Polar FT7 HRM overestimating my calorie burn?

laura_fat2fit
laura_fat2fit Posts: 82 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi,

I bought a Polar FT7 HRM last week, I was really excited to use it and to get a more accurate calorie burn so I could manage my calories for food better.

Obviously, I know there is nothing ABSOLUTELY accurate, but I know HRM is the next best thing.

However, I think my FT7 is overestimating my calorie burn during my workouts at the gym and want to know if it is/isnt or if im doing something wrong.

When I got the FT7 out of the box, it asked for basic settings such as height, weight, age ect. All of these settings are correct, I have double and even triple checked to make sure that this is ok.

I am wetting the two strips on the strap of the HRM and placing the strap below my breasts(this is where I was told to put it).

I went to the gym, did 30min cross trainer, 20mins running and 10mins on the bike. Cross trainer and bike had high resistance, treadmill was on an incline. I was sweating and got a good workout. my HRM said i burnt 735cals for an hours work.

I put the same workout into MFP to see what cals it gave me, MFP said 607, which is 100cals LOWER than my HRM. I've been reading everywhere that MFP overestimates calorie burn so how can my HRM be even higher than that?

according to my HRM, i burnt 694 during a 60min spin class. 754 calories doing 120 minutes of "25min biking, 23min cross trainer, Resistance Training and 10min warmup/cool down walks." and 902 calories doing 120 minutes of "Resistance training, spinning class, 10min warmup and cooldown walks."

Do the figures above seem to high for what I was doing at the gym or am I just worrying too much?

I just don't want to be eating back my exercise calories if its way overestimated. Is there anything that I need to setup extra on my HRM?

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks

Laura
«1

Replies

  • HannahsReturnToFitness
    HannahsReturnToFitness Posts: 86 Member
    To me they sound about right.

    I purchased a heart rate monitor the other week too and have been using it when i've been doing my C25K. I went out last night and did the C25K plus an extra walk (because i ended up further away from the house than I expected!). In 55 minutes I burned 395 calories which was made up of C25K for 30 minutes and walking for 25 minutes. When I got back I felt that I had burned that many calories and my stomach felt empty!

    I C25K again this morning and put slightly less effort in and the calorie burn was significantly lower.

    I can imagine that if I attended an exercise class or did prolonged periods of exercise at the gym then my figures would be along the lines of yours.
  • bridies01
    bridies01 Posts: 57 Member
    I think the HRM sounds about right. MFP overestimates for me on some things and underestimates on others. The problem is MFP can't judge your intensity.

    For example, I have been running for a couple years now, so running at a pace of 9 or 10 min miles is pretty easy for me. MFP tends to overestimate my burn doing that.

    But the other day I had the treadmill on a random hills setting and just walked at 4 mph. MFP underestimated my calorie burn on that one because I just put in walking at 4 mph and it didn't account for the fact that I was walking some steep inclines and therefore working harder.

    I also can burn anywhere from 250 - 390 cals in a 45 min spin class - all depending on how hard I push myself and how hard I turn up the resistance - there is no way to capture that intensity in the MFP activity defaults.
  • katetaylor999
    katetaylor999 Posts: 54 Member
    Sounds about right to me too. Look at what your FT7 shows your heart rate to be during your workout. Mine is always around 185bpm, going up to 200bpm sometimes and in an hour of that I can burn 800 calories or more! And yes, I'm dripping, red faced and panting at the end of it!
  • CHN_
    CHN_ Posts: 94 Member
    Does your HRM come with a Fitness Test? It should be on the menu (mine is two clicks up, after the Data information). If it does, do this, as it's a setting that would help make your percentage and calories burned information more accurate.

    I know the Fitness test is part of the FT70 and FT40, but I am not sure about the cheaper models.

