POLAR HRM vs MFP

2

Replies

  • lahlie
    lahlie Posts: 149 Member
    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
    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
    Go with HRM!
  • fancyladyJeri
    fancyladyJeri Posts: 1,319 Member
    Bump
  • volleypc
    volleypc Posts: 134 Member
    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: 995 Member
    Definitely go with what ur HRM tells you!
  • SheehyCFC
    SheehyCFC Posts: 529 Member
    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
    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
    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
    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.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Resting HR is not taken into consideration, and doesn't need to be.

    It's the true max HR that matters.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
  • jsapninz
    jsapninz Posts: 909 Member
    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.

    What I do is take my BMR/24 hours in the day to get how many calories I burn an hour. Probably not exact but close.

    So if your BMR is 1,500, 1500/24= 62.5 cals per hour, so if my HRM says I burned 300 cals working out for 1 hour I am really only burning 237.5 cals above what I would have done just being alive. But like others have said you would have to figure out if your FT7 takes this into account already. I don't know if my FT4 does now or not, will have to research....:ohwell:

    UPDATE for FT7: OwnCal is the most accurate calorie counter on the market. It calculates the number of calories expended during a training session based on your weight, height, age, gender, your individual maximum heart rate (HRmax) and how hard you’re training. (from http://www.polar.fi/en/products/get_active/fitness_crosstraining/FT7) So in otherwords it DOES take your individual heart rate. I can't find anything info about subtracting your BMR though.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    What I do is take my BMR/24 hours in the day to get how many calories I burn an hour. Probably not exact but close.

    So if your BMR is 1,500, 1500/24= 62.5 cals per hour, so if my HRM says I burned 300 cals working out for 1 hour I am really only burning 237.5 cals above what I would have done just being alive. But like others have said you would have to figure out if your FT7 takes this into account already. I don't know if my FT4 does now or not, will have to research....:ohwell:

    UPDATE for FT7: OwnCal is the most accurate calorie counter on the market. It calculates the number of calories expended during a training session based on your weight, height, age, gender, your individual maximum heart rate (HRmax) and how hard you’re training. (from http://www.polar.fi/en/products/get_active/fitness_crosstraining/FT7) So in otherwords it DOES take your individual heart rate. I can't find anything info about subtracting your BMR though.

    Sadly, your individual max HR is purely a calculation of 220-age - which is a huge bell curve for women, very few actually hit the formula, and actually very spread out.
    Men do too - just not as bad.
    My own is 17 higher then calc would say, and HRM would default to. So you can change it.

    So it doesn't actually take into account your MHR, but rather an estimate of what it may be.

    As my post above shows, inaccurate for women too, men luck out.
    Several methods for estimating MHR no matter who you are, which can increase calorie burn estimate accuracy.
    From easy step test, to if you are fit already and feel like almost puking.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466973-i-want-to-test-for-my-max-heart-rate-vo2-max

    You are correct for the purpose of eating back exercise calories, you do need to subtract what MFP already has estimated for that hour.

    Which is actually not your BMR, but rather your non-exercise calories. Look on Goals page for Calories Burned from normal daily activity. That's what they think you burn per day and already include. You divide that by 24, to subtract from HRM told you, if you want to eat back more accurate level of exercise calories.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    the FT7 and other Polar jrms do not back out any cals. That said i would suggest backing out maintenance cals as backing out only bmr would suggest that if you were not working out you would be in a coma. And mfp gives you cals based on maintenance not bmr.
  • trysha1231
    trysha1231 Posts: 163 Member
    My HRM had me set up and take a base resting read as well as enter in my weight. age and height. I think if you have the same type of HRM, then you know it will be fairly accurate and you should go with that number.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    OP you should also change your max HR, with what you said it got up to I 'm guessing it is above 200 bpm. If you chang your max hr umder the aetting set it at205. Then the same hr for a workout would show less cals burned as you would be a lower % of max jr.
  • lahlie
    lahlie Posts: 149 Member
    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.
    [/quote]

    HAHA! Thanks!!! :)
  • tbrooke2000
    tbrooke2000 Posts: 61 Member
    my weight loss has improved since I have been using my Polar vs what the machines at the gym say or what MFP says. Override what MFP says... it is just a guess anyways and what my 120 lb friend burns isn't near what I burn...

    Good luck!
  • taxacctdfw
    taxacctdfw Posts: 67 Member
    Polar HRM for sure. Plus it is linked to your "body" and calories" Mine was programmed by my personal trainer and he adjusts it per every 10 pound weight loss.

    I love mine and I log everything from it.
    MFP and those counts on fitness equipment or just suggestions.
  • lahlie
    lahlie Posts: 149 Member
    I am more confused than ever....LOL!

    I THINK the consensus is that I should trust my HRM. But then I should be subtracting my hourly BMR from the actual calories that my HRM is showing.

    I was so much easier when I had all faith in my HRM....LOL!
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Lets put it this way..

