenario where you are NOT using your watch for 100% of your daily caloric burn, you would need to look a doing your math something like this, paying attention to the order of operations)
    (For this scenario all your caloric burns are summed, to get a "Total Calories Burned" number, before being subtracted from your intake) 
    EATING -  ( WatchCaloriesBurned + OtherCaloriesBurned )

    Either calculation would want to come up with a negative number to lose weight something near negative 200 per day for roughly 1-pound loss each week

    Of course, accuracy is key, both for the caloric intake (scales and measures) and your caloric burn numbers...
  • carolgrn
    carolgrn Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    standenvernet wrote: »
    If your watch is giving you a "Total Calories Burned" that includes 100% of your daily activities, then your math would go more like this: 
    EATING - WatchTotal Calories Burned
    Of course, accuracy is key, both for the caloric intake (scales and measures) and your caloric burn numbers...

    I went back and figured all food and watch calories burned from May 12 thru June 19
    food 53,638
    Polar watch calories burned 84,411
    Come out with total of -30,773

    Even if I had small inaccuracies in my food numbers I don't think they could be several thousand off.
    So - - - What's wrong with me???
  • taco_inspector
    taco_inspector Posts: 7,223 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    carolgrn wrote: »
    I went back and figured all food and watch calories burned from May 12 thru June 19
    food 53,638
    Polar watch calories burned 84,411
    Come out with total of -30,773

    Even if I had small inaccuracies in my food numbers I don't think they could be several thousand off.
    So - - - What's wrong with me???

    Yep, your math here shows about 800-cals a day that'd need to be "taken up" by inaccuracies in the watch AND inaccuracies in food intake.
    • If your watch is entirely to blame, it'd be off by ~35%;
    • If your food logging is entirely to blame, it'd be introducing a 57% error.
    Everyone will always ask to ensure that you're weighing (digital scale) or wet-measuring all your food intake, so let's assume that your intake is pretty accurate (not just going with the package labels and approximating or any of that)... Nothing is perfect, but allowing a 10 or 15% error in intake attribution could be reasonable... (10% would be under-logging intake by 5364 cals for the period; about 140cals/day)

    As mentioned above, the watch is often suspect, many of them do not perform well with anything beyond steady-state cardio and some really over-estimate the walking around the office and brushing-of-teeth types of tasks... I can't speak with any authority on your Polar a360 (though several online reviews do mention that it has issues with Heart Rate measurements in interval type exercises) -- You may have some accuracy issues here... But likely not the full 35% unless the watch's accuracy is compounded by some inaccurate setup data. (Perhaps double-checking height/weight/%BF or other settings may influence the output?)

    Just a tickling through a few of the RMR/BMR models show that a 53yr♀ @ ~24% Body Fat (from your profile ~175lb) should have a BMR near 1675cals/day, so again, even if your watch is whacked, you're still logging intake 300-cals/day (mean for the period) below your BMR and you should be able to see some loss at that... (a higher BF would have lower caloric need)

    So, your question is very valid:
    carolgrn wrote: »
    What's wrong with me???

    If you're comfortable that you have no medical condition that would impair weight loss, and you're comfortable accepting your intake logging and watch as your own personal basis -- You can actually re-calculate your plans from what data you're working with here...

    Barring any medical condition to the contrary, since you've see no weight motion for this time period (39-days), you can establish that for the period's level of activity (measured as you are) your 'maintenance' intake is 1375cals/day (logged as you log) -- As a ♀ @ 24%BF (kinda near the low-end for "our age") you may want to drop 250 calories (for 0.5lb/week loss) so that you'd eat only 1150-cals a day (logging as you log), just to see if your scale will move . Give that the typical 3-week trial period and maintain your watch's burn measurement in the 2165cal/day range for those 3-weeks.

    Usually, when digging to the root of these kinda issues, it'll generally be some assumptive inaccuracies in the logging mechanisms, but... with all things being equal you can typically accept those inaccuracies as new constants in the equations and load the calculations with your particular values and continue to make progress. ALL of the formulas used do differ by physiology and are fully dependent on measurement accuracy that may not be available to most of us anyway. So, working with what you DO know and how you DO measure, can get you moving again, even if "what's wrong" is the very basis of the numbers that we're working with.

