Does this sound right?

beahurey
beahurey Posts: 108
edited September 19 in Health and Weight Loss
Okay, so I did a lot of research before I bought my Polar F6 (which is awesome). I seen that some people said they actually burn a couple of hundred calories more. According to my F6, I burn almost 3x the amount of what my treadmill says...3 times!!! :noway: I have been using it for three weeks. It is always the same. For example, yesterday the treadmill said I burned 452 calories for a 65min 3.5mile walk/run...My HRM said I burned 1336 calories. I did the little test when you first set it up three times to make sure it was consistent. I triple checked all my info...So is this right or is my HRM whack? :huh:

Replies

  • beahurey
    beahurey Posts: 108
    Okay, so I did a lot of research before I bought my Polar F6 (which is awesome). I seen that some people said they actually burn a couple of hundred calories more. According to my F6, I burn almost 3x the amount of what my treadmill says...3 times!!! :noway: I have been using it for three weeks. It is always the same. For example, yesterday the treadmill said I burned 452 calories for a 65min 3.5mile walk/run...My HRM said I burned 1336 calories. I did the little test when you first set it up three times to make sure it was consistent. I triple checked all my info...So is this right or is my HRM whack? :huh:
  • Phoenix_Rising
    Phoenix_Rising Posts: 11,417 Member
    Hmmmm. Sounds a little high to me.
    Depends on your height and weight and exertion levels...

    I am 5'4'', weigh in around 160 (little under), and when I do intervals (walking and running between 3.4 - 4.8) on the treadmill, my HRM registers I burn about 300 cals in 30 minutes.

    Are you sure you have all your personal settings right on the HRM? Age/height/weight/etc.
    Are you wearing the chest strap?
    Have you checked your own pulse to compare with what the Polar reads?
    Does it read something unusually high?
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    unfortunately it sounds WAY high for that amount of time
    as a general rule
    moving but no sweating is usally 5-8 cals a minute
    sweating 8-12 cals a minute
    'sweating and panting hard 12-16 cals a minute
    so 65 minutes at 3.5 is prbably closer to the tread machine #
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Ahh, what is your heart rate? 1300 calories sounds dubious to me. Could be something is wrong with the polar. Check to make sure your polar isn't reading it wrong.
  • Anna_Banana
    Anna_Banana Posts: 2,939 Member
    I only burn around 350 at 3.5 mph walk for 65 min. So that sounds way to high to me. What do you have entered for your max heart rate?
  • chrissyh
    chrissyh Posts: 8,235 Member
    Okay, so I did a lot of research before I bought my Polar F6 (which is awesome). I seen that some people said they actually burn a couple of hundred calories more. According to my F6, I burn almost 3x the amount of what my treadmill says...3 times!!! :noway: I have been using it for three weeks. It is always the same. For example, yesterday the treadmill said I burned 452 calories for a 65min 3.5mile walk/run...My HRM said I burned 1336 calories. I did the little test when you first set it up three times to make sure it was consistent. I triple checked all my info...So is this right or is my HRM whack? :huh:

    If I use the elliptical for 35 min, rowing machine for 10 and treadmill for 30 I am only at mid 700s - and that's including running intervals at 5 mph (that's what my f6 registers)

    yours sounds high
  • beahurey
    beahurey Posts: 108
    I am also 5'4" and 196lbs. I double checked the settings again right now. My heart rate is almost the same as my polar. I am wearing the chest strap. I do have a basic treadmill and am not able to enter hgt, wgt, etc. Would that matter? It still sounds to high. However, it always has been that much more since I started using it.
    Hmmmm. Sounds a little high to me.
    Depends on your height and weight and exertion levels...

    I am 5'4'', weigh in around 160 (little under), and when I do intervals (walking and running between 3.4 - 4.8) on the treadmill, my HRM registers I burn about 300 cals in 30 minutes.

    Are you sure you have all your personal settings right on the HRM? Age/height/weight/etc.
    Are you wearing the chest strap?
    Have you checked your own pulse to compare with what the Polar reads?
    Does it read something unusually high?
  • beahurey
    beahurey Posts: 108
    I am also 5'4" and 196lbs. I double checked the settings again right now. My heart rate is almost the same as my polar. I am wearing the chest strap. I do have a basic treadmill and am not able to enter hgt, wgt, etc. Would that matter? It still sounds to high. However, it always has been that much more since I started using it.
    Hmmmm. Sounds a little high to me.
    Depends on your height and weight and exertion levels...

    I am 5'4'', weigh in around 160 (little under), and when I do intervals (walking and running between 3.4 - 4.8) on the treadmill, my HRM registers I burn about 300 cals in 30 minutes.

    Are you sure you have all your personal settings right on the HRM? Age/height/weight/etc.
    Are you wearing the chest strap?
    Have you checked your own pulse to compare with what the Polar reads?
    Does it read something unusually high?
  • beahurey
    beahurey Posts: 108
    My mistake, its an F11, I don't know how I messed that up. That shouldn't matter though.
  • beahurey
    beahurey Posts: 108
    My max heart rate is 189. My resting is 60. My heart rate during last nights work out reached 193. I don't know.
    I only burn around 350 at 3.5 mph walk for 65 min. So that sounds way to high to me. What do you have entered for your max heart rate?
  • KatWood
    KatWood Posts: 1,135 Member
    I agree that it does sound high but that doesn't necessarily mean its wrong.

