POLAR HRM vs MFP

Options
24

Replies

  • JaySpice
    JaySpice Posts: 326 Member
    Options

    No....I am in THAT bad of shape.... :/ Yes, I was huffing and puffing pretty much the whole time.

    Then most def count your what HRM said.
  • jordanp1227
    jordanp1227 Posts: 9
    Options
    HRM! it goes off of your personal info not what someone else put in :)
  • beaner1st
    beaner1st Posts: 229 Member
    Options
    avg HR 182
    Max HR 197
    RHR usually in the high 70s low 80s
    That is EXTREMELY high HR... how hard were you struggling? Have you done this before and gotten those readings? If you weren't gasping for air nearly the whole time, I think something may be off...

    **EDIT - you just said you "walked" so I don't see how those numbers are possible. I would go by MFP in this case. Also, make sure the electrodes are properly positioned to get the most accurate reading possible
    OK you pedantic people you-

    How off is a HRM normally? Enough to give an extra 200 cal burn? 300? 500? Fill me in.
    umm... in this case it could be that much considering she is seeing a HR that high (and it is more likely in the 140-150 range) for an entire HOUR

    My heart rate can easily run in the 170s when working out and I have a resting heartrate in the 60s and am in pretty good shape and not struggling very much. When I have asked various "experts" I am told them same thing as long as it comes down quickly it is ok (which it does) and that I am lucky because I am burning more calories than many.
  • SheehyCFC
    SheehyCFC Posts: 529 Member
    Options
    No....I am in THAT bad of shape.... :/ Yes, I was huffing and puffing pretty much the whole time.
    I wasn't trying to discourage you in anyway, sorry if it came off that way... it just seems like those numbers are off. your THEORETICAL (yeah, it required italics) max HR is 220 - your age... so getting to 197 would be over that... especially if you are doing it for extended period of time (average 182).

    I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I am saying it seems unlikely. If you have gotten repeatable measurements (read: precision) at this level, then by all means use the HRM... otherwise use MFP. And as I said, you should be subtracting your BMR whenever you use a HRM... do you know what it is? That would swing the HRM down 100-200 calories, depending...
  • mellabyte
    mellabyte Posts: 193 Member
    Options
    Your high HR is probably true to your assumption that you're feeling that out of shape.

    When I first started working out, my resting heart rate was like high 80's to mid 90's. And I would always get up to 180 to almost 190 and not yet be at my max. I was told that unless I felt dizzy, faint or had chest pains, then this was just my being in terrible shape and my heart in general just not being strong due to lack of cardio workouts.

    Now my resting heart rate is anywhere from the low 60's to mid 70's (sometimes even at mid 50's). And I only reach 180+ if I'm really effin' workin' it, which is usually pushing myself running (because I suck at it :P). During typical cardio workouts my HR usually doesn't get above 165-170 now.

    I think the polar FT7's are supposed to take in your resting and then calculate from there. I've noticed that my ranges change for me. That some days, the cut-off mark from "fat burn effect" to "fitness effect" varies and is lower on some days and higher on others. -scratches head-
  • lahlie
    lahlie Posts: 149 Member
    Options
    No....I am in THAT bad of shape.... :/ Yes, I was huffing and puffing pretty much the whole time.
    I wasn't trying to discourage you in anyway, sorry if it came off that way... it just seems like those numbers are off. your THEORETICAL (yeah, it required italics) max HR is 220 - your age... so getting to 197 would be over that... especially if you are doing it for extended period of time (average 182).

    I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I am saying it seems unlikely. If you have gotten repeatable measurements (read: precision) at this level, then by all means use the HRM... otherwise use MFP. And as I said, you should be subtracting your BMR whenever you use a HRM... do you know what it is? That would swing the HRM down 100-200 calories, depending...

    Ok. So, to give a little comparison. Riding my bike for 34 minute I burned 365 cal. max HR: 192 Avg HR 172
  • SheehyCFC
    SheehyCFC Posts: 529 Member
    Options
    Ok. So, to give a little comparison. Riding my bike for 34 minute I burned 365 cal. max HR: 192 Avg HR 172
    That seems extremely likely/possible (calorie burn, exertion)... though 192 is high, it seems reasonable. So maybe the HRM is right. As mella said above, I may be accounting too much for being further along in the journey, and apologize if I seemed misleading. Go with the HRM, but make sure to back out your BMR cals. Best of luck

    **EDIT - Was riding bike really equivalent to walking the kids in a stroller? If you think so, than the HRM was accurate
  • lahlie
    lahlie Posts: 149 Member
    Options
    Ok. So, to give a little comparison. Riding my bike for 34 minute I burned 365 cal. max HR: 192 Avg HR 172
    That seems extremely likely/possible (calorie burn, exertion)... though 192 is high, it seems reasonable. So maybe the HRM is right. As mella said above, I may be accounting too much for being further along in the journey, and apologize if I seemed misleading. Go with the HRM, but make sure to back out your BMR cals.

    Best of luck

    Why do you subtract out the BMR calories?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    OK you pedantic people you-

    How off is a HRM normally? Enough to give an extra 200 cal burn? 300? 500? Fill me in.

    According to your workout heart rate info (that you listed in another comment), your HRM could be overestimating your calories by a significant amount, if you have it programmed with default values. Your age-predicted HR max is in the upper 180s which is your average workout heart rate. So the HRM assumes you are working at 100+% of your VO2max for 55 minutes. That's significant.
  • SheehyCFC
    SheehyCFC Posts: 529 Member
    Options
    Why do you subtract out the BMR calories?
    Most HRM do not take into account your calories burned at rest... they just account for the calories burned for a given duration at a given HR. In these cases, you would be "double counting" the calories burned from just living. I know for my polar A5, I have to back out ~90-100 calories (BMR) per hour. I'm not 100% sure on the FT7, but you can do a forum search and the answer should be there.
  • lahlie
    lahlie Posts: 149 Member
    Options
    Why do you subtract out the BMR calories?
    Most HRM do not take into account your calories burned at rest... they just account for the calories burned for a given duration at a given HR. In these cases, you would be "double counting" the calories burned from just living. I know for my polar A5, I have to back out ~90-100 calories (BMR) per hour. I'm not 100% sure on the FT7, but you can do a forum search and the answer should be there.

    So how do I figure that? LOL! I am sorry...I had no idea you should do that...
  • JaySpice
    JaySpice Posts: 326 Member
    Options
    Why do you subtract out the BMR calories?
    Most HRM do not take into account your calories burned at rest... they just account for the calories burned for a given duration at a given HR. In these cases, you would be "double counting" the calories burned from just living. I know for my polar A5, I have to back out ~90-100 calories (BMR) per hour. I'm not 100% sure on the FT7, but you can do a forum search and the answer should be there.

    So how do I figure that? LOL! I am sorry...I had no idea you should do that...

    Me either. I think you should do your own research before doing this.
  • rm830
    rm830 Posts: 531 Member
    Options
    Go with HRM!
  • fancyladyJeri
    fancyladyJeri Posts: 1,315 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • volleypc
    volleypc Posts: 134 Member
    Options
    Something doesn't look quiet right with your heart rate numbers. Are you sure your strap is making good contact? Is clean? doesn't need new batteries? Those numbers resemble more someone working out very hard running sprints, etc. It is considerably more than someone just being out of breath.
  • littlebuddy84
    littlebuddy84 Posts: 1,000 Member
    Options
    Definitely go with what ur HRM tells you!
  • SheehyCFC
    SheehyCFC Posts: 529 Member
    Options
    I'm not 100% sure on the FT7, but you can do a forum search and the answer should be there.
    So how do I figure that? LOL! I am sorry...I had no idea you should do that...
    Don't know if you are asking about forum search or BMR calc, but I'll give you both.

    To do a forum search, go to the "Community" tab and under the word message boards, you will see "Search". I would try "FT7 resting calories" and you should get some results

    There are various calculations to get BMR, but a simple one is: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/. That is obviously for 24 hours, so you would take: BMR x (minutes exercised) / (1440 (minutes in a day)) and subtract that from the calories burned given by your HRM.

    **EDIT - I realize it is really complicated, and really only comes into play if your FT7 doesn't account for resting cals (like I said, I don't know that, do a search). Even then its usually a small # unless you're exercising >1 hour. I apologize for the complexion, but since you asked, I figured I would answer :flowerforyou:
  • jsapninz
    jsapninz Posts: 909 Member
    Options
    Polar wins. MFP doesn't know how hard YOU worked to push- just an average for speed.

    That's why you get a HRM. :heart:
  • slightner
    slightner Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    avg HR 182
    Max HR 197
    RHR usually in the high 70s low 80s
    That is EXTREMELY high HR... how hard were you struggling? Have you done this before and gotten those readings? If you weren't gasping for air nearly the whole time, I think something may be off...

    **EDIT - you just said you "walked" so I don't see how those numbers are possible. I would go by MFP in this case. Also, make sure the electrodes are properly positioned to get the most accurate reading possible
    OK you pedantic people you-

    How off is a HRM normally? Enough to give an extra 200 cal burn? 300? 500? Fill me in.
    umm... in this case it could be that much considering she is seeing a HR that high (and it is more likely in the 140-150 range) for an entire HOUR

    No....I am in THAT bad of shape.... :/ Yes, I was huffing and puffing pretty much the whole time.

    I think some of you dont realize what it takes to push a double stroller that weight probably 30 pounds itself with 2 kids in it which she said was 80 pounds....and if the terrain wasnt good, it would have been even harder trying to maneuver as the best doubles are unwieldy! Id go with your HRM.
  • jsapninz
    jsapninz Posts: 909 Member
    Options
    Polar wins. MFP doesn't know how hard YOU worked to push- just an average for speed.
    No HRM knows how hard you worked. It 'assumes' your rest heart-rate is 'x' and then uses a table to look up instantaneous heart-rates over the 'x' value to calculate a total caloric burn. This is like looking at how may RPM's your engine is running, and predicting how fast you are driving and what direction. You simply do not have enough data to make this prediction. Are you sitting in your driveway with a fast idle? Are you spinning on ice? Are you flying downhill?

    My rest HR is 46 bpm, my wife has a rest HR of 88. I have to bust my butt to get it up to 108, my wife needs merely to walk across the street to get the mail. To say that our caloric burns are comparable based solely upon our HR is a bit of an exaggeration.

    To get an accurate caloric reading, the HRM would need to know YOUR average rest heart rate, you rate of conversion of O2 to CO2, your weight, the distance you are travelling, the speed at which you are travelling (we tend to 'jump' when we run, vs a smooth transaction when we walk). the starting and ending elevations, your age, fitness and gender - and that's just off the top of my head. A marathon runner will burn far less calories in a 1.5 mile jog than I will, simply because his body is tuned to this sort of thing - while mine is not.

    Everything we use is a 'best guess' - it's simply making due with lots of "Rules of Thumb".

    So, let me get this straight, you are saying DON'T Trust EITHER?!?! Very helpful.

Categories