SO, I GOT MY HRM AND.......

Hi,
I don't have an FT7, but I do have an FT60. I was wondering if you did all the settings. There may be places where you can set your weight, age, etc. You didn't say how many minutes you were working and I don't do those types of routines myself, but those numbers do seem kind of low. If it's all set and everything then also make sure it's picking up your heart beat. If the contact isn't good between the belt and your chest it may not register. If that's a problem, wet the strips on the underside before strapping it on so the contact will be better. Anyways just some suggestions. The HRM is a very useful tool though.

This is good advice! The FT60 has the Fitness Test feature, that gives you even a better estimation. If you have the means to afford it, spend the extra money.

You do have to enter all the inputs in the settings accurately.

And I spit on the contacts every time.

But its impossible to get a feel for high or low. An individual's perceived intensity can be very different. The HRM gives that valuable feedback to match perception with what's really going on.

are ft7's a pain to wear all day?

I have an ft4. Sometimes I forget that I have it on. It is very comfortable.

Same thing happened to me when I switched to a Polar HRM from a Timex. Likewise, it was quite an ego blow, but as you said, it's best to get an accurate picture--I'm hoping it's more accurate, anyway. The Polar allowed me to input more personal info, so I think that made the difference.

I did the exact same thing. I loved the look of the Timex and have had Timex watches in the past. But the first time I used the HRM on the Timex, it seemed way too high (just comparing other friends at similar weights/ages doing similar exercises). I did some research and Polar seems pretty committed to accuracy. I ended up getting an FT7. I wanted something I could wear as a watch too. It's not the most accurate Polar, but I think much more accurate than the Timex.

It's all about information, data points and making good estimations. But it's still all guesswork. We just try to narrow the margin of error. Almost everything we do on MFP is an estimation. The key - for me at least - is understanding that, and trying to get a relatively accurate estimation.

I had the opposite happen. MFP's database was significantly LOWER for most exercises. When I got my Polar, I was shocked by how many calories I was actually burning -- in many cases twice or three times the amount that MFP said. It's closer on other types of exercise, but walking, yoga, and pilates were way off on the low side.

I check my pulse about 75% of the time that I work out... the other 25% of the time is when I am lazy and just go by the data base. And when I do I feel like it gives me way more calories burned than what I felt. I need a HRM bad!! Anyone want to donate one to me? LOL.

Quick question -- is there really a difference between a men's and women's HRM or is it more just the design of them stylistically?

Also, remember that HRMs estimate ALL calories burned during that exercise - but if you weren't exercising at all you'd still be burning BMR calories. Doesn't make much difference for a one hour workout, but if you're measuring long periods, you do need to take your BMR off the totals.

For instance yesterday I burned over 2,000 calories on a 13 mile hike, but it took over seven hours. In that time I'd have burned over 400 calories even if I'd been relaxing, so I only logged 1560 calories burned for that hike.

Doesn't make much difference to me as I don't eat most of my exercise calories, but thought it worth pointing out for those who want to be as accurate as possible given that calories estimated by HRMs are not precise to start with.

how are you burning so low for a 13 mile hike? was it a flat hike or somethin? Cause I easily burn over 1,000 on a 2.8 Mi (1.4 mi each way). hike that reaches 2,705 Summit Peak..

For instance yesterday I burned over 2,000 calories on a 13 mile hike

how are you burning so low for a 13 mile hike? was it a flat hike or somethin? Cause I easily burn over 1,000 on a 2.8 Mi (1.4 mi each way). hike that reaches 2,705 Summit Peak..

There wasn't a massive elevation gain, but the main reason is that I am now only 122lb dry - unfortunately that means a huge decrease in calorie burn for any given activity.

Also, because I'd never planned a hike that long, my wonderful boyfriend carried all our gear for most of the hike, leaving me with only a super-light daypack.

Quick question -- is there really a difference between a men's and women's HRM or is it more just the design of them stylistically?

Yeah its cosmetic. I believe that all of them make you input your gender. If yours doesn't its not a good enough HRM for what you are looking for.

For instance yesterday I burned over 2,000 calories on a 13 mile hike, but it took over seven hours. In that time I'd have burned over 400 calories even if I'd been relaxing, so I only logged 1560 calories burned for that hike.

Yeah, a lot of people do it this way. I don't here's why:

So you subtracted 400 out. But what if you would have worked in the garden? Maybe you should have subtracted out a gardening session. Or housecleaning? Or whatever. It gets problematic.

My activity level is set to light, so if I do anything that burns a lot of calories eg digging my garden, I wear my HRM and log the calories, after removing 60 calories per hour for my BMR.

However, the point is not that people *should* subtract their BMR from the readings on their HRMs, but that they should be aware that it's not accounted for, especially if they are "eating back" all their calories.

I'm only 3lb off my goal weight now, so obviously this is working for me, but other people may prefer to do things differently. If their way is working for them, that's great.