New Polar FT7 HRM and disappointing caloric count

Options
Chainsaw_Flowerchild
Chainsaw_Flowerchild Posts: 65
in Fitness and Exercise
So a few weeks ago I got a new Polar FT7 with the strap and set forth to see how many calories I'm actually burning on my cardio work outs.

I have two cardio workouts I normally use. The first is an Arc Trainer which is a cross trainer sort of a mix between a stair climber and a elliptical. I set my weight, the difficulty to 5, and the time to 1 hour. I keep my steps per minute over 119 steps and after 45 minutes I've gotten the machine up to about 800 calories burnt. The second workout is a walk on the treadmill which also takes in my weight and is set at an incline of 15 and a speed of 3.5 mph. After 45 minutes I'm usually up to 700 calories. These have been my two cardio workouts for the last 15 months and have lost 45 lbs so far.

So I set forth with my new HRM and finish my first workout on the Arc Trainer only to see that instead of the ~800 calories I'm used to seeing I've only gotten 540. I assumed that it was a fluke and try again with the same results the second day. On the third day I hit the treadmill and after 45 minutes I’m surprised to see only 420 calories on the HRM but 710 on the machine it’s self.

I have double checked the settings on the HRM and my weight, sex, and age are all correct. After getting upset about the low caloric burn and feeling sort like Cypher from The Matrix when he said “Ignorance is bliss”, I decided to look around for info.

I found this link at Polar’s forums and I feel better because I’m not the only one seeing low numbers coming from the the Polar FT7 HRM.

http://forum.polar.fi/showthread.php?t=14297
«1

Replies

  • kaaatielove
    kaaatielove Posts: 248 Member
    Options
    the machines never have the right #.... go by the HRM, it's way more accurate. i have the ft4 & love it! it's always a bit lower than the machines..
  • bigislandgrrl
    bigislandgrrl Posts: 196 Member
    Options
    I think the hrm is definately much more accurate than any machine.
  • Jemmuno
    Jemmuno Posts: 413 Member
    Options
    I've been told that if I'm using the calorie counter from a machine that they tend to over estimate, but thats just what I've heard.
  • sweebum
    sweebum Posts: 1,060 Member
    Options
    The machines are always WAY off (think double). The FT7 is pretty reliable :smile:
  • lindalee0315
    lindalee0315 Posts: 527 Member
    Options
    Yesterday I used the Arc Trainer, set it on hill interval, 60 minutes. The machine said I burned 1078 calories. My HRM: 541. Literally about half. It is depressing. This week has been hard for me because for whatever reason I can't get my heart rate to stay up. This morning I did Spin class followed by Jillian Michaels' 6 wk/6 pk. I burned 604 calories for nearly 90 minutes of exercise. Usually I burn about 800-850.
  • darrcn5
    darrcn5 Posts: 495 Member
    Options
    The HRM is way more accurate. 800 calories in 45 minutes is like 17.7 calories an hour, which is very unrealistic unless you are like 500 pounds.
  • jrich1
    jrich1 Posts: 2,408 Member
    Options
    I have a Polar Ft7, and just from my experience and I know on the treadmill at 3.5 mph you wont burn 700 cals in 45min.. I would say the 420 is more accurate...
    I always go by what my FT7 says, it has my information... I always see a huge difference between the machines.
    I read your link and I think a lot of people just think they are burning more than they are.. which is why a HRM will be a good tool for them.
  • epj78
    epj78 Posts: 643 Member
    Options
    The HRM is more accurate. And that burn sounds right to me from the 2 HRMs that I have (Garmin and Polar).
  • jr1985
    jr1985 Posts: 1,033 Member
    Options
    Good news and bad news... The good news is that you now have a heartrate monitor, which is much more accurate than the machines, trust me, so you can accurately guage how many calories you've burned and adjust your calorie consumption accordingly, The bad news is... generally the machines and MFP tends to overestimate the number of calories a person may have been burning so burning those calories can seem to take forever... but at least now you know and can adjust your calorie intake accordingly (or work out time) to get the calories in/calories out ratio you are wanting
  • cardbucfan
    cardbucfan Posts: 10,396 Member
    Options
    I agree with what's been said so far and you also need to take into consideration that if you've been doing this for 15 months and have lost 45 lbs., you are much more fit than when you started. Unfortunately, the more fit you are and the less you weigh-the fewer calories you burn. As a 5'9", 48 years old, 138 lb. woman, I typically burn 275 calories going HARD on the elliptical and arc trainer and will burn 425-450 for a 45 minute spin class. I find that the machines show a calorie burn 1/3 to 1/2 greater than my HRM.
  • Chainsaw_Flowerchild
    Chainsaw_Flowerchild Posts: 65
    Options
    I think the hrm is definately much more accurate than any machine.

    How do you figure? The machine knows what resistance your using where the HRM does not. The HRM is just using Age, Weight, Sex and Heart rate to determine the caloric burn. Where the machine is using Weight, Hear rate and resistance level to determine the information. Walking up hill uses much more energy that walking on a level platform but according to the my HRM it's the same. The link shows that Polar is looking in to some of the discrepancies, which is a good thing.
  • sixpacking
    sixpacking Posts: 148 Member
    Options
    there are only a handful of elite athletes that can burn high calories in 45mins; it is not you that's wrong, its physically the nature of all. I have the FT7 too and i was well aware of my calories burn, most places listed my workout TaeBo at 800cal, but I just thought that was impossible because it isn't realistic. You see you can have a person who is overweight lose 8 lbs in 7 days and it has nothing to do with calories, its mostly water weight because of their size. When you get to the lower weight scale, its much harder to lose weight, specially if your body is used to the same routine, where your heartrate no longer has a challenge. Anyhow, FT7 is very accurate, because it takes your continuous heart rate for the duration of the exercise; while the machine takes the HR when you touch the sensors, and from there estimates the rest of the way, which common sense should tell you its wrong. Don't be dissapointed, be glad that you know now since you have lost 45 lbs., perhaps you're wondering why the scale isn't going as fast down anymore, for the same reasons pointed above, your body has adjusted to the workouts, in other words you have conquered the machines, time to move on to something that challenges your heart more. What I've done is trick my body into thinking that I'm heavier by wearing a weighted vest from time to time. Good luck.
  • jrich1
    jrich1 Posts: 2,408 Member
    Options
    I think the hrm is definately much more accurate than any machine.

    How do you figure? The machine knows what resistance your using where the HRM does not. The HRM is just using Age, Weight, Sex and Heart rate to determine the caloric burn. Where the machine is using Weight, Hear rate and resistance level to determine the information. Walking up hill uses much more energy that walking on a level platform but according to the my HRM it's the same. The link shows that Polar is looking in to some of the discrepancies, which is a good thing.

    Its unrealstic to think you are burning nearly 16 cals a min walking at 3.5mph...
    The HRM is a tool, it does estimates, its not 100% accurate, but it does a calculation based on more of your stats and your HR it received during the workout... it knows more about you and keeps a steady heart rate to do the calculation, from my statement above It would seem your HRM is more accurate.
  • seph_house
    seph_house Posts: 101 Member
    Options
    i've just used my new FT4 for the first time this evening & i'm trying hard not to be disappointed at the lower count it gives me :D

    i'll add a small point to what people have said above... from what i've read over the last few months, there seems to be lots of studies that suggest that, for women especially, if we keep doing the same steady state cardio type exercises over time our bodies get very good at adapting to the demands of that exercise and doing it more efficiently (i.e. taking fewer cals). mixing it up and trying different exercises all the time seems to be worth it :/
    after a couple of months, i know the interval program i do on the elliptical is much easier and that is reflected in the heartrate i reach, if the HRM is calculating based on that heartrate (which is all it can do) i'd expect my cal counts to be getting lower :(
  • Marquettedominos
    Marquettedominos Posts: 107 Member
    Options
    I just did a 10k on my Octane Q47i today. It took my just under 42 minutes. Avg HR was 168. My polar said I burned 429cals. Which I feel is rather acurate. I think it would be really hard to do 15+ cal a minute. Unless you are way overweight. just my $.02
  • H_Factor
    H_Factor Posts: 1,722 Member
    Options
    I think the hrm is definately much more accurate than any machine.

    How do you figure? The machine knows what resistance your using where the HRM does not. The HRM is just using Age, Weight, Sex and Heart rate to determine the caloric burn. Where the machine is using Weight, Hear rate and resistance level to determine the information. Walking up hill uses much more energy that walking on a level platform but according to the my HRM it's the same. The link shows that Polar is looking in to some of the discrepancies, which is a good thing.

    the HRM measures your actual exertion level vis a vis your heartrate throughout the exercise; a machine does not. There's a saying that you cannot out-train bad eating habits. The basis for this is that you really don't burn as many calories from exercise as you (by you, I mean everyone) thinks are being burnt. However, you seem hung up on the HRM giving you a lower number than the machine. My proposed solution ... use whatever number you like. If you find out that you're not losing as much as you think you should be losing over a 4 week period, then you didn't create enough of a caloric deficit...and that can be the result of inaccurate calorie counting or over-estimating your exercise calories. If, however, you're losing as much as you think you should be losing over a 4 week period, then continue doing what you're doing. problem solved :)
  • Chainsaw_Flowerchild
    Chainsaw_Flowerchild Posts: 65
    Options
    My proposed solution ... use whatever number you like. If you find out that you're not losing as much as you think you should be losing over a 4 week period, then you didn't create enough of a caloric deficit...and that can be the result of inaccurate calorie counting or over-estimating your exercise calories. If, however, you're losing as much as you think you should be losing over a 4 week period, then continue doing what you're doing. problem solved :)

    That makes sense, but the reason I'm concerned is because I'm on a plateau that’s lasted almost 4 months now. In the last 4 months I’ve lost 2.5 lbs. According to the BMI I still have almost 30 lbs that I should loose so it’s not as though I’m coming close to the “goal” weight. I have set MFP has too 1.5 lbs per week loss and I work at the gym 4-5 days per week.

    What I've done so far to try to get past this plateau:

    1) I lowered my calorie deficit from 2lb per week (1340 calories per day) to 1.5 lbs per week (1590 calories per day), which I eat between 90-100% of my calories daily.
    2) I added a max incline treadmill workout instead of just using the Arc Trainer for cardio (There is a big calorie difference between 0 and a 15 incline even using the HRM)
    3) I started eating back almost all of my exercise calories, where I was only eating half of them back before.
    4) I’ve changed my work out every other month for the last 16 months. In the last 3 months I’ve changed my workouts in the 3 times with no success. (One month of just treadmill work outs for 45 min at 15 incline & 3.5 mph 4-5 days a week ~ Three weeks of weight training 3 days per week and 2 days on the Arc Trainer ~ One month using the treadmill for 3 days and the Arc Trainer 2 days)
    5) I bought a HRM and have been using it for the last 3 weeks.

    So here I am still plateaued and not knowing what else to do except look for numbers that don't add up.
  • bigislandgrrl
    bigislandgrrl Posts: 196 Member
    Options
    I think the hrm is definately much more accurate than any machine.

    How do you figure? The machine knows what resistance your using where the HRM does not. The HRM is just using Age, Weight, Sex and Heart rate to determine the caloric burn. Where the machine is using Weight, Hear rate and resistance level to determine the information. Walking up hill uses much more energy that walking on a level platform but according to the my HRM it's the same. The link shows that Polar is looking in to some of the discrepancies, which is a good thing.

    Thats where the heart rate comes into play. My heart rate goes up when Im hitting hard resistence and down when I back off on the resistence. Calories are measured based on how hard Im working out, ie: how hard my heart is pumping. Meaning, MY HEART knows what resistance Im at.

    The Machine is only measuring when you are holding the sensors, not all the time like a chest strap does. The hrm measure BOTH the highs and lows, it doesnt just ESTIMATE based on the information you give it and the few times during the work out that you grab the bars.

    Apparently if YOU have hit a serious plateau, maybe you dont know what youre talking about, and questioning what I said is just idiotic. I think most everyone that answered this post agreed that the HRMs are way more accurate. But believe what you want to believe, it doesnt affect MY steady weight loss, does it?
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    Don't be too disappointed in your calorie burn. You are much more fit that when you first started! That increased fitness brings down your numbers as well - not just using the HRM.
  • Chainsaw_Flowerchild
    Chainsaw_Flowerchild Posts: 65
    Options
    Thats where the heart rate comes into play. My heart rate goes up when Im hitting hard resistence and down when I back off on the resistence. Calories are measured based on how hard Im working out, ie: how hard my heart is pumping. Meaning, MY HEART knows what resistance Im at.

    The Machine is only measuring when you are holding the sensors, not all the time like a chest strap does. The hrm measure BOTH the highs and lows, it doesnt just ESTIMATE based on the information you give it and the few times during the work out that you grab the bars.

    Apparently if YOU have hit a serious plateau, maybe you dont know what youre talking about, and questioning what I said is just idiotic. I think most everyone that answered this post agreed that the HRMs are way more accurate. But believe what you want to believe, it doesnt affect MY steady weight loss, does it?

    You obviously took my question the wrong way. It's not idiotic to question someone who strongly believes something, it's how you learn. You said
    I think the hrm is definately much more accurate than any machine.
    and I was wondering how you figure that was the case. My understanding it that the HRM guesses at how many calories are burned based on the heart rate. If flapping my arms gets my heart up to 130 and running gets my heart up to 130, then wouldn't the bigger muscles burn more calories. It seems sorta like measuring a trucks gas mileage by using the RPM and the engine size (weight) but not factoring in the size of the load being pulled (resistance).

Categories