    Double-check with your physician, and give it a shot...


  • RoseTheWarrior
    RoseTheWarrior Posts: 2,035 Member
    Options
    The Polar A360 is not accurate for steps and such, and it won't be accurate for anything other than steady state cardio. I have the A360, and I don't look at the total calories on there AT ALL. It logs steps when I blow dry my hair. Personally, I just use the calories MFP gives me, and use my watch to track work out calories. I don't eat back all of that, maybe up to 50%, because I do weight training AND cardio, so I take even that number with a grain of salt. If you haven't budged in 2 months, you're eating too much. It's that simple.
  • godlikepoetyes
    godlikepoetyes Posts: 442 Member
    Options
    I think that my A360 comes out higher than MFP.... BUT I don't do any funky math. I just say, ok... I danced for an hour... Polar says 522. Then I take MFP vigorous dancing and if it's say, 300 I just add on time until I get close to 522 and record that and eat those calories back. I would look at your activity setting. Even if you work out hard an hour every day, you're still sedentary if you don't keep moving the rest of the day. This is why the step count is so important. Polar gives you your activity goal even if you only get 5000 steps. So if you're set at lightly active, dial back to sedentary. You'll probably lose weight. I have to be careful to keep my activity level up. It's a balance you need to figure out.
  • carolgrn
    carolgrn Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    standenvernet wrote: »
    Everyone will always ask to ensure that you're weighing (digital scale)
    Yes, I use a digital scale
    standenvernet wrote: »
    some really over-estimate the walking around the office and brushing-of-teeth types of tasks... I can't speak with any authority on your Polar a360 (though several online reviews do mention that it has issues with Heart Rate measurements in interval type exercises) -- You may have some accuracy issues here... But likely not the full 35% unless the watch's accuracy is compounded by some inaccurate setup data. (Perhaps double-checking height/weight/%BF or other settings may influence the output?)
    Actually my watch is more likely to record less steps. I have walked around and checked several times and it is still set on the same number. - - - I do have the height/weight/age correct on the watch set up. It doesn't allow for an input for BF - It is calculated by the program (stupid) - Polar states my BF at 30%

    Thank you for your input
  • carolgrn
    carolgrn Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    RoseTheWarrior wrote: »
    The Polar A360 is not accurate for steps and such, and it won't be accurate for anything other than steady state cardio. I have the A360, and I don't look at the total calories on there AT ALL. It logs steps when I blow dry my hair. Personally, I just use the calories MFP gives me, and use my watch to track work out calories. I don't eat back all of that, maybe up to 50%, because I do weight training AND cardio, so I take even that number with a grain of salt. If you haven't budged in 2 months, you're eating too much. It's that simple.

    My watch is known to calculate less steps rather than more. Also regarding the watch vs MFP to track calories burned for activity - - MFP is always higher.

    Note: I have not figured out how it decides the % of day completed. I have not been able to see steady numbers at 100% for calories, steps, nor distance.
  • carolgrn
    carolgrn Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    godlikepoetyes wrote: »
    I think that my A360 comes out higher than MFP.... BUT I don't do any funky math. I just say, ok... I danced for an hour... Polar says 522. Then I take MFP vigorous dancing and if it's say, 300 I just add on time until I get close to 522 and record that and eat those calories back. I would look at your activity setting. Even if you work out hard an hour every day, you're still sedentary if you don't keep moving the rest of the day. This is why the step count is so important. Polar gives you your activity goal even if you only get 5000 steps. So if you're set at lightly active, dial back to sedentary. You'll probably lose weight. I have to be careful to keep my activity level up. It's a balance you need to figure out.

    My watch has always showed lower numbers than MFP.
    Activity setting is set to sedentary because unless I am 'working out/training/gardening' I am normally sitting or walking around the house.
  • ScubaSteve1962
    ScubaSteve1962 Posts: 612 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    carolgrn wrote: »
    RoseTheWarrior wrote: »
    The Polar A360 is not accurate for steps and such, and it won't be accurate for anything other than steady state cardio. I have the A360, and I don't look at the total calories on there AT ALL. It logs steps when I blow dry my hair. Personally, I just use the calories MFP gives me, and use my watch to track work out calories. I don't eat back all of that, maybe up to 50%, because I do weight training AND cardio, so I take even that number with a grain of salt. If you haven't budged in 2 months, you're eating too much. It's that simple.