    I have a timex heart rate monitor and it too says I burn much more on the treadmilll than the treadmill itself says. However, the treadmill does not take my weight into account. Nor does it actually use my heart rate when calculating the calories. Also, I have short legs so running for me is more difficult. Also, when it comes to running, I am really out of shape so my heart rate spike quickly.

    When I use my bike at home which does take weight and heart rate into account, it matches almost exactly with my timex. So I tend to believe my timex and not the treadmill.

    You should probably find something more accurate to compare your polar to, or get another one to try.

    I have a question though, does calories burned depend on heart rate? And if so, is the relationship proportional?
  • beahurey
    beahurey Posts: 108
    How would I check to make sure it is not reading my heart rate wrong? I take my heart manually and it is the same as the polar or only off by one or two.
    Ahh, what is your heart rate? 1300 calories sounds dubious to me. Could be something is wrong with the polar. Check to make sure your polar isn't reading it wrong.
  • beahurey
    beahurey Posts: 108
    Great questions! I have no idea. I also have short legs, and jogging at 4.0 has me sweating like crazy and I wore a sauna suit. Even when I don't wear the sauna suit, it is way higher than the treadmill(which I can't enter hgt/wgt, etc either.)

    I suppose I go with the Polar...heck...it keeps my motivation up. :bigsmile:
    I agree that it does sound high but that doesn't necessarily mean its wrong.

    I have a timex heart rate monitor and it too says I burn much more on the treadmilll than the treadmill itself says. However, the treadmill does not take my weight into account. Nor does it actually use my heart rate when calculating the calories. Also, I have short legs so running for me is more difficult. Also, when it comes to running, I am really out of shape so my heart rate spike quickly.

    When I use my bike at home which does take weight and heart rate into account, it matches almost exactly with my timex. So I tend to believe my timex and not the treadmill.

    You should probably find something more accurate to compare your polar to, or get another one to try.

    I have a question though, does calories burned depend on heart rate? And if so, is the relationship proportional?
  • beahurey
    beahurey Posts: 108
    No, it was 3.0 & 4.0 mph. Did 3.5 miles in 65 minutes. I was sweating a lot and had a sauna suit on. But even without the sauna suit on, when I work out, it is way higher than the treadmill.
    I only burn around 350 at 3.5 mph walk for 65 min. So that sounds way to high to me. What do you have entered for your max heart rate?
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    While it's possible that your max heart rate was over the 100% max range. it's pretty much impossible for it to stay there for anything more then a couple of seconds to a minute. World class atheletes can't go over their 95% max for more then 5 to 10 minutes at a time. I think there's something wrong with yours. Make sure you are wetting the connections when you start (the plastic part of the strap) and make sure you have it on tight enough to make a good solid connection to your skin.
  • Anna_Banana
    Anna_Banana Posts: 2,939 Member
    also how did you figure your max heart rate. I know the basic way is 220 less your age.

    Here is another formula, that actually figures in weight. 210 minus 50% of your age minus 5% of your body weight (pounds) + 4 if male and 0 if female = Estimated Maximum heart rate
  • beahurey
    beahurey Posts: 108
    Thank you all for your help and input! :drinker: After spending the past four and half hours :grumble: trying to solve my issues...I think I might have it figured out....:noway: (Of course with a little help from all of you and contacting Polar customer support :happy: )

    1. I was viewing the hr percentage and not the heartrate. :frown: So, after figuring that out, I checked my heart manually another gazillion times and my F11 is dead on! (which is great!). So this one was chalked up to Operator Error! :embarassed:

    2. The extremely high number of calories had something to do with the fact that my VO-2 was indexed at 65! Yikes...barely any healthy 21 yr old males have that! So I did the fitness test five more times...in a row! The first two came up 65, then 60, then the last three came up 35. Which is moderate for my age and way more realistic. Again...Operator Error for not realizing that there was no way I could be that healthy!!! :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed:

    I will do another workout in about an hour here...and I will update what the results are! I am going to do a workout that I have already done using the Polar so I can see just how far off I was before....:sad:

    All-in-all...it's okay. :happy: The ridiculous amount of calories had me going! I was motivated like there was no tomorrow! 12 lbs in three weeks is not bad. Now, it is time to keep trucking! :love:

    Thanks all! :flowerforyou:
  • AmandaJ
    AmandaJ Posts: 1,950 Member
    I am so glad that you figured it out, it gets frustrating after awhile. Have a great work-out!!!!
  • beahurey
    beahurey Posts: 108
    I am so glad that you figured it out, it gets frustrating after awhile. Have a great work-out!!!!

    Thank you Amanda! It was frustrating and I spent entirely too much time on it today. Have a good one! :flowerforyou:
  • beahurey
    beahurey Posts: 108
    unfortunately it sounds WAY high for that amount of time
    as a general rule
    moving but no sweating is usally 5-8 cals a minute
    sweating 8-12 cals a minute
    'sweating and panting hard 12-16 cals a minute
    so 65 minutes at 3.5 is prbably closer to the tread machine #

    This formula is pretty accurate. NOw that I fixed all my operator errors :embarassed: , The calories burned are in line with the above!
  • ohthatbambi
    ohthatbambi Posts: 1,098 Member
    Well hopefully you have it figured out now and can get a more accurate reading!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories