my polar ft4 cheating me out of calories ?

Options
poeticallydevine
poeticallydevine Posts: 56 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
elliptical training MFP says i should have burned 1108 calories, the fitness machine on my weight and age setting said i burned 726 calories and my polar ft4 said i only burned 526... whats up with that? any one had any luck with a brand of HRM more accurate with calories counting. My current HRM gonna have an appointment with the trash soon if it doesn't get itself together.
«1

Replies

  • dogacreek
    dogacreek Posts: 289 Member
    Options
    If your HRM is set for your weight and the other settings correctly, I would trust it before I would the machine. I have a Polar FT7 and record my readings everyday and eat back 2/3's of the calories I burn and it is working for me.
  • adamb83
    adamb83 Posts: 719 Member
    Options
    If your HRM is set for your weight and the other settings correctly, I would trust it before I would the machine. I have a Polar FT7 and record my readings everyday and eat back 2/3's of the calories I burn and it is working for me.

    Agreed - I would be more inclined to trust the HRM than either MFP "guesstimates" or the machine readings. Elliptical readings are NOTORIOUS for over-estimating calorie burn. Double-check to ensure your HRM is set up correctly and fitting properly (wetting the sensors before each use and rinsing the band / drying off the battery etc) and keep going. You could also get the battery checked, if you've been using this HRM for a while. I've got the Polar FT4 as well and it's usually spot on.

    (P.S. - Most machines don't take into account height, gender, and other things that the HRM does include, which makes a difference. The Elliptical machine might think you're a 6'5" muscular dude, for all we know).
  • auroranflash
    auroranflash Posts: 3,569 Member
    Options
    The Polar series has been one of the most purchased HRMs on MFP, but I would check the settings and make sure. 520~ calories is a more reasonable estimate. Ellipticals always lie... MFP exaggerates as well... just check your HRM stats and make sure they're right. 520 calories is not easy to burn at all.... that's a lot of work... I would be more inclined to believe this number.

    Otherwise, I have heard much success with Polar FT7, but I have not tried it myself.
  • larkiedeek
    larkiedeek Posts: 203 Member
    Options
    If you set the HRM up correctly then I would go with that. Is it set with your current body weight as previously mentioned?

    I never trust the machines. They always seem to over-estimate.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    The more fit you are the fewer calories you burn ...... MFP has no clue as to how fit you are. Double check your settings, but I'm guessing the HRM is correct.
  • jskaggs1971
    jskaggs1971 Posts: 371 Member
    Options
    I've used two tactics to make sure I don't fall into a trap with calorie balance:

    1) Use the LOWEST estimate for calories burned. If MFP says one thing, the treadmill another, and my HRM another, I use the HRM. Ditto for cycling or running outside. my HRM is almost always the lowest total.

    2) Use the HIGHEST estimate for calories consumed. If you eat something and don't know the exact weight, try to overestimate. If you're taking calorie counts from user-submitted data and there's a choice, choose the one with the highest total calories consumed.

    This way, if you make a mistake, you're more likely to err on the side of "whoops, I lost more weight than I intended" than on the side of "why am I not losing anything?"
  • thecarbmonster
    thecarbmonster Posts: 411 Member
    Options
    I just got the same FT4 and started using it this week. Man, what an eyeopener! I knew I wasn't burning as many calories as MFP had estimated, especially the ones for cardio where they estimated about +10 cals/min (100 cals in 10 min of exercise).

    The first thing I used it for was a Zumba tape and I was sorely disappointed in my burn. But then I realized it was because I wasn't getting my heart rate up enough or doing it at high enough of an intensity. Once I started paying attention to my heart rate zone it was a motivator to walk more quickly, add extra hop in my step when doing cardio, etc. I FINALLY hit 100 cals in 10 minutes when I was almost running because I was walking so fast and uphill lol.

    As others mentioned, make sure your settings for weight and height are correct and then visibly monitor your heart rate while working out. For instance, my hrm target range is 126-167, so if I'm in the 120's-130's I know my burn is going to be slower and lower so I may do something to spike it (go faster for a minute or two) and then go back down to my normal speed.
  • mjok31
    mjok31 Posts: 84
    Options
    I would agree with everyone else....ur HRM is the one to go off of! I use a Polar FT7 and those are the only numbers I look at. Sorry u aren't burning as much as you thought you were. Good luck!
  • JMarigold
    JMarigold Posts: 232 Member
    Options

    As others mentioned, make sure your settings for weight and height are correct and then visibly monitor your heart rate while working out. For instance, my hrm target range is 126-167, so if I'm in the 120's-130's I know my burn is going to be slower and lower so I may do something to spike it (go faster for a minute or two) and then go back down to my normal speed.

    And this is why HIIT or Interval Training is so effective. If I'm walking/jogging I may sprint for 30 seconds and then I get to walk slowly for a few minutes while still getting the calorie burn of a higher heart rate.
  • withervein
    withervein Posts: 224 Member
    Options
    The average burn that I get for a "wring out the tank top" workout is about 100 calories in 10 minutes. I'm in relatively good shape, aiming to lose or maintain at this point.

