Polar FT7 HRM overestimating my calorie burn?

Options
2»

Replies

  • PayneAS
    PayneAS Posts: 669 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    You would be so surprised how much more cycling burns than other activities. This is probably correct.
  • laura_fat2fit
    laura_fat2fit Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
  • Jai214
    Jai214 Posts: 6
    Options
    This makes sense and is what my trainer was telling me this morning. He's really interested to know how many calories I'm burning because according to him, I'm training at a higher intensity so he thinks I'm buring btwn 700 and 800 calories, and MFP says it's between 450 and 550; that's a huge discrepancy. Like a two-glasses-of-wine discrepancy. I'll have to invest in a heart rate monitor to be sure.

    **Note: in response to comment made by bridies01 regarding intensity. I don't know how reply directly to it.

Categories