GWF vs. Polar F6 Accuracy

OMG...I'm so glad I haven't bought either yet. God bless you for "plunking" down the money to get both to compare. I guess you must be a much more dedicated person than I am. I have been contemplating getting a Polar but haven't invested yet. The Elliptical machine at the gym has the HR sensors so I feel like I am getting a little better accurate reading than the treadmill that does not, and especially MFP. I'm 5'11" so walking at 3.5 on the treadmill is slow for me but for someone who is 5'3" and has a much shorter stride than I do, they're gonna be working harder than I do, therefore getting their heart rate up higher.

I would love to get the HRM but I would also like to know which one is more accurate before investing in one.

Ok, so I had never heard of GWF before, and did some quick research. If you google "go wear fit reviews" you can pull up amazon and other sites where people reviewed this product.

Apparently GWF looks like the body bugg (seems to be made by the same company, not entirely sure), but you have to pay a monthly fee to get your data. Sounds like a money-making scheme to me.

Anyways, you are not the first person to raise questions about calories burned. One woman noted that her GWF calories burned did not change that much between exercise and non-exercise day. Another said she only burned 300 calories per GWF, but machine said much higher, etc. So I'm kind of dubious about GWF's ability to track calories burned.

I am a faithful polar user, and I can definitely see the differences in calories between exercise and rest days. I also like the fact that polar does not force you to get a monthly subscription.

IMHO, I would send the GWF back and stick with the polar. HTH.

Oh, and a second thought - if you are really concerned about acuracy of calories burned, you could invest in a better-known HRM, such as the garmin with chest strap, etc. and compare that with the polar results. REI sells several HRM, and they are really good at helping you figure out what you need and taking things back if you don't want them (and no, I don't work for REI, I just love the store :laugh: )

The most reliable equipment for monitoring your calories burned are the heart rate monitors with the chest strap. I've heard that from running stores, and from internet research. Any other method is not as reliable. MFP is just estimating calories based on the average person (which doesn't apply to most people) and the same with health club equipment like treadmills. I'm not sure how the GWF works, but if it doesn't monitor your heart rate with a chest strap I wouldn't trust it.

I think comparing the three different versions is like comparing apples to oranges to bananas. Although they are all fruit, they are not designed to be the same.

MFP is an average. Average means that if you put the same data in that I do, we get the same response back. I don't know how hard you worked, you don't know how hard I worked, so by definition, our numbers should be different.

HRM only monitor your heart rate. There are varying views on if this is the best option or just a better option than the average.

GWF/BB monitor a variety of things on the body but not your heart rate. According to their site, this is the best option. Obviously, better than the average but again, varying views on if it's the best option.

I wouldn't expect the numbers to be the same. 3 different tools, collecting data 3 different ways, will return 3 different numbers. Personally, I stopped wearing my HRM and I only use GWF.