    HRM's when set up correctly(age, weight, height, gender) and used during steady state cardio(IE walking, running) are going to be 80% accurate. Add in Vo2max or tweak max heart rate and it goes up to about 90% I believe.

    Personally, I wouldn't back out anything for risk of screwing up those percentages even more... I never did and lost weight just fine.
  • JaySpice
    JaySpice Posts: 326 Member
    I am more confused than ever....LOL!

    I THINK the consensus is that I should trust my HRM. But then I should be subtracting my hourly BMR from the actual calories that my HRM is showing.

    I was so much easier when I had all faith in my HRM....LOL!

    The general consensus is trust your HRM. One....or two said subtract your BMR.
  • Crawflowr
    Crawflowr Posts: 106 Member
    I have the same problem with a high resting hr and silly high hr while running. If i wear the Polar HRM sitting on the sofa for an hour it says I use 250 calories. I've tended to go with the MFP values which are usually around 200 less than what my HRM says and have managed to lose weight as predicted.
  • tanyaleblanc
    tanyaleblanc Posts: 39
    Polar, it's picking up your heart rate. When I workout on the treadmill, the treadmills says I burned more calories, like 100 more than my polar F4, but always go by polar. Also when I log in progress and add my workouts on polatrraining.com, it auto calculates my calories burned after I enter my average and highest heart rate and it always about 100 calories more than what my polar says, but I always change it to my polar. F4.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I have the same problem with a high resting hr and silly high hr while running. If i wear the Polar HRM sitting on the sofa for an hour it says I use 250 calories. I've tended to go with the MFP values which are usually around 200 less than what my HRM says and have managed to lose weight as predicted.

    HRM formula's for calorie estimates are for ONLY the aerobic range - sitting on couch will be very inaccurate. Don't waste the battery.
  • meshashesha2012
    meshashesha2012 Posts: 8,329 Member
    your HRM will know your resting heart rate if you do your fit test. it's not that hard.

    my HRM is pretty accurate, but it helps to do that fit test since the results will help your HRM better estimate your V02 max which will be helpful in determining your heart rate zones.

    also if you're correctly figuring your activity level into your TDEE then the calorie burn shouldnt matter anyway since you wouldnt be needing to eat them back
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    your HRM will know your resting heart rate if you do your fit test. it's not that hard.

    my HRM is pretty accurate, but it helps to do that fit test since the results will help your HRM better estimate your V02 max which will be helpful in determining your heart rate zones.

    also if you're correctly figuring your activity level into your TDEE then the calorie burn shouldnt matter anyway since you wouldnt be needing to eat them back

    It's not trying to do a true resting HR test, that must be done first thing in the morning. Perhaps calm HR reading would be better description. Just have coffee, it's elevated. Had sleepless night, it's elevated. Just drank Nyquil, is lowered. ect.

    It's actually doing a VO2max test, plugging the HR value into a formula with other info, your selection of activity level, and coming up with a VO2max value. That's based on a study actually. And you could confirm it and improve it too.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/577839-hrm-s-with-vo2max-stat-improve-calorie-estimate&nbsp

    The VO2max value has no bearing on HRM zones, it actually bases that off your maxHR stat, which it calculates from 220-age, and that figure is actually used in the formula for VO2max too.

    So several places for inaccuracy. Hence:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

    I'm not sure how you could possibly know your HRM is accurate though, I'm assuming you mean for calorie burn as that is topic at hand, unless you actually had some time with a face mask and hose on.
    While different than MFP and other sites does not equate to accurate.
  • hollieepps
    hollieepps Posts: 9 Member
    I used to use MFP for working out my calories then got dubious and ended up buying a FT4 polar. While some things were quite accurate others were way out! As other people have said the HRM knows how hard your heart is working MFP doesnt :) I use my HRM for each exercise then just log the calorie in MFP and make it the same. For example i go to the gym for an hour and burn 450 calories so i just pick a random item for cardio and play with the minutes until i reach 450 caloies lol.
  • meshashesha2012
    meshashesha2012 Posts: 8,329 Member
    ^^ umm ok? i dont get your point but that's OK. i dont need it to be 100% accurate. 100 calories off one way or another isnt going to make or break me or more goals. i dont think i have the personality type or the patience to ever reach the stage where i needed to have THAT much control over my calories and need to be THAT certain of how many calories i was burning.

    i mean really.. it's an estimate. i have a life to live that doesn't involve me worrying if my HRM is 10% inaccurate or 5% inaccurate :laugh:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    ^^ umm ok? i dont get your point but that's OK. i dont need it to be 100% accurate. 100 calories off one way or another isnt going to make or break me or more goals. i dont think i have the personality type or the patience to ever reach the stage where i needed to have THAT much control over my calories and need to be THAT certain of how many calories i was burning.

    Excellent viewpoint.

    Just taking the opportunity to explain what was going on with that self-test, because several other posts indicated they thought the cheaper models knew about their resting HR, and they really have no such stat, nor a viewable or changable VO2max actually.

Categories