HRM Polar FT4 VS FT7

Options
Yanicka1
Yanicka1 Posts: 4,564 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
After one year of asking for a HRM and not getting it, I will make a women of myself and go buy it myself.

The polar FT4 is 135$ and the FT7 is 165$

In your opinion, is the 30$ worth it?
«1

Replies

  • quara
    quara Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    I have the FT7 - I can't compare it to the FT4, but I find the FT7 easy to use and I know it measures my heart rate accurately... I just can't shake the feeling that it overestimates my calories burned - but not everyone seems to find that!
  • AnninStPaul
    AnninStPaul Posts: 1,372 Member
    Options
    where are you shopping? they are $70 and $76 on Amazon.
  • Yanicka1
    Yanicka1 Posts: 4,564 Member
    Options
    where are you shopping? they are $70 and $76 on Amazon.

    Canada
  • vs1023
    vs1023 Posts: 417 Member
    Options
    I just bought an FT7 yesterday at Best Buy and it was around $80.
  • xsmilexforxmex
    xsmilexforxmex Posts: 1,216 Member
    Options
    I have the FT7 - I can't compare it to the FT4, but I find the FT7 easy to use and I know it measures my heart rate accurately... I just can't shake the feeling that it overestimates my calories burned - but not everyone seems to find that!
    I feel like the same and raised my range numbers.. it lowered my calories some and for the most part they stick right around what MFP guesses.

    I have the FT4, I think it works great... IDK what the differences are but when i got mine it was on sale for $60 down from $85 here so the extra wasn't worth it to me (FT7 was still $135 I believe) The only thing is I with it automatically transfered data to the website but I still probably wouldn't use that site much... It keeps track of your last 7 work outs tho, how long, max and avg HR, time in range and calories lost as well as an overall total time and Calories lost. perfect for what I need.
  • MinnesotaManimal
    MinnesotaManimal Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    I feel like the same and raised my range numbers.. it lowered my calories some and for the most part they stick right around what MFP guesses.

    What do you mean you "raised your range numbers"
  • quara
    quara Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    I feel like the same and raised my range numbers.. it lowered my calories some and for the most part they stick right around what MFP guesses.


    What do you mean you "raised your range numbers"

    Yes, I was wondering the same thing!
  • rainbowbuggy
    rainbowbuggy Posts: 320
    Options
    Check Amazon. They are not that expensive on there. Plus shipping is Free. I need a new one, I have the Polar FT4 but am looking at the FT7. Amazon has the FT4 for 66.00 right now and the FT7 for 80.00.

    Not sure the difference as I have only had the FT4. I loved it and it has held up but I want a new color so that is the only reason I am buying a new one.
  • Crawflowr
    Crawflowr Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    I bought the FT7 as it said you could link it to the website, that was all the difference I spotted but I then realised you needed another piece of equipment for an extra £40 to actually make the connection to the website. Thus I'm really uncertain what the benefit of the FT7 unaltered over the FT4 is, as far as I can tell there is none and therefore for me the FT4 would have been more than adequate.
  • GCPgirl
    GCPgirl Posts: 208 Member
    Options
    I bought my FT7 on Amazon and LOVE it! It came as a recommendation from another MFP friend who did some research on which HRM to buy.

    http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Womens-Heart-Monitor-Silver/dp/B004KMP0TU/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1324482443&sr=8-5
  • xsmilexforxmex
    xsmilexforxmex Posts: 1,216 Member
    Options
    I feel like the same and raised my range numbers.. it lowered my calories some and for the most part they stick right around what MFP guesses.

    What do you mean you "raised your range numbers"

    The FT4 calculates a HR range (target HR I guess is what it's technically called) for 'maximum fitness progession' mine is something like 122-167, however this is based off a 60-ish-BPM resting HR... My resting HR is around 75 so I plugged my numbers in to a website and changed my target range on the watch to a higher number to better match my correct percentages..

    The site below calculates %'s.. I used 65 and 85, with just my age it says 127-166, I add my Resting HR and it changes to 153-177, which would be a more accurate range for me..

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/TargetHeartRate.html
  • easfahl
    easfahl Posts: 567 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the clarification Annie USAF. This is a great thread because I was just comparing the two Polars! Thanks for all the input.
  • MinnesotaManimal
    MinnesotaManimal Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    I feel like the same and raised my range numbers.. it lowered my calories some and for the most part they stick right around what MFP guesses.

