Best Heart Rate Monitor?

Rodderick89

Hi all,

I would like to buy myself a heart rate monitor (either with a chest strap, or one of these stand-alone watch pieces) so that I can accurately log calories burnt. At the moment I rely on what the cardio machines tell me and find it hard to log calories from classes or strength training.

I have heard grand things about a monitor called the Polar FT-4, but can anyone recommend one that is better/more accurate, or just that they prefer. My price range is up to £100 as it will be my Christmas present to myself! Thanks

NoMoreTwizzlers

Good morning @Rodderick89,

I highly recommend and swear by the Timex Ironman Road Trainer Heart Rate Monitor tinyurl.com/lx85wox Don't be put off by the word "Men's" in name of the heart rate monitor. It can be customized for a woman too. I have owned a Timex Ironman Road Trainer Heart Rate Monitor for a month now and I love it because:

1) It has a comfortable chest strap that picks up your heart rate extremely quickly without gels or moisture.
2) You can set different zones that have an alarm you can set to make sure you are working hard enough or not too hard.
3)The watch has a large, easy to read face.
4) The watch ask you for your weight, height and age making for a more accurate measurement of your calories burned.
5) You can clock laps if you are into running. I use it mostly to just measure calories burned.
6) Lastly, it is easy to set up for quick use right out the box

I have a few posts in my blog Getonwithitnow.tumblr.com detail what the Timex Ironman Road Trainer Heart Monitor can do. I'm chronicling my weight loss journey in my first effort at blogging. I'm having a ball too. I wouldn't workout without it on my wrist. I like seeing how many calories I am torching. It motivates me. Try it out.

Incidently, I also have a post about the Polar FT4. I purchased that heart rate monitor first, but returned it. I have posts about that watch too. You will see the pic of it if you browse the posts.

Hope this helped. Let me know. Good luck finding what you want.

Danna Capehart
Getonwithitnow.tumblr.com

Rodderick89

Thank you Danna for such a comprehensive reply. I haven't heard of the Timex HRM before, so will have a look at it. I am hearing mixed reviews about the Polar FT4 - from what I can gather, many people have said that there is no accurate HRM to measure calories burned during weightlifting, which I find a little hard to understand.

Thanks again

NoMoreTwizzlers

You're welcome. Blessings to you.

SKME2013

You could also get the Polar H7, download the free Polar Beat software to your phone and go from there. I don't know what your budget is, but check out the new Polar M400 multisportswatch, it has has great reviews! I have the Polar RCX5 multisportswatch and love it.
Stef.

sheldonklein

Search for other HRM threads and you'll find an informed consensus that HRMs are only useful for measuring calories for stay state cardio, not weights.

NoMoreTwizzlers

Rodderick89 wrote: »

Thank you Danna for such a comprehensive reply. I haven't heard of the Timex HRM before, so will have a look at it. I am hearing mixed reviews about the Polar FT4 - from what I can gather, many people have said that there is no accurate HRM to measure calories burned during weightlifting, which I find a little hard to understand.

Thanks again

Actually most of the beneficial calorie burning from weight lifting comes from the afterburner effect or EPOC en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_post-exercise_oxygen_consumption You don't burn a lot of calories while lifting, but you raise your metabolism and build muscle that eats calories. That can be measured using a heart rate monitor, but you need to know your usual resting heart rate. You would workout, wearing your monitor and keep it on after the workout until your heart rate came back down to its usual resting rate. Hope that helps.

Rodderick89

@sheldonklein - I did look through pre-existing threads, but there were mixed reviews and some were outdated, thus I started this new one. As you will see in one of my above comments I have said "many people have said there is no accurate HRM to measure calories burned during weightlifting", so I am aware this is potentially going to be an issue. As I said though, I find it hard to understand how a HRM can't work out calorie burn, as surely the HRM doesn't know HOW your heart rate is being raised, so whether your heart rate is raised through walking or squatting, if your heart rate is at the same level for the same cumalative duration, surely you are still burning the same number of calories?!

Yasbox45

I have the Polar FT 4 and have no complaints. I've only used it for calorie counting - it can test your fitness to help you train but I'm am not interested in all that. I lost weight successfully using it's calorie counting - I'd recommend the Polar FT 4.

MeanderingMammal

Rodderick89 wrote: »

Polar FT-4,

From what you're saying you don't really need an HRM as it won't give you reliable information.

So if you really want one, the FT4 isn't particularly expensive, so you're not throwing much money in the bin.

MeanderingMammal

TwizzlerGirl13 wrote: »

the afterburner effect or EPOC en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_post-exercise_oxygen_consumption .

If the single figure extra expenditure is important, then there are more fundamental issues...

Afterburn effect is trivial.

dbmata

Rodderick89 wrote: »

Hi all,

I would like to buy myself a heart rate monitor (either with a chest strap, or one of these stand-alone watch pieces) so that I can accurately log calories burnt.

The best one is the one you use consistently.

I like the Polar FT-4 quite a bit, a nice easy to use unit. The RS3000x is a decent one too.

I've recently upgraded to a Garmin. amazingly, they all do the same thing. So it's really not important the manufacturer, as long as it is a reputable one, comes with a chest strap, and the functionality you know you need and will use.

NoMoreTwizzlers

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

TwizzlerGirl13 wrote: »

the afterburner effect or EPOC en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_post-exercise_oxygen_consumption .

If the single figure extra expenditure is important, then there are more fundamental issues...

Afterburn effect is trivial.

What? Single figure expenditure? Elaborate please.
Further afterburner is not trivial. A calorie burned is a calorie burned. Yes? The longer one maintains a heart rate above the usual resting rate they will burn calories at an accelerated rate. Weight training builds muscle. Muscle burns more calories. Therefore weight training will burn more calories because it raise your metabolism. Those calories can be measured by a heart rate monitor and watch.

MeanderingMammal

TwizzlerGirl13 wrote: »

What? Single figure expenditure? Elaborate please.

Essentially the calorie expenditure from EPOC is in the order of 5% For CV work 3-4%, although research varies with a couple of edge cases identifying more than that. It's going to be within the margin for error on most HRMs.

Allow me to put it this way. If you burn 200 calories in 30 minutes of resistance training then the EPOC effect will be in the order of 2-4 calories, assuming that 200 isn't an overestimation.

If I go for a run I'll burn 350cals in the same 30 minutes.

Further afterburner is not trivial. A calorie burned is a calorie burned. Yes? The longer one maintains a heart rate above the usual resting rate they will burn calories at an accelerated rate.

Heart rate isn't a useful indicator of calorie expenditure in many circumstances. It's most representative in steady state work in the aerobic range. If one goes into the anaerobic range then the equivalence breaks down and the approximations become very inaccurate.

Weight training builds muscle. Muscle burns more calories. Therefore weight training will burn more calories because it raise your metabolism.

The volume of lean tissue needed to make a significant difference is large, and not going to be gained while one is in deficit.

Those calories can be measured by a heart rate monitor and watch.

I take it you don't know how a Heart Rate Monitor works when it's approximating calorie expenditure.

FatFreeFrolicking

Polar FT4.

brianpperkins

Another thread based on the flawed premise that such a thing as an accurate caloric estimate from HRMs in all situations exists ... with a long reply that is more about posting a link to a blog than anything substantive ... when science is injected, it gets countered with the all too predictable programmed response from marketing.

Just a typical day on MFP.

NoMoreTwizzlers

Thank you @MeanderingMammal

NoMoreTwizzlers

It's a good thing you're not the decider @brianpperkins

QueenErised46

I do have a Polar FT4 and I'm pretty much satisfied with this product so far.

brianpperkins

TwizzlerGirl13 wrote: »

It's a good thing you're not the decider @brianpperkins

Why? Because I would use actual scientific understanding of how HRMs estimate caloric burn to decide and not make statements about "afterburn" that aren't supported by research?

indianwin2001

Garmin 15--activity tracker and HRM in one

dbmata

brianpperkins wrote: »

TwizzlerGirl13 wrote: »

It's a good thing you're not the decider @brianpperkins

Why? Because I would use actual scientific understanding of how HRMs estimate caloric burn to decide and not make statements about "afterburn" that aren't supported by research?

Thanks Goose, always gotta be a downer.
Love,
Maverick

Rodderick89

brianpperkins wrote: »

Another thread based on the flawed premise that such a thing as an accurate caloric estimate from HRMs in all situations exists ...

Not quite sure why such a negative reply was necessary - as a relative 'newbie' here, working under the general premise that weightloss = calories in < calories out, I find it's important to be able to monitor what I am burning off through exercise. As I don't want to rely on guestimating, I thought perhaps a HRM (into which I can input my height, weight etc) might give me a more accurate calorific burn than perhaps the treadmill at the gym, but more importantly might be able to reflect what I burn off in a spinning class or for example a step aerobics class, so that I am not over-estimating my 'burn' and netting a higher number of calories than is necessary to lose weight.

Time and time again on these forums I am seeing genuinely inquisitive 'newbies' like myself asking innocent questions, in the hope that those with a little more experience can offer some advise, yet some people seem to only be able to reply with negativity.

brianpperkins - your reply may have actually been helpful if you had taken the time to word it more constructively and perhaps mentioned your own experiences with a HRM or pointed me in the direction of some actual evidence to support what you are saying, rather than making a *ugh, woe is me, everyone on MFP is so stupid with their flawed premises" remark.

