You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I’ve borrowed a Polar FT4 and have been trying it out. The heart monitor bit seems okay, but the Calorie counter appears to be way off. Any polar users out there who have had this problem?
Cheers, Timmy
Way off in what direction? Polar are generally reckoned to have the best calorie-counting algorithms.
Have you set it up for your weight/height/HR zones or is it still going of the data for the person you borrowed it from?
Has it a fitness test ? Once you set it up it's really good, but it is a hassle.
does it matter ? as long as the numbers it chucks out are repeatable.
Thanks for answering guys.
The FT4 reckons I burned 1314 calories durning 1hour 46mins of biking my local loop. My riding buddy said that was probably 25% more than it should be.
User info is correct as far as I can see:
Weight 80kg, Height 178cm, birth date 04/01/1961, Sex Male,Max Heart Rate 185. I set this last value after noticing my heart rate was 185 after I'd sprinted up a particularly steep bit of un-paved road as fast as I could.
I think the FT4 is a cheapo model and as far as I know it doesn't have a fitness test on it.
Hi Tim, I've found the Polar ones to be a lot more consistent than the Garmin ones - if you were working say, above 145 hr, then 1300odd calories is about right.
Max Heart Rate 185. I set this last value after noticing my heart rate was 185 after I'd sprinted up a particularly steep bit of un-paved road as fast as I could.
then that's probably not right. this is probably effecting it.
hitting HRmax is not a normal ride thing.
Thanks Lucien.
Tomthumb - when I first entered my age and details, the polar set a default max heart rate of 169. After reaching 185 and not having a problem I set it to 185 - I agree that if I pushed myself even harder it might be slightly higher. I imagine that for a 51 year-old it's not gonna be much higher.
As Druidh said, Polar have the 'best' algorithms for calories, it's all just a guess though! 1300 for 1:45 doesn't seem a million miles off plausible. My Garmin reckons I do c1200 an hour, which is definitely bollocks!
I've actually tested a polar monitor in a lab where I was also having an analysis of my oxygen uptake. (Gold standard for Calorie calculations). The polar monitor I was using was bang on what the Expired air analysis said for calorie consumption on a three hour sub maximal effort which would be similar to a normal three hour ride with no sprints or max efforts thrown in anywhere.
I've contacted polar directly about this and they gave me links to varioud papers that validated their calculation methods. I'd listen to my Polar in this respect way more than a Garmin or something that is working purely on distance/time/elevation.
My Garmin has me as burning around 1000 calories/hour
That's for a 70-85% MHR ride
[img] 
[/img]
Those polar numbers seem about right to me.
I also tend to burn roughly 1000 C per hour on my Garmin 800.
Regardless of which device you use all energy burning algorithms are gross estimations anyhow.
In my experience I think they tend to overestimate road riding energy consumption and underestimate mountain bike.
If you want accurate get a power meter.
Garmin still doesn't use the power data even when it's there for energy consumption. There's a figure in WKO but I've never looked if it just ports it across from the Garmin.