    My watch is known to calculate less steps rather than more. Also regarding the watch vs MFP to track calories burned for activity - - MFP is always higher.

    Note: I have not figured out how it decides the % of day completed. I have not been able to see steady numbers at 100% for calories, steps, nor distance.

    While I'm not using the A360 but the V800, my step total will be under by 2500 to 3000 steps some days, and over by 1000 on others, this is compared to a hip base pedometer. So it balances out. The only way I get 100% daily activity is when I work out with a heart rate of at least 80% for 60 min.

    I do 60 mins of vigiourous cardio, and my calorie estimate is always lower than MFP with negative adjustments, it takes that and another 12000 steps to get a positive adjustments.
  • carolgrn
    carolgrn Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    My watch is known to calculate less steps rather than more. Also regarding the watch vs MFP to track calories burned for activity - - MFP is always higher.
    That's what mine says
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    While I'm not using the A360 but the V800, my step total will be under by 2500 to 3000 steps some days, and over by 1000 on others, this is compared to a hip base pedometer. So it balances out.
    I did learn quickly that extreme vibration (like riding the lawn mower-it's rough riding) shoots up my steps to unbelievable numbers. Since then I try to remember to drive with my other hand.
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    I do 60 mins of vigiourous cardio, and my calorie estimate is always lower than MFP with negative adjustments, it takes that and another 12000 steps to get a positive adjustments.
    I'm not sure I understand this part.
  • ScubaSteve1962
    ScubaSteve1962 Posts: 612 Member
    Options
    carolgrn wrote: »
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    My watch is known to calculate less steps rather than more. Also regarding the watch vs MFP to track calories burned for activity - - MFP is always higher.
    That's what mine says
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    While I'm not using the A360 but the V800, my step total will be under by 2500 to 3000 steps some days, and over by 1000 on others, this is compared to a hip base pedometer. So it balances out.
    I did learn quickly that extreme vibration (like riding the lawn mower-it's rough riding) shoots up my steps to unbelievable numbers. Since then I try to remember to drive with my other hand.
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    I do 60 mins of vigiourous cardio, and my calorie estimate is always lower than MFP with negative adjustments, it takes that and another 12000 steps to get a positive adjustments.
    I'm not sure I understand this part.

    When you have negative adjustments selected, MFP will subtract from it's daily calorie burn to match your device actual calorie burn. From the attachments I have 327 added exercise which is my actual estimated calorie burn 527 minus my estimated daily calories under what MFP estimates 254. The bottom 2 are from a day when there were no exercise calories. 7vmneia2fadl.jpg
  • carolgrn
    carolgrn Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    carolgrn wrote: »
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    My watch is known to calculate less steps rather than more. Also regarding the watch vs MFP to track calories burned for activity - - MFP is always higher.
    That's what mine says
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    While I'm not using the A360 but the V800, my step total will be under by 2500 to 3000 steps some days, and over by 1000 on others, this is compared to a hip base pedometer. So it balances out.
    I did learn quickly that extreme vibration (like riding the lawn mower-it's rough riding) shoots up my steps to unbelievable numbers. Since then I try to remember to drive with my other hand.
    ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »
    I do 60 mins of vigiourous cardio, and my calorie estimate is always lower than MFP with negative adjustments, it takes that and another 12000 steps to get a positive adjustments.
    I'm not sure I understand this part.

    When you have negative adjustments selected, MFP will subtract from it's daily calorie burn to match your device actual calorie burn. From the attachments I have 327 added exercise which is my actual estimated calorie burn 527 minus my estimated daily calories under what MFP estimates 254. The bottom 2 are from a day when there were no exercise calories. 7vmneia2fadl.jpg

    How do you get a negative calorie adjustment and what is it adjusting?
    Is that logging the actual MFP numbers?
  • ScubaSteve1962
    ScubaSteve1962 Posts: 612 Member
    Options
    The negative is the difference between my actual estimated calories from my V800 compared to the estimated MFP estimates. It logs those number to MFP . It will also adjust positive when my V800 estimate is higher.
  • carolgrn
    carolgrn Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    OH - -my A360 does not have that capability to my knowledge
    Is that something done through a smartphone app?

Categories