    It's an average that seems to be pretty accurate if I'm doing circuits, kickboxing, jogging or higher intensity yard work (moving block, digging, cutting branches).

    I tend to use this as an average if something's not in the database or I'm not wearing a HRM.
  • tmcmurtray
    tmcmurtray Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    I use the FT7 as well. And I agree that the more fit you are the harder it is to burn as many calories. In the same 1hr spin class I burned 518 calories while someone next to me with an FT4 on showed that they burned 1207. I don't know any of their specifics, but I can tell you that I was working hard to get those 518 calroesi burned. The only numbers I go by are the ones on my FT7 since I know that it is set up with my specifics of height, weight, and age. The machines only take the information that you enter and those don't account for your height, so that could throw the numbers off a little bit as well (not sure on that though).
  • DMRN0125
    DMRN0125 Posts: 87
    Options
    Here is an interesting study that was conducted at the University of Tennessee..

    http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfje/5700/PolarWatch-study-MSSE.pdf

    Basically, they found that the Polar Heart Rate Monitor that they tested, slightly overestimated calorie burn when compared to true calorie expenditure. Its an interesting read because the results vary for men. Just thought it might be interesting.
  • kbc525
    kbc525 Posts: 149
    Options
    I just got the same FT4 and started using it this week. Man, what an eyeopener! I knew I wasn't burning as many calories as MFP had estimated, especially the ones for cardio where they estimated about +10 cals/min (100 cals in 10 min of exercise).

    The first thing I used it for was a Zumba tape and I was sorely disappointed in my burn. But then I realized it was because I wasn't getting my heart rate up enough or doing it at high enough of an intensity. Once I started paying attention to my heart rate zone it was a motivator to walk more quickly, add extra hop in my step when doing cardio, etc. I FINALLY hit 100 cals in 10 minutes when I was almost running because I was walking so fast and uphill lol.

    As others mentioned, make sure your settings for weight and height are correct and then visibly monitor your heart rate while working out. For instance, my hrm target range is 126-167, so if I'm in the 120's-130's I know my burn is going to be slower and lower so I may do something to spike it (go faster for a minute or two) and then go back down to my normal speed.

    exactly... !!! I turned my workouts almost into a game to see how long and when, etc i can keep my hr in the right zone and it amazes me how many calories i can burn throughout my workouts and when i see a more significant burn.. DON'T believe the machines calorie burn - trust your hrm if it's set right ...
  • Captain_Tightpants
    Captain_Tightpants Posts: 2,215 Member
    Options
    Go with the low number. That was you can't screw up your deficit.
  • FORIANN
    FORIANN Posts: 273 Member
    Options
    As others have said...go with the lowest number. Then you WILL succeed and you WILL see weight loss. What's more important to you, results or being able to put up bigger numbers?

    Like somebody else said now that I use a HRM I try to keep my intensity (number) at between 145-150 for an hour. The HRM and the machine both say I burn like 1500 calories...but MFP only gives me credit for 1100ish....I go with the lower number. I'm seeing great results!!
  • Di3012
    Di3012 Posts: 2,250 Member
    Options
    elliptical training MFP says i should have burned 1108 calories, the fitness machine on my weight and age setting said i burned 726 calories and my polar ft4 said i only burned 526... whats up with that? any one had any luck with a brand of HRM more accurate with calories counting. My current HRM gonna have an appointment with the trash soon if it doesn't get itself together.

    1108 calories? Is that for an hour? If so, I would dismiss that, that is a very, very high figure.

    Go by your HRM, that will have your details in it and it is tailored to you, whereas the MFP figures are more often than not, tailored to whoever put the figures in there and those featured on the machines are usually based on something like a 185lb male (because it has to use an average).

    The problem you have just described is often why many people overestimate their exercise calories burned and in turn, eat them all back - meaning they are eating more than they should be.

    It isn't your HRM that does not have itself together, it is the machines and the estimations on MFP.
  • poeticallydevine
    poeticallydevine Posts: 56 Member
    Options
    thanks for the replies.. you all saved my heart rate monitor from visting the nearby garbage landfill, and for that she if very thankful. lol
  • frugalmomsrock
    frugalmomsrock Posts: 1,123
    Options
    Yeah... my machines always way over estimate (by about double) what my HRM (and other fairly accurate calculators) says...

    This is why everyone should get an HRM. :-/
  • lizjames1971
    lizjames1971 Posts: 39
    Options
    I have an ft4 and usually burn 800 per hour of medium paced running, treadmill usually gives 150-200 less!
  • babygurl48
    babygurl48 Posts: 1,236 Member
    Options
    I have the Polar FT4 and I use that when I excercise to record my calories burned. It's always lower than the machines or what MFP says, but I would think it's more accurate cause it has all the proper user information like my weight and height and age and etc.

Categories