Polar Heart Rate monitors
Wonderob
Posts: 1,372 Member
Just to let you know that Halfords have got a sale on at the moment on Polar Heart Rate monitors
FT4 is only £49.99
http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/SearchCmd?srch=polar&department=165508|Sat+Nav+&+GPS&action=search&storeId=10001&catalogId=10151&langId=-1
FT4 is only £49.99
http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/SearchCmd?srch=polar&department=165508|Sat+Nav+&+GPS&action=search&storeId=10001&catalogId=10151&langId=-1
0
Replies
-
Thanks for the heads-up. I am keen to get the FT7 and that's a good price on there too. Plus I live round the corner from a Halfords so if I order today I could have it tomorrow
0 -
.Thanks for the heads-up. I am keen to get the FT7 and that's a good price on there too. Plus I live round the corner from a Halfords so if I order today I could have it tomorrow
Great, I did similar and got my FT7 yesterday0 -
I've got the FT4 and it's fab!
Love Polar, had one a few years back but sold it to get a Garmin for my running. I decided I wanted another one, so I now have both the Polar and the Garmin lol.0 -
So I decided to get the FT4 (and am also getting a FitBit hence the decision to get a simpler Polar model). I collected it yesterday and used it for the first time this morning for my bicycle commute to work.
I was really expected the MFP estimations to be way over my actual burns (MFP gives me 392 cals for 1hr cycling). But I tested my HRM this morning and my cycle to work alone came out as 322 cals and 32 minutes. I'm pretty shocked as really didn't think I was working that hard but I guess there are a few hills to contend with which was when my heart rate really got going.
So I'll test again on the way home but assuming similar results my daily burn for my commute will be in the region of 640 cals - a whopping 248 more than I had previously accounted for = more dinner for me 0 -
I'm pretty shocked as really didn't think I was working that hard but I guess there are a few hills to contend with which was when my heart rate really got going.
Ok now somebody might be able to correct me if I'm wrong here but I think what you need to do to get the true figure is to take off the calories you would burn if you were doing nothing at all - your BMR, as that has already been accounted for so...
For me with a BMR of 1539, I burn 2.67 calories per minute just keeping alive, so any exercise I do is not in addition to that.
32 minutes no exercise = 85 calories
32 minutes of exercise (HRM reading) = 322 calories
So the EXTRA calories I burnt off were 237 calories
Learning this was a little disappointing but makes sense; although I have only heard this from members on here and is not something I can say is 100% confirmed0 -
Yes that makes sense to me - I've always wondered whether HRMs take into account my BMR when working out the calorie expenditure, so I'll have to look into that and see if I can find a definitive answer. It does of course make sense that I need to deduct my resting heart rate to get the net calorie burn but perhaps the HRM has already accounted for that in its internal calculations....I'll investigate!0
-
Yes that makes sense to me - I've always wondered whether HRMs take into account my BMR when working out the calorie expenditure, so I'll have to look into that and see if I can find a definitive answer. It does of course make sense that I need to deduct my resting heart rate to get the net calorie burn but perhaps the HRM has already accounted for that in its internal calculations....I'll investigate!
I'm not sure - no facts to back up my argument - happy to stand corrected (this is not like me!)
I've posted a seperate topic for the experts to mull over
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/666764-maths-hrm-question-only-read-if-you-like-figures0 -
I'm pretty shocked as really didn't think I was working that hard but I guess there are a few hills to contend with which was when my heart rate really got going.
Ok now somebody might be able to correct me if I'm wrong here but I think what you need to do to get the true figure is to take off the calories you would burn if you were doing nothing at all - your BMR, as that has already been accounted for so...
For me with a BMR of 1539, I burn 2.67 calories per minute just keeping alive, so any exercise I do is not in addition to that.
32 minutes no exercise = 85 calories
32 minutes of exercise (HRM reading) = 322 calories
So the EXTRA calories I burnt off were 237 calories
Learning this was a little disappointing but makes sense; although I have only heard this from members on here and is not something I can say is 100% confirmed
I have always assumed that the calorie readings on an HRM include your BMR calories so in theory you should deduct your BMR from the final reading. What I do instead is stop the HRM as soon as I finish my excercise. I know that I will still be burning calories at a higher rate for a while after I have stopped due to the excersise. I work on the basis that this "afterburn " probably just about cancels out the BRM. So I don't deduct BMR but I dont count afterburn. Seems like a reasonable compromise that doesn't need any maths.0 -
I'm pretty shocked as really didn't think I was working that hard but I guess there are a few hills to contend with which was when my heart rate really got going.
Ok now somebody might be able to correct me if I'm wrong here but I think what you need to do to get the true figure is to take off the calories you would burn if you were doing nothing at all - your BMR, as that has already been accounted for so...
For me with a BMR of 1539, I burn 2.67 calories per minute just keeping alive, so any exercise I do is not in addition to that.
32 minutes no exercise = 85 calories
32 minutes of exercise (HRM reading) = 322 calories
So the EXTRA calories I burnt off were 237 calories
Learning this was a little disappointing but makes sense; although I have only heard this from members on here and is not something I can say is 100% confirmed
I have always assumed that the calorie readings on an HRM include your BMR calories so in theory you should deduct your BMR from the final reading. What I do instead is stop the HRM as soon as I finish my excercise. I know that I will still be burning calories at a higher rate for a while after I have stopped due to the excersise. I work on the basis that this "afterburn " probably just about cancels out the BRM. So I don't deduct BMR but I dont count afterburn. Seems like a reasonable compromise that doesn't need any maths.
That's a very good point and that's probably just as accurate as anything I will do using spreadsheets!
I do however, especially when doing weights, leave my HRM going for my 10 minute journey home from the gym for the 'afterburn' effect - again it's really only guesswork isn't it0 -
I have always assumed that the calorie readings on an HRM include your BMR calories so in theory you should deduct your BMR from the final reading. What I do instead is stop the HRM as soon as I finish my excercise. I know that I will still be burning calories at a higher rate for a while after I have stopped due to the excersise. I work on the basis that this "afterburn " probably just about cancels out the BRM. So I don't deduct BMR but I dont count afterburn. Seems like a reasonable compromise that doesn't need any maths.
Thanks, this method seems fair and simple to work with so I'll just log results from my HRM for the time I've actually spent exercising and afterburn should cover it, especially when lifting.0
This discussion has been closed.