Thank you all who have replied - I will continue to research online, outside of MFP where people can continue to offer more to the point, constructive advice.

brianpperkins

Failure to search or look beyond the first page of the forum is not limited to newbies. The "afterburn" type response isn't limited to, or from, newbies. This same question is answered multiple times per day ... always with the same type information on the limitations of HRMs and the flawed linkage of HR and totally accurate calorie estimation.

Rodderick89

brianpperkins wrote: »

Failure to search or look beyond the first page of the forum is not limited to newbies. The "afterburn" type response isn't limited to, or from, newbies. This same question is answered multiple times per day ... always with the same type information on the limitations of HRMs and the flawed linkage of HR and totally accurate calorie estimation.

As you will see in my earlier post, I have clearly stated that I have read pre-existing (mostly unhelpful or outdated) forum posts. From what I can make out from researching outside of MFP, HRMs are more accurate for calculating calorific burn than gym equipment and would allow me to know how many I have burned (even roughly) for classes and running, rather than guessing, which is surely even less accurate than a HRM?!

However, as you say - the accuracy can be questioned for example when weightlifting.

The_Enginerd

An HRM where you can set the VO2MAX will be the most accurate in terms of calorie burns. I have a Polar FT40 that allows this, the FT4 and FT7 do not do this. All HRMs will have the limitation that the calorie burn is only reasonably accurate for steady state cardio. For weight lifting, it will be WAY off because the physiological reasons for HR increases are different for cardio versus strength training, and the HRM does not account for this.

Depending on the machine, the calorie counts from the machine can be just as good as the HRM. Higher end machines you see in gyms are typically better (not always true though). If you are just using machines at the gym and weight lifting, an HRM may not provide any meaningful benefit in accuracy to you. I lost all of my weight and maintained for years without ever using one.

This explains in great detail: myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

In addition, even when used for steady state cardio, there will be limitations in the calorie burn accuracy due to other factors: community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1431868/limitations-of-hrm-calorie-counts-a-real-life-data-point#latest

Rodderick89

@The_Enginerd, thank you - really useful feedback. Would you recommend the FT40 as reliable for say an aerobics class or running (i.e. outdoors rather than a treadmill)?

I am weightlifting for strength and body shape, rather than calorie burn, and from what I gather from other replies and research outside of MFP the HRMs are not good for weightlifting anyway, so now looking more for the purposes of classes

MeanderingMammal

Rodderick89 wrote: »

...aerobics class...

No, the transitions are too steep and there is a level of anaerobic performance in those. It'll overestimate as a result.

or running

Depends on the session that you do. I tend not to worry too much, my Garmin will synch across to MFP so I look at it as reasonable to within a couple of hundred calories per session.

It's most reliable for my LSD, less so for a tempo run and less so again for sprint intervals.

smartlatina78

I have a polar FT4 I love it, I recently saw a person on instagram with a misfit shine and I was thinking about checking them out. I think it tracks steps and sleep as well.

The_Enginerd

@Rodderick89, in regards to an aerobics class, it will overestimate if it's like most classes I've seen. I would agree with MeanderingMammal on this one, many aerobics classes tend to have intervals of anaerobic exercise between periods of low intensity and elements of strength training.

For running, if it is set up properly, and unless you are doing something like intervals which would throw it off, an HRM will be good for running. It's that kind of steady state cardio which the algorithms are based on and where the HRM will be reasonably accurate. That said, if you are just interested in the calorie burn, you can use a free GPS tracker on your phone to calculate the distance/time and use that to calculate your calorie burn using a tool such as: runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator

My HRM and that method agreed to within 5%, and my long term weight data and data from logging proved those calorie counts to be accurate for me. I originally got the HRM to do calorie counts for things such as biking and doing trail running in hilly terrain where I otherwise had trouble getting accurate calorie counts. Even using it for these purposes, there are caveats that I didn't know about when I first purchased it (such as the weather making quite an impact on accuracy).

Rodderick89

Thank you so much for all of your helpful replies - A friend has offered me the loan of his Polar ft-4 for a couple of weeks whilst he is resting through an injury, so will see how I get on with it. As you have all said, it sounds like it wouldn't be ideal for classes etc, but might be useful for running or biking etc.

I always worry about overestimating calorie burn through classes anyway, so do tend to err on the side of caution and try to only eat back about half of my exercise calories to be on the safe side.

Thanks all - I really appreciate you all taking the time to reply and leave links as well as advice