    I am asking because I have this on my own (FT40), and after I did a new Fitness test a few weeks ago, I was told I burned 50 calories less on 30DS than I had the day before, and my HR% was also lower. Because my older Fitness settings were from a year ago, when I was in worse shape.
  • kimmianne89
    kimmianne89 Posts: 428 Member
    Yeah i'd say that sounds about right
  • MrDel
    MrDel Posts: 33
    Trust the HRM
  • firstnamekaren
    firstnamekaren Posts: 274 Member
    I say trust the HRM. Sometimes MFP calculates my burn higher than my Polar FT4, sometimes it's the opposite. It looks like you're working your butt off! Isn't it rewarding to see that high number? :wink:
  • laura_fat2fit
    laura_fat2fit Posts: 82 Member
    Its been helpful to know that it seems accurate. I can calm down and stop worrying about overeating now ;)

    I will have a look when I am back home with regards to the Fitness Test on my HRM, I hadn't really looked at any other settings so maybe its on there.

    Thanks for the replies everyone! x
  • karensoxfan
    karensoxfan Posts: 902 Member
    I had the same questions as you when I first got my FT4. It told me I was burning more calories than MFP estimates and even more than the machine readouts, so I was skeptical, but I'm still losing weight eating most/all of my exercise calories. I still wonder how accurate it is, but since it's based on my actual continuous heartrate, I'm learning to trust it. :)
  • CHN_
    CHN_ Posts: 94 Member
    I will have a look when I am back home with regards to the Fitness Test on my HRM, I hadn't really looked at any other settings so maybe its on there.

    Check the manual as well, if it mentions anything about it there :)
  • LaurnWhit
    LaurnWhit Posts: 261 Member
    Bump
  • Marge321
    Marge321 Posts: 131 Member
    Sounds right to me ! I own a FT7 polar watch and I can burn 600-700 calories for an hour long of cardio trampoline. We are used to think we don't burn that much calories because MFP and other sites tells us an average calories burned. But FT7 is set with your height, weight, age and most important, heart beat.
  • wellbert
    wellbert Posts: 3,924 Member
    My FT7 also is higher than MFP. Go figure.
  • laura_fat2fit
    laura_fat2fit Posts: 82 Member
    I say trust the HRM. Sometimes MFP calculates my burn higher than my Polar FT4, sometimes it's the opposite. It looks like you're working your butt off! Isn't it rewarding to see that high number? :wink:

    It's totally rewarding! I find myself pushing harder to burn more calories now that I have it rather than just doing what I want to exercise. Its really motivating.

    Only thing now is that I burn close to 800 and struggle with trying to eat back the calories because I'm not hungry. I go to the gym in the evenings after work so I don't really feel like eating after I get back.
  • findingfit23
    findingfit23 Posts: 845 Member
    Sounds about right to me
  • Melanie_RS
    Melanie_RS Posts: 417 Member
    it depends on how long you've been doing cardio. If you've been doing it for quite awhile, these numbers actually seem *really* high.

    if you are new at cardio, they may be accurate.
  • geordiegirl27
    geordiegirl27 Posts: 307 Member
    Your HRM should give you accurate burn as been said its based on your details and your effort where MFP will be worked out as an average.

    You could try doing some exercise at the gym & not put much effort in & you should see a difference.
  • DoOrDoNotThereIsNoTry1
    DoOrDoNotThereIsNoTry1 Posts: 149 Member
    I bought the same HRM last week and it seems accurate. It will calculate calories burned after your work oyt if you keep it on. Drones metabolism is different. Some of us have a higher heart rate based on health and fitness. MFP is generalized. Trust three HRM.
  • msgremmy
    msgremmy Posts: 88
    MFP's estimates were often less than my FT7... I go with my HRM. You can't really trick it. :)
  • deniseg31
    deniseg31 Posts: 667 Member
    I have an FT7 as well and your numbers sound about right. :wink: Go with the HRM...MFP tends to under/over estimate calorie burns. Keep up the good work.
  • PayneAS
    PayneAS Posts: 669 Member
    I would trust the HRM. But if you are worried about it, take the number from the machine & the number from the HRM, average them (add them together, divide by two) and put that calorie burn in.

    Machines are calibrated (usually) for the average, healthy person and base their calorie burns from that. Unless you are manually entering in your gender, height, weight, and age, it probably isn't accurate.
  • BSchoberg
    BSchoberg Posts: 712 Member
    Your fitness level will impact your true calorie burn (lowering it)... so your basic information (age, weight, height) may not accurately reflect how efficient your cardio system is. There are some fitness tests online that can help you determine where you really are NOW - and you might have to enter a lower age in your HRM settings.

