Polar FT7 vs Runkeeper (Droid App)

ls_66
ls_66 Posts: 395 Member
edited November 12 in Fitness and Exercise
So I got my FT7 yesterday programmed it this morning and ,went for a 1 hour and 18 minutes walk, started the droid app on my phone (is GPS enabled and has my weight information) and the FT7 at the same time.. so at the end RunKeeper told me I had burned 876 Calories,,, FT7..... only 609... a little disappointed as I thought RunKeeper would be a bit more accurate.... that means that for the past year and half I have been over reporting my burned calories..... anyone else with similar comparisons?

Replies

  • gudiiya
    gudiiya Posts: 116 Member
    Yes, MFP showed 800 calories burned, machine at gym showed 500 calories burned and FT7 showed 250 calories burned. I love my HRM. Report and be thankful that you were able to find the truth! :)
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    The HRM is more accurate for sure. You can further tune it by entering your max heart rate, V02max, and/or whatever the HRM supports.
  • JasonSwetland
    JasonSwetland Posts: 235 Member
    The HRM is way more accurate in my opinion as it attempts to measure actual effort sustained during the activity based on heart rate, where as the other devices assume an average and make a calculation based on theoretical averages (as opposed to the measurement of the HRM) and yes sometimes the devices overestimate and you will find machines at the gym sometimes underestimate.
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    actually 609 sounds very high for a walk to me.
  • carpar1
    carpar1 Posts: 211 Member
    My husband uses the sports tracker app for his Android, it is pretty accurate, may want to give it a try.
  • LilRedRooster
    LilRedRooster Posts: 1,421 Member
    Yeah, most of the time, the calorie estimate that apps gives you are just based on statistical averages for people who share your height, weight, and age, which can be higher or lower, just depending on your own individual body make-up. That's why heart rate monitors are so helpful, because they actually measure your effort, and not averages based on other people.
  • ls_66
    ls_66 Posts: 395 Member
    ok where it gets more confusing so I create an account at polarpersonaltrainer.com plugged in the number distance heart rate max etc and now is telling I burned 773... confused to say the least
  • ryno0618
    ryno0618 Posts: 361
    Polar FT7 should be way more accurate than Runkeeper. Runkeeper is notoriously way off on calories burned, so i've read and noticed.

    I have a Polar FT7 and also use Runkeeper to GPS my distances on runs. I've never really paid close attention to the calorie count on Runkeeper but I've glanced enough to know that its always much higher than my HRM.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    actually 609 sounds very high for a walk to me.

    Depending on the OP's weight and pace it's possible. According to the calories calculator @ healthstatus.com I plugged in 195 lbs & 78 min walk @ 4mph and the result was 593 cal. Yesterday my HRM recorded 366 for a 35 (+5 cool down) min walk on my treadmill incline 3.0 stating @ 4mph and finishing @ 4.4 mph
  • nuttyfamily
    nuttyfamily Posts: 3,394 Member
    I use Runkeeper to track my mileage and pace and time for runs and walks. I don't use it for cal burn.

    I do have a Polar FT4 for the cal burn tracking.

    I seem to be opposite of most folks. My HRM cal burn is higher than the runkeeper app or on mfp exercise.

    Everyone is different and the cals for activities in RK and on here are only estimates....in no way accurate.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories