HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Polar HRM Caloric Data
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:10 pm
Posts: 366
Location: Ontario, Canada
How accurate do you think the data from Polar HRM is concerning calories burned? I've read in other postings that the power output (watts) can be off by as much as 5 to 10%. If there is an inaccuracy in power data then surely the caloric data would be off too. If it is off, how does it vary, positively or negatively (from the actual amount of calories burned)? Or is all this just unsubstantiated rumours?

_________________
Its a joke! (the Avatar)
10 years a Weenie!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Polar HRM Caloric Data
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:38 pm 


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:42 am
Posts: 20
It depends on the model you have. The S serie models are very accurate as the models below that aren't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:29 pm
Posts: 1045
First, Polar power meters are more accurate than you hear or read. Second, both are calculated independently. Polar uses an algorithm based upon various factors including age, weight, sex, heart rate, duration to estimate calories burned. Its accuracy is variable for many reasons, but it does provide a rough estimate of calories burned, but probably not accurate enough if you were strictly counting calories to lose weight.

One of the advantages of a power meter is that they measure kilojoules of energy expended, and kilojoules are easily converted to kilocalories. The only problem here is that human efficency varies from something like 21% to 26%, so even knowing your kilojoules of work there is going to be some inaccuracy regarding calories burned.

BTW, I just compared two power meter files, one a Polar, the other a Powertap. Same ride, exactly one year apart. Almost identical conditions, distance and average speed. The average power measured by the Polar and Powertap was the same, with only a 34 kj difference in work.

Looking even closer, I looked at the data from a small climb:

Polar
Duration: 5:20
Work: 109 kj
Distance: 1.387 mi

Min Max Avg
Power: 176 474 342 watts
HR: 145 177 171 bpm
Cadence: 73 98 85 rpm
Speed: 12.6 19.8 15.6 mph

Powertap
Duration: 5:38
Work: 110 kJ
Distance: 1.392 mi

Min Max Avg
Power: 122 431 325 watts
HR: 120 228 163 bpm
Cadence: 59 103 88 rpm
Speed: 9.1 21.3 14.9 mph

The higher power reported by the Polar is indicated b the faster speed on the climb. Soon I wll be doing simulanious comparisons.

_________________
John979


Last edited by John979 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 6:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:10 pm
Posts: 366
Location: Ontario, Canada
I am using the A5 unit, is this one know for accuracy?


Attachments:
a5-mid.jpe
a5-mid.jpe [ 17.78 KiB | Viewed 499 times ]

_________________
Its a joke! (the Avatar)
10 years a Weenie!
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 10:10 am
Posts: 1334
Location: Cornwall, UK
I did read a scientific article based on proper lab tests and they reckoned the Polar calorific/power/VO2max calculations were within 8% for the vast majority of the population provided you had calibrated the HRM properly to your own parameters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 9:11 pm
Posts: 841
Location: SC, USA
I used to use the 720 to approximate my caloric output. I found that it under estimating my output, as I based my caloric intake ( + basal rate) on it. I was dropping weight too quickly. I multiplied the Polar value by 1.1 or 1.2 to offset the error. I would urge you to be careful with this number... remember, it's just a number, and it doesn't really reflect what your body is doing or what it needs.

To be honest, I stoppoed paying attention to my diet some time ago. I found that a healthy-well-ballanced diet with lots of fruits and vegies (and not a lot of meat) keeps the weight off. Add in a multi vitamin with iron, and 15-20 hrs a week on the bike, and I gaurentee you'll be at optimal weight right quick. And you don't have to count calories or go deep into calorie debt (and feel like crap all the time). Trust me, when you eat well, you feel good. When you feel good, you ride faster!

_________________
:-) Toys-R-Us


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 3:55 pm
Posts: 47
that is like 1200 an hour? jesus
I rode 6 hours for 110 miles today and estimated 3000 burned. am i wrong?


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:57 pm 


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 2:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:29 pm
Posts: 1045
I did an 80 mile ride today of just over 4 hours that required 2945kj of work. This is net work. To get calories, use one of the following conversion factors:

25% efficient, kJ × 0.96 = kcal,
24% efficient, kJ × 1.00 = kcal,
23% efficient, kJ × 1.04 = kcal,
22% efficient, kJ × 1.09 = kcal,
21% efficient, kJ × 1.14 = kcal,

I would assume 23%, thus I burned 3063 calories on this ride, excluding BMR.

One of these days I will hook up the Polar and see what it calulates.

_________________
John979


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Mavic 3G aerodynamic data

in Road

Kasparz

0

429

Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:36 pm

Kasparz View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Garmin Edge 510 map data problem?

in Training

ToffieBoi

1

319

Sun May 18, 2014 9:12 am

mentok View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. New Data From Novermber Bikes - Tire Width

in Everything wheels

bombertodd

1

341

Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:18 am

HillRPete View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Garmin and Strava conflicting data reporting

in Road

Svetty

7

729

Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:16 pm

strobbekoen View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Edge 510 losing rides, and all data, Garmin acknowledges ..

in GPS, Strava, Ride pics and adventures.

n808

4

1281

Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:23 am

n808 View the latest post


It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:58 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB