Best Heart Rate Monitor?

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