Burned 1644 calories with new Polar FT4

Options
13»

Replies

  • mary_kate23
    mary_kate23 Posts: 156
    Options
    ♥ my FT4!
  • kimgettinfit
    kimgettinfit Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    ♥ my FT4!

    Me too! I love seeing the actual number of calories burned.
  • TheFunBun
    TheFunBun Posts: 793 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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: 1,236 Member
    Options
    Love my FT4!
  • dutchdoll
    dutchdoll Posts: 2
    Options
    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: 131 Member
    Options
    What is a Polar FT4??
  • lincolnpalmer
    lincolnpalmer Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    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: 244 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options

    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
    Options
    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
    Options


    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    My resting avg HR while i tested mine during the 6 hour sleep was 52 as well.
  • superstarcassie
    superstarcassie Posts: 296 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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...

Categories