    Besides, over reporting calories burned would be a minimal exaggeration - and you'd only be in trouble if you ate back all of your exercise calories and a good chunk over to boot.

    It's easy to obsess over all the data - I do it all the time. Once in a while, though, you have to step back and remind yourself that it's really pretty simple: move MORE, eat BETTER.
  • jones137
    jones137 Posts: 89 Member
    The HRM is correct but when you work out for long periods of time (60 minutes or more) you have to reduce the amount it says by how much you burned by just being alive since this is already calculated in your BMR. Take your BMR/24 and that will give you the amount you'll need to reduce it by per hour of exercise.

    I'm not sure, but I think MFP's calculations already do this which may be the reason for the larger difference.
  • marcoscu
    marcoscu Posts: 99 Member
    Like everyone else says, your figures sound about right. The HRM will always give a personalized result rather than the broad average the MFP or any other statistically based estimate will do. My own HRM often gives very different results from those from MFP, sometimes higher, sometimes lower.
  • tyrantduck
    tyrantduck Posts: 387 Member
    I just got a Polar FT60. in three hours of doing nothing but normal routine (aside from having to walk to and from the mail/supply room at my office a lot and working on folding letters and stuffing envelopes) it says I've burned 616 calories. I'm also in the morbidly obese category and my heart rate, even when resting, is higher than most people. In order to get this reading on MFP, the number of minutes would be significantly lower, and I used "Aerobics, general" yesterday since I can't find anything that would just classify regular calories burned. in one hour yesterday I burned 200 cals, ten of that was dancing with my daughter to Blue Man Group music, the rest was just from walking around my apartment and washing dishes. i'm trusting the HRM over anything on the exercise here. it definitely feels more accurate.
  • hollyNhollywood
    hollyNhollywood Posts: 426 Member
    Thank you for asking this. As I have had a similar issue.

    I have a "touch to test" (no strap) HRM watch; which I"m obsessive about testing during my workouts to get as accurate as possible. And it always estimated me over what MFP calculator does too. I also worried about this since I also hear everyone saying the calculator overestimates.
    So since I didn't feel I could trust the HRM, when I log my workout, I've been entering a median number (between the HRM & MFP). And I just ordered another HRM, with chest strap.(Polar FT4)
  • tlonie
    tlonie Posts: 29 Member
    You would be so surprised how much more cycling burns than other activities. This is probably correct.
  • laura_fat2fit
    laura_fat2fit Posts: 82 Member
    Thanks everyone, your comments have put me at ease now. I will trust my HRM and keep working my *kitten* off! :)
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Yes, I have the FT7 as well and found the same thing. One word of caution though, if you're doing an hour of exercise at a time, the HRM is NOT excluding your BMR from the calories burned so you're double counting those calories. This is only an issue if you eat them all back like I do though. I used to only subtract my BMR calories if I worked out for an hour or more but have recently switched to always subtracting my BMR.

    For example, In 55 minutes of running (including walking warm up and cool down), I may burn around 700 calories. I had my RMR tested and found I burn about 70 calories per hour just existing. So, for that running workout, instead of 700 calories, I record only 630 calories. Not a huge number, but not completely insignificant either, if you're working out 5 to 6 days a week.
  • laura_fat2fit
    laura_fat2fit Posts: 82 Member
    Yes, I have the FT7 as well and found the same thing. One word of caution though, if you're doing an hour of exercise at a time, the HRM is NOT excluding your BMR from the calories burned so you're double counting those calories. This is only an issue if you eat them all back like I do though. I used to only subtract my BMR calories if I worked out for an hour or more but have recently switched to always subtracting my BMR.

    For example, In 55 minutes of running (including walking warm up and cool down), I may burn around 700 calories. I had my RMR tested and found I burn about 70 calories per hour just existing. So, for that running workout, instead of 700 calories, I record only 630 calories. Not a huge number, but not completely insignificant either, if you're working out 5 to 6 days a week.


    Seen a few people mention this in here, thanks for the info, Im normally at the gym working out for over an hour especially when I do my resistance training so I will workout my BMR/24 for 1 hour and subtract it from now on. Thanks x

Categories