Polar HRM calorie burn estimate accuracy - study
Options
heybales
Posts: 18,842 Member
Just in case the ladies are thinking that even the HRM calorie estimate may be off, you are probably not wrong.
This is a study on a specific model, but chances are Polar has not refined their calculations much on other models that ask for the same info.
Guys, we got it lucky.
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfje/5700/PolarWatch-study-MSSE.pdf
In conclusion, when the predicted values of V˙ O2max and HRmax are used, the Polar S410 HRM provides a rough estimate of EE during treadmill, cycling, and rowing. For males, the use of predicted values resulted in a mean error of 2% (SD 18%), whereas in females the mean error was 33% (SD 20.9). To improve on the accuracy, the actual measured values forV˙ O2max and HRmax should be used. For males, this resulted in a 4% error (SD 10%), whereas in females the mean error was improved to 12% (SD 13%). In addition, the Polar S410 has an important advantage over motion sensors in that it is applicable to a variety of exercise modes.
And an interesting comment regarding the BodyBugg / BodyMedia / FitBit style of calorie estimation.
Previously, Levine et al. (17) have shown that by using accelerometers and inclinometers to capture body motion and position, they can account for 85% of nonexercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). NEAT is comprised of several components such as occupational work, walking, sitting, standing, and any other nonexercise movement performed throughout the day. Thus, a person could wear the motion and position sensors throughout the day and remove them and put on the HR monitor when performing structured exercise.
This is a study on a specific model, but chances are Polar has not refined their calculations much on other models that ask for the same info.
Guys, we got it lucky.
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfje/5700/PolarWatch-study-MSSE.pdf
In conclusion, when the predicted values of V˙ O2max and HRmax are used, the Polar S410 HRM provides a rough estimate of EE during treadmill, cycling, and rowing. For males, the use of predicted values resulted in a mean error of 2% (SD 18%), whereas in females the mean error was 33% (SD 20.9). To improve on the accuracy, the actual measured values forV˙ O2max and HRmax should be used. For males, this resulted in a 4% error (SD 10%), whereas in females the mean error was improved to 12% (SD 13%). In addition, the Polar S410 has an important advantage over motion sensors in that it is applicable to a variety of exercise modes.
And an interesting comment regarding the BodyBugg / BodyMedia / FitBit style of calorie estimation.
Previously, Levine et al. (17) have shown that by using accelerometers and inclinometers to capture body motion and position, they can account for 85% of nonexercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). NEAT is comprised of several components such as occupational work, walking, sitting, standing, and any other nonexercise movement performed throughout the day. Thus, a person could wear the motion and position sensors throughout the day and remove them and put on the HR monitor when performing structured exercise.
0
Replies
-
Thanks...just got a Polar HRM but have not used it yet.0
-
Personally I don't care if mine is off, just having one in itself, seeing the results makes me WANT to workout more. It makes me want to get more exercise in to see the numbers go up. Ever since I got it I've been in love with it :P Interesting study I guess, mine's an FT60 so I would assume it's a least a little more accurate either way I'm happy, was $130 or whatever it cost well spent imo
0 -
Here's a big bump for further study!0
-
So in layman's terms, my FT7 is giving me the wrong results in terms of calories burnt?
That's disappointing.0 -
Whether it is off or not, I don't know. But I use a Polar FT60 and the Body Media FIT and have to say that both are very close to each other after nearly every workout I've done - whether that is walking, treadmill, elliptical, spinning.0
-
I guess I should have thrown the solution in there to obtain the better accuracy. Though you still may want to subtract 12%.
It's the default calculations based on avg's that cause the biggest inaccuracy.
If you can find out your own figures for max HR, and if your monitor lets you do it, VO2 max, you can greatly improve the accuracy.
For VO2 max estimate:
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/queens.htm
Here is a submaximal test to estimate your max HR, if you feel like doing the true killer test (and serious, be fit already to do that one), you can find it at the above site.
. The SubMax Step Test. Use an 8" step (almost any step in your home or in a club will do) and perform a 3-minute step test. After your warm-up, step up and down in a four-count sequence as follows: right foot up, left up, right down, left down. Each time you move a foot up or down, it counts as one step.