    What do you mean you "raised your range numbers"

    The FT4 calculates a HR range (target HR I guess is what it's technically called) for 'maximum fitness progession' mine is something like 122-167, however this is based off a 60-ish-BPM resting HR... My resting HR is around 75 so I plugged my numbers in to a website and changed my target range on the watch to a higher number to better match my correct percentages..

    The site below calculates %'s.. I used 65 and 85, with just my age it says 127-166, I add my Resting HR and it changes to 153-177, which would be a more accurate range for me..

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/TargetHeartRate.html

    Thank you so much for answering this. I have been concerned about the numbers I pull from my FT7 I pulled a 1500 calorie burn on an 8 mile run in 90 minutes and I was like.....no way....
  • AmyLRed
    AmyLRed Posts: 894 Member
    Options
    this was helpful for me, you can compare models on Polar's website

    http://www.polarusa.com/us-en/products/compare?product1=23349
  • grapenutSF
    grapenutSF Posts: 648 Member
    Options
    What about all this business about "a chest strap is necessary for accuracy".... is that myth? I notice the latest Polar doesn't have a chest strap.
  • GCPgirl
    GCPgirl Posts: 208 Member
    Options
    What about all this business about "a chest strap is necessary for accuracy".... is that myth? I notice the latest Polar doesn't have a chest strap.

    The FT7 I just got has a chest strap with a transmitter. I previously bought one without it and it was annoying to have to stop to put my two fingers on the metal strips.
    The FT7 will tell you how many minutes were in a fitness zone and how many in a fat burning zone.
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Options
    What about all this business about "a chest strap is necessary for accuracy".... is that myth? I notice the latest Polar doesn't have a chest strap.

    All Polars have a chest strap... so no it is not a myth. When you have a watch only one is only takes your heart rate when you touch the sensors.. with a chest strap, it is constantly feeding your heart rate to the watch.. thus making the calorie burn more accurate.

    I personally have the FT7 and I find it to be super accurate when estimating calories burned... Timex is where you run into issues with calories burned. Those things are notorious for being way off.
  • hlf30
    hlf30 Posts: 10
    Options
    Why do you want a Polar one? I have just got myself a Suunto one as an early present and I'm really happy with it: It is compatible with all the polar gym equipment but the watches are much nicer looking in my opinion and not so chunky. Mine cost £90 from Amazon

    http://www.suunto.com/us/en/products/Heart-Rate-Monitors/suunto-m4/suunto-m4-black-turquoise

    H
  • grapenutSF
    grapenutSF Posts: 648 Member
    Options
    What about all this business about "a chest strap is necessary for accuracy".... is that myth? I notice the latest Polar doesn't have a chest strap.

    All Polars have a chest strap... so no it is not a myth. When you have a watch only one is only takes your heart rate when you touch the sensors.. with a chest strap, it is constantly feeding your heart rate to the watch.. thus making the calorie burn more accurate.

    I personally have the FT7 and I find it to be super accurate when estimating calories burned... Timex is where you run into issues with calories burned. Those things are notorious for being way off.

    All Polar's have a chest strap??

    Their latest one doesn't mention strap, but does say "fabric Wearlink Heart Rate transmitter"--is that a strap?

    http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Ft40F-Womens-Heart-Monitor/dp/B004AH299O/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=IMVJURXHIC2NA&colid=1MUMCSAW73V7C
  • CMmrsfloyd
    CMmrsfloyd Posts: 2,383 Member
    Options
    What about all this business about "a chest strap is necessary for accuracy".... is that myth? I notice the latest Polar doesn't have a chest strap.

    All Polars have a chest strap... so no it is not a myth. When you have a watch only one is only takes your heart rate when you touch the sensors.. with a chest strap, it is constantly feeding your heart rate to the watch.. thus making the calorie burn more accurate.

    I personally have the FT7 and I find it to be super accurate when estimating calories burned... Timex is where you run into issues with calories burned. Those things are notorious for being way off.

    All Polar's have a chest strap??

    Their latest one doesn't mention strap, but does say "fabric Wearlink Heart Rate transmitter"--is that a strap?

    http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Ft40F-Womens-Heart-Monitor/dp/B004AH299O/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=IMVJURXHIC2NA&colid=1MUMCSAW73V7C

    Yes, the quoted text is referring to the chest strap.

Categories