Burned 1644 calories with new Polar FT4

2»

Replies

  • jailee813
    jailee813 Posts: 29
    If people are burning nearly 200 calories walking at 3.5 mph for 40 mins why can't I burn 700 running ?


    Someone who weighs 160 lbs may burn 584 calories in an hour when jogging 5 mph, while a person weighing 240 lbs could burn 872 in the same amount of time. Walking at 3.5 mph might burn 277 calories per hour if you weigh 160 lbs or 346 calories if you weigh 200 lbs. That's why....

    Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/525564-how-many-calories-does-one-hour-of-power-walking-jogging-burn/#ixzz1t8i5DIe4
  • BlueBaron37
    BlueBaron37 Posts: 107 Member
    If people are burning nearly 200 calories walking at 3.5 mph for 40 mins why can't I burn 700 running ?


    Someone who weighs 160 lbs may burn 584 calories in an hour when jogging 5 mph, while a person weighing 240 lbs could burn 872 in the same amount of time. Walking at 3.5 mph might burn 277 calories per hour if you weigh 160 lbs or 346 calories if you weigh 200 lbs. That's why....

    Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/525564-how-many-calories-does-one-hour-of-power-walking-jogging-burn/#ixzz1t8i5DIe4

    That should say 30 mins instead of 40 I got 40 from reading someone's post.

    Yes I here that, I am only 5'6 1/2 and I'm classed as oh obese at 198 lbs.
  • pmaxson
    pmaxson Posts: 137
    You have to be very careful with those calorie estimates though. 1600 calories in 1:45. That would be an INTENSE workout. Runningworld.com determined you burn 0.63 x your weight calories per mile. For a 200 pound person to burn 1600 calories in 1:45 you would have to run 12.7 miles (a 200 pound person would burn ~125 calories a mile). To run 12.7 miles in 1:45 you would have to run a an 8:16 min mile pace for an 1:45. (the equivalent of about a 26 minute 5k pace for 1:45). Obviously.. if you are lighter than 200 pounds... you would have to run even faster than that 8:16 pace. You can get more info here:

    http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

    I did the calculations and they are right on with my heart monitor.In other words, the total calorie burn is almost identical to my hrm. I love the calculation for the net calorie burn.

    Thanks for this!
  • jbad
    jbad Posts: 5
    try changing the battery in the strap.
  • Squeezalsize10
    Squeezalsize10 Posts: 109
    I own one too! love it! enjoy.
  • duetwithjosh
    duetwithjosh Posts: 121
    I hit my first 1,000 calorie burn in the gym the other day. Felt great! ^_^
  • rikkeeroos
    rikkeeroos Posts: 28
    lol this makes me angry. Bought a Polar HRM (not sure which model right now) and all of a sudden it is registering my starting heart rate in the 30s and only gets up to the 70s at the most intense part of my workout.. So bummed and jealous of your calories burned! Awesome job.

    Are you sure that it is not registering the percentage of your max heart rate? There should be a button to change from the percentage to BPM. I had the same problem with mine, and I was getting freaked out until I read the manual. Hope this helps.
  • chelledawg14
    chelledawg14 Posts: 509 Member
    Congrats on your FT4 - love, love, love mine! It's amazing and so much fun to watch your heart rate and calories burned!!!! On weekends that I'm doing more than basic housework and mom stuff, I will wear it all day just to see what activities burn the most. The FT4 is really all I need. My only suggestion is to buy an extra strap so you can wash it more frequently. I follow the instructions for every 5 uses & rinse every time I wear it (everyday), but sometimes that feels gross to me... lol. Oh and like someone else said, I keep mine on heart rate, too, for fear of watching my cals burned will affect my workout! Watching you heart rate MAKES YOU want to do more! Good luck and enjoy!!
  • katetaylor999
    katetaylor999 Posts: 54 Member

    My heart rate max for my age 45 should be 175 but I peaked at 195 and spent suite some time at 180 bpm, if I was fitter I could do the same exercise with 180 peak and 165 being the rate for a long period.


    Soooo glad you put that! I got my Polar FT7 on Monday and have had average heart rates of 177 and 172, with max's of 195 and 187. According to whatever calculation it is, that's above my max for my age! Was a bit worried I might keel over sometime soon lol
  • howeclectic
    howeclectic Posts: 121 Member
    You have to be very careful with those calorie estimates though. 1600 calories in 1:45. That would be an INTENSE workout. Runningworld.com determined you burn 0.63 x your weight calories per mile. For a 200 pound person to burn 1600 calories in 1:45 you would have to run 12.7 miles (a 200 pound person would burn ~125 calories a mile). To run 12.7 miles in 1:45 you would have to run a an 8:16 min mile pace for an 1:45. (the equivalent of about a 26 minute 5k pace for 1:45). Obviously.. if you are lighter than 200 pounds... you would have to run even faster than that 8:16 pace. You can get more info here:

    http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

    Actually the HRM was less than the tread mill estimate, the tread mill monitors HR and you enter details and weight.

    I think it's more to do with being not that fit but also being an athlete when I was young.

    My heart rate max for my age 45 should be 175 but I peaked at 195 and spent suite some time at 180 bpm, if I was fitter I could do the same exercise with 180 peak and 165 being the rate for a long period.

    I was exhausted believe me.

    But the over week I done cardio and weights and cardio weights. Left gym went home ordered a 2000+ calorie pizza and still lost a pound in weight the next morning.

    I have only ever really trained intense, always pushing myself 90% of the time.

    I want to lose weight for health reasons and I'd also like to enter The Spartian run the hardest 5k race in the world so they say.

    You cant really draw conclusions about eating a pizza and losing a pound the next day. I do a lot of intense cycling. If i sweat hard.. it sometimes takes a day or two for my body to normalize the hydration levels. The big thing you have to be careful with is double counting calories. MFP already counts your basal metabolic calories. Nearly all the treadmill estimates and HRM estimates include your basal metabolic calories as part of their calorie burns. Since MFP already counts those calories, it will cause the calories to over count. Also.... many HRMs are notoriously inaccurate. As an example... I have a garmin gps/hrm bike computer that is infamous among the bike community for over counting calories by as much as double. One of the reasons for this is that more accurate methods of calculating calorie burns based on heart rates are patented by companies. Garmin cant use the more accurate equations without running in to legal problems, so they purposefully used a far worse method to avoid the problem.... I agree that as you get more fit.. obviously the numbers change. I've just personally found with my year and a half of being on MFP and measuring all my foods on a scale... ive managed to determine that MFP calorie estimates tend to be over the real calorie count by about 40-50%.

    Perfect example.... I went biking for an hour and 10 minutes at over 20 miles per hour. MFP estimates it at 1600 calories (185 pound man). Thats just insane....

    Then there is a more accurate calorie counter that serious bicyclists use at http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm . This one estimates my bike ride at about 854 when i enter in all of the values.

    854 vs 1600 calories.... My love of pizza wants to believe the 1600 number but years of experience shows me that the 854 number is more realistic.
  • mary_kate23
    mary_kate23 Posts: 156
    ♥ my FT4!
  • kimgettinfit
    kimgettinfit Posts: 20 Member
    I just got the FITBIT Ultra with sleep tracker the other day. I don't think it has HR on it but it's got steps, stairs taken, calories burned, distance walked/ran, and you can use it while you sleep to track how efficient it is. I LOVE it. It's different than a usual pedometer or something, I think I read that it has the same type of system as the WII, it's wireless and you just wear it on your shirt, pants, bra, etc. It's tiny! It was amazing to see how many calories I burned while sleeping!!
  • SparkleShine
    SparkleShine Posts: 2,001 Member
    ♥ my FT4!

    Me too! I love seeing the actual number of calories burned.
  • TheFunBun
    TheFunBun Posts: 793 Member
    The MFP numbers accuracy is greatly dependent on your weight and size. I find that balls-to-the-wall, I can do 10 cal per minute. Usually, it ends up being about 2/3 of MFP's estimate, and I'm pretty heavy. I imagine even bigger people could count on those burns as accurate.

    Another thing is the polar is said to be the -most- accurate, but up to 15% inaccuracy, which could just be as simple as subtracting your BMR amount from the total. :)
  • jreed1920
    jreed1920 Posts: 123
    My FT4 is ok so far but it SUCKS in the pool! I saw a few people excited to use it swimming and it may not be the fabulous answer that you are looking for. Mine frequently loses the HR when I'm in the pool which makes it pretty useless for recording calorie burn.
  • babygurl48
    babygurl48 Posts: 1,237 Member
    Love my FT4!
  • dutchdoll
    dutchdoll Posts: 2
    I have a Polar Watch FT40 and love it!! With this one I'm able to see not only calories burned but what "zone" I'm in, be it, "fat burning" or "cardio endurance". I'm a Jazzecise instructor and use it every class I teach. It's very motivating.
  • AshCakes88
    AshCakes88 Posts: 123 Member
    What is a Polar FT4??
  • lincolnpalmer
    lincolnpalmer Posts: 28 Member
    I've found my FT80 to be pretty accurate. It's usually within 10% of the machines and calorie calculators.

    Based on the rates you talked about and the fact you are male and weigh a decent amount, I'm not surprised at the 1600 for a nearly 2 hour workout.

    Using MFP calories is pointless in my opinion, unless that's all you have to go with. Detailed HR data will always give you a more accurate reading than MFP's "High, Moderate, Low" intensity estimates.

    Use common sense. If you it looks really high for the intensity you did, cross check it with something else. You should get a feel for how much you should burn after a while.
  • Gulzilly
    Gulzilly Posts: 238 Member
    I got a FT7 last night. I inputted all data and used it for my run today. A 30 min run gave me 344 calorie burn. A further 10 min elliptical (I really pushed myself) gave me a burn of 104 calories. Gut tells me the 104 calories was a bit excessive. New to the HRM world so not sure- anyone have any idea's?
  • lincolnpalmer
    lincolnpalmer Posts: 28 Member
    Also, on the "subtract BMR from HRM number issue"... It's really not that much. I work out for just over an hour, which for my BMR might be 100 cals.

    In the big picture of calorie counting that doesn't matter much to me.

    You'll never get 100% accuracy no matter what you do, so make sure your setting are correct and go with the HRM number.

    If your model has a "Fitness Test," do it. It's basically an estimate of VO2max. If you put in a ridiculous number, your calories are going to be way too high. VO2max for average fit college age person is 40-50. Lance Armstrong is 70. If yours says 90 like a couple people I know, don't mess around on MFP. Go find something to do in the Olympics.

    I did the Fitness Test and mine is 47. This number makes the count more accurate, but can also throw it way off if you plug in an arbitrary, high number.
  • sheppuh
    sheppuh Posts: 39

    You cant really draw conclusions about eating a pizza and losing a pound the next day. I do a lot of intense cycling. If i sweat hard.. it sometimes takes a day or two for my body to normalize the hydration levels. The big thing you have to be careful with is double counting calories. MFP already counts your basal metabolic calories. Nearly all the treadmill estimates and HRM estimates include your basal metabolic calories as part of their calorie burns. Since MFP already counts those calories, it will cause the calories to over count. Also.... many HRMs are notoriously inaccurate. As an example... I have a garmin gps/hrm bike computer that is infamous among the bike community for over counting calories by as much as double. One of the reasons for this is that more accurate methods of calculating calorie burns based on heart rates are patented by companies. Garmin cant use the more accurate equations without running in to legal problems, so they purposefully used a far worse method to avoid the problem.... I agree that as you get more fit.. obviously the numbers change. I've just personally found with my year and a half of being on MFP and measuring all my foods on a scale... ive managed to determine that MFP calorie estimates tend to be over the real calorie count by about 40-50%.

    Perfect example.... I went biking for an hour and 10 minutes at over 20 miles per hour. MFP estimates it at 1600 calories (185 pound man). Thats just insane....

    Then there is a more accurate calorie counter that serious bicyclists use at http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm . This one estimates my bike ride at about 854 when i enter in all of the values.

    854 vs 1600 calories.... My love of pizza wants to believe the 1600 number but years of experience shows me that the 854 number is more realistic.

    THANKS FOR THE STRAIGHT SHOOTIN'!
    Getting to the gym and burning calories is great for boosting morale, but overestimating what you're burning can be counterproductive if it's affecting the accuracy of calories in/out. You mentioned that Garmin uses inaccurate formulas for calculating calories burned... do you know if the polar is more accurate or what particular brand uses the most accurate formulas?
  • ChrisGoldn
    ChrisGoldn Posts: 473 Member
    The MFP numbers accuracy is greatly dependent on your weight and size. I find that balls-to-the-wall, I can do 10 cal per minute. Usually, it ends up being about 2/3 of MFP's estimate, and I'm pretty heavy. I imagine even bigger people could count on those burns as accurate.

    Another thing is the polar is said to be the -most- accurate, but up to 15% inaccuracy, which could just be as simple as subtracting your BMR amount from the total. :)

    This is exactly what i do, i subtract my BMR amount for each of my workouts... First day i got my FT40 i tracked my HR while i slept... Just under 600 calories for the 6 hours i slept.. so i figure 100 calories off per hour of my workouts and thats what i put in for calories burned..

    Also runningworld's calucations are based on a fit person with a fit HR on calories burned per mile... A person who isnt fit and has and maintain's a higher heart rate for a longer period of time will expend more calories per hour!

    Side note. When i first used my polar and saw the quad digit calorie burn. i didnt believe it either. so i wore my other one the next session as well as my polar and they were within 50 calories of each other.
  • howeclectic
    howeclectic Posts: 121 Member


    THANKS FOR THE STRAIGHT SHOOTIN'!
    Getting to the gym and burning calories is great for boosting morale, but overestimating what you're burning can be counterproductive if it's affecting the accuracy of calories in/out. You mentioned that Garmin uses inaccurate formulas for calculating calories burned... do you know if the polar is more accurate or what particular brand uses the most accurate formulas?

    Glad to help... I haven't studied how accurate the Polars are. Honestly... the best method i've found is to use the MFP estimates as a starting point. I weigh all my food to get the input side as accurate as possible. so... if i aim for 2 pounds a week and achieve only about 1 pound a week... i can tell more or less there is about a 500 calorie a day error. If you follow the advise of lincolnpalmer to take the fitness level test on the HRM to calibrate it to you... you might get a more or less decent number. I workout 6 days a week and have a resting heart rate in the low 50's. My conditioning might be causing my efficiency to be a lot different than others (coloring my view on MFP being wildly innacurate). You just have to see what works for you.
  • sheppuh
    sheppuh Posts: 39
    Low 50's resting heart rate? Dude, you're seriously fit!
    Yeah, I also weigh my food (Well, meats and fruit/veggies) and try to exercise a decent amount, but when I really started noticing the difference between MFP's estimated calories burned and cardio machines... well that got me looking. Counting calories only works if you have accurate figures, after all. Anyway, thanks for the valuable input!
  • ChrisGoldn
    ChrisGoldn Posts: 473 Member
    My resting avg HR while i tested mine during the 6 hour sleep was 52 as well.
  • superstarcassie
    superstarcassie Posts: 296 Member
    My Polar FT7 is pretty accurate. It all depends on how high your heart rate is for the duration of your workout. Since starting MFP and becoming more fit, my resting heart rate is now usually 50-60 bpm and my workouts peak in the 160's- it now takes me longer to burn calories because of that, and because I weigh less. When I was heavier and less fit, my heart rate would be more elevated overall for the duration of my workout earning me huge calorie burns! OP- where was your heart rate for a majority of your workout (maybe you already answered that...just missed it as I scanned through). If it were pretty high throughout your workout, I could see a 1600 burn.
  • SparkleShine
    SparkleShine Posts: 2,001 Member
    I got a FT7 last night. I inputted all data and used it for my run today. A 30 min run gave me 344 calorie burn. A further 10 min elliptical (I really pushed myself) gave me a burn of 104 calories. Gut tells me the 104 calories was a bit excessive. New to the HRM world so not sure- anyone have any idea's?

    It sound sright to me. I usually avarage about 10 calories a minute. Give or take...
This discussion has been closed.

Categories