Count "up, up, down, down" for one set, with 20 sets to the minute. It is very important that you don't speed up the pace--keep it regular. After 2 minutes, you'll need to monitor your heart rate for the last minute. The SubMax Step Test now can be used to predict your Max HR. Add to your last minute's heart rate average one of the following numbers:
1. Poor Shape: +55 bpm
2. Average Shape: +65 bpm
3. Excellent Shape: +75 bpm
Your result should be pretty close to your Max HR. (last-minute heart rate average might be something like 120 bpm, to which I'd add 75 bpm, bringing the total to 195 bpm.)0 -
So in layman's terms, my FT7 is giving me the wrong results in terms of calories burnt?
That's disappointing.
How accurate is your calories you're supposed to consume?? That's probably inaccurate too. Everything comes with inaccuracies. So don't worry about it.
Well this is depressing.0 -
So in layman's terms, my FT7 is giving me the wrong results in terms of calories burnt?
That's disappointing.
Well, just a little over-estimated hopefully. Might be up to 165 cal when it tells you 500 cal burned.
But since the deviation for the women was 21%, you could be all over the place actually.
But since you have reached goal weight, and you are now training for that marathon/triathlon, you'll get into the zone training aspect anyway, right?!
Just do one of the real Max HR tests since you are in shape already and really improve your odds.0 -
Bump0
-
So in layman's terms, my FT7 is giving me the wrong results in terms of calories burnt?
That's disappointing.
How accurate is your calories you're supposed to consume?? That's probably inaccurate too. Everything comes with inaccuracies. So don't worry about it.
Well this is depressing.
Lol, true. And I've lost 2.5 kg since having my HRM so I'm not complaining!
and thanks for the test OP I might have to give that a try once I think I have the energy0 -
since my polar HRM asked for my age, weight and stuff, should I clear that? to get better accuracy cause my TIMEX never asked for it. What should i do?0
-
since my polar HRM asked for my age, weight and stuff, should I clear that? to get better accuracy cause my TIMEX never asked for it. What should i do?
No you shouldn't clear it.... It needs that info to give a calorie estimation.
Timex HRM's are crap at estimating calories.. so you are way better off with the Polar anyway.0 -
since my polar HRM asked for my age, weight and stuff, should I clear that? to get better accuracy cause my TIMEX never asked for it. What should i do?
No you shouldn't clear it.... It needs that info to give a calorie estimation.
Timex HRM's are crap at estimating calories.. so you are way better off with the Polar anyway.
Ditto's, I recorded many sessions from the Timex, which only asked for weight and MHR, and I am doubting it really used the MHR in calculations, as it is an optional entry. I think it just set the zones off that stat.
The Timex showed at every AHR to be about 50% more than the Polar, correctly set with gender, age, weight, and manual MHR correction (but no VO2max which study above says is pretty good anyway for men).0 -
Even more depressing.So in layman's terms, my FT7 is giving me the wrong results in terms of calories burnt?
That's disappointing.
Well, just a little over-estimated hopefully. Might be up to 165 cal when it tells you 500 cal burned.
But since the deviation for the women was 21%, you could be all over the place actually.
But since you have reached goal weight, and you are now training for that marathon/triathlon, you'll get into the zone training aspect anyway, right?!
Just do one of the real Max HR tests since you are in shape already and really improve your odds.0 -
since my polar HRM asked for my age, weight and stuff, should I clear that? to get better accuracy cause my TIMEX never asked for it. What should i do?
No you shouldn't clear it.... It needs that info to give a calorie estimation.
Timex HRM's are crap at estimating calories.. so you are way better off with the Polar anyway.
Ditto's, I recorded many sessions from the Timex, which only asked for weight and MHR, and I am doubting it really used the MHR in calculations, as it is an optional entry. I think it just set the zones off that stat.
The Timex showed at every AHR to be about 50% more than the Polar, correctly set with gender, age, weight, and manual MHR correction (but no VO2max which study above says is pretty good anyway for men).
I have a Timex and I confirm, it's crap.
I'm going to buy a Polar. Even if it's not 100% accurate, it will be closer.
Thanks for this interesting post.0 -
bump0
-
bump0
-
bumpity0
-
Bump for when I get my Polar FT4 this weekend
0 -
bump0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions