Polar FT4 (very confused)

Options
mandiex0
mandiex0 Posts: 174
in Fitness and Exercise
So when i first got my polar, i was 143 pounds. i filled in all the info, and it set up my zone heart rate limits and such. i wore it every workout, and logged all my calories burned. for example, i burned about 430 in leslie sansones 5 mile walk. its 68 minutes.. my heart rate zone limits were between 135 and 185. i stepped on the scale on monday, and weighed in at 136. so of course i ran to the watch and changed my weight. it then said, recalculate zone limits so i clicked yes. now my heart rate zone limits are between 122 and 175.. but theres a problem. i always thought the less you weigh, the less calories you burn. but not according to my polar. i did my workout as normal, and instead of burning the 430 calories in leslies walk, i burned 536... i really hope my polar ft4 didnt stop working, but i just dont see how that is possible. i worked out like i usually do, i didnt push harder i did my normal power walking. any ideas? help me out.

Replies

  • sophjakesmom
    sophjakesmom Posts: 904 Member
    Options
    probably because according to your HRM, you exceeded your target heart rate longer. I would give it a few workouts to see.
  • aldiaz381
    aldiaz381 Posts: 21
    Options
    Ok, first I'm not an expert and am still learning, so I hope this is accurate. My trainer at the gym said the more lean muscle you have, the more calories you burn. So if you are losing weight and gaining more lean muscle, your body would be burning more calories doing the same workout. Like, even doing nothing all day, you will burn more calories if you have alot of lean muscle then someone who has a lot of fat. So I would say your watch is still accurate and you have increased your lean muscle. Hope that makes sense!
  • amyfritz
    amyfritz Posts: 33
    Options
    I have an FT4 myself and also work in the fitness field. The way the HRM calculates your calorie burn is by using a formula using both your weight, age and HR with the idea the higher your HR the more calories you burn. If you adjust your weight, your THR should not recalculate, so double check your age on the monitor. You can also override the system to set your THR to whatever you want. You are right though, if you weigh less you will burn less calories.

    Start with the age, then if all else fails you can override the THR to whatever you want..

    A generic formula

    220--age = Heart rate max

    take that HR max x the intensity- usually between 60-85%
  • mandiex0
    mandiex0 Posts: 174
    Options
    everytime i change the weight it asks me if i would like to update the heart rate zone limits. so i click yes, and it changes. 143lbs it goes from 135 to 185, and then when i change it back to 136lbs it goes from 122 to 175.
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Options
    A number of factors can influence calorie burn including if its really hot outside, how high your heart rate was, if the strap is tight enough/wet enough.

    What was your max and average heart rate? If it's closer or above 175 then your going to burn a lot more calories then if you are at a lower heart rate zone.
  • elbutch
    elbutch Posts: 1
    Options
    I just bought a Polar FT4. My first workout was 50 minutes @ 660 calories. According to the workout summary I was in the target HR zone for about 25 minutes. I ran/jogged/walked between 3 and 7 mph. I'm not sure if my cals burned measurement was high, but the Polar seems much more accurate than other HRMS. I also recently bought a Timex t5g971 (something like that) personal trainer. My initial jog with that was 22 minutes @ 363 calories, which is less than half the time and more than half the calories counted with the FT4. What are people's thoughts about the accuracy of the Polar FT4's calories counter?
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Options
    I just bought a Polar FT4. My first workout was 50 minutes @ 660 calories. According to the workout summary I was in the target HR zone for about 25 minutes. I ran/jogged/walked between 3 and 7 mph. I'm not sure if my cals burned measurement was high, but the Polar seems much more accurate than other HRMS. I also recently bought a Timex t5g971 (something like that) personal trainer. My initial jog with that was 22 minutes @ 363 calories, which is less than half the time and more than half the calories counted with the FT4. What are people's thoughts about the accuracy of the Polar FT4's calories counter?

    The polar is way more accurate then the TImex you bought I can tell you that. The Timex only lets you enter weight and max/lower heart rate limits, while the Polar lets you enter all things needed for an accurate calorie burn.

    I'd personally ditch the Timex and stick with the Polar.

Categories