FAO HRM Users (but not serious athletes) - is it worth the investment?
WelshPhil1975
Posts: 138 Member
I have been toying with buying a HRM watch (Polar FT7 looks pretty good) but my main stumbling block has been how much benefit I’d get out of it. I would like one anyway for general health purposes (my late father had heart issues as part of a condition that could yet become hereditary so I am always worried that now I am almost 40 that I could easily go down the same route) but my main reason for wanting one is for cardio exercise; currently, my main exercise is brisk walking and I will be doing more cardio as time goes on (as in home workouts to YouTube vids, etc – I can’t afford gym membership, sadly). I have also recently started turning the brisk walks into walks interspersed with periods of jogging with the hope that in time (not too long) I can go jogging regularly (I want to do a 5k next year if I can – 12 months ago I would barely walk too far if I could avoid it).
So I guess I am wondering will I get much out of a HRM for brisk/power walking, jogging and home-workout cardio exercises? I have always assumed that the HRM was the domain of the serious athlete and I will never aspire to be one of those, but I do want to make sure my exercises are as effective as possible and also use it to aid my weight loss, if possible (I read about the fat burning zone and this really appeals to me). I already on a Fitbit and I wouldn’t be without it, but I want to “up my game” with regards to cardio now (I don’t fancy the new Fitbit models with HR built in, I don’t want a wrist-worn pedometer, I doubt their accuracy; I am more than happy with my One).
Can any HRM users shed light on this for me? Would it be worthwhile for my needs?
So I guess I am wondering will I get much out of a HRM for brisk/power walking, jogging and home-workout cardio exercises? I have always assumed that the HRM was the domain of the serious athlete and I will never aspire to be one of those, but I do want to make sure my exercises are as effective as possible and also use it to aid my weight loss, if possible (I read about the fat burning zone and this really appeals to me). I already on a Fitbit and I wouldn’t be without it, but I want to “up my game” with regards to cardio now (I don’t fancy the new Fitbit models with HR built in, I don’t want a wrist-worn pedometer, I doubt their accuracy; I am more than happy with my One).
Can any HRM users shed light on this for me? Would it be worthwhile for my needs?
0
Replies
-
I have a fitbit and an HRM
I got the Polar FT4 because really I didn't need the bells and whistles on the FT7
And yes I think it's worthwhile to get a much better hang on your TDEE (which will help with maintenance - especially as fitbit gives you chart averages over periods of time that are useful for understanding how much you would be able to eat long term)
The HRM can help you push yourself harder when not giving enough effort (it can beep at you when out of zone), help with interval training to improve fitness and warn you if you go to high (which if you're healthy is not something to bother about)
Personally I'd advise it - for steady state cardio work it's great, I also use it for my gym workouts because I do a lot of squats, lunges etc mixed up in weights0 -
WelshPhil1975 wrote: »Can any HRM users shed light on this for me? Would it be worthwhile for my needs?
I wouldn't descrie myself as a serious athlete, I run up to Half Marathon, on trails, at the moment and am aiming for a marathon next season. I use a Garmin GPS with HRM, having previously had a Polar FT60.
fwiw I stopped using the Polar as it wasn't actually giving me anything useful. The Garmin records my HR trace alongside my elevation, pace, and mapping data.
As a training tool it's useful, for what you describe probably not. For me it helps to demonstrate improvements in my fitness, and reflect on how I respond to changes in pace, elevation, and different types of terrain.
Note that "fat burning zone" is a very outdated concept and largely discredited. Zone training has a place for the serious athlete that has access to lab facilities to assess VO2Max and lactate threshold. It helps to improve oth of those to train in an appropriate range. Without the supporting data, it's a bit of a waste of time.
Pointless for resistance training.
0 -
I also have the polar FT4 as poster above says, I did'nt need all the features of the FT7.
I love mine, gives me a good indication which zone i am in, and how long i have worked out for, and also my calories, which seems much more accurate than the gym machines.
0 -
pinkiezoom wrote: ».....which seems much more accurate than the gym machines.
It might be, it might not be. They might be equally inaccurate, or the idea of accuracy might be completely spurious in this sense.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »pinkiezoom wrote: ».....which seems much more accurate than the gym machines.
It might be, it might not be. They might be equally inaccurate, or the idea of accuracy might be completely spurious in this sense.
You know i nearly wrote, but nothing is 100% accurate in case some one said this! in my case I would say it is "much more" accurate as the machines at the gym were giving me stupid high cals burned, and even with my limited knowledge I knew it was too much.
I rarely eat back my cals so not a huge issue for me but nice to be able to keep track of the training I do.
0 -
pinkiezoom wrote: »in my case I would say it is "much more" accurate as the machines at the gym were giving me stupid high cals burned, and even with my limited knowledge I knew it was too much.
Given that there are so many variables I'd contend that you have no idea whether it's more acurate or not. Particularly given that the FT4 doesn't account for most of the variables that apply.
Personally I let me Garmin synch to MFP, but mainly because it means I don't have to log the activity manually. The key point is consistency, although even that can depend on the workout.I rarely eat back my cals so not a huge issue for me but nice to be able to keep track of the training I do.
Now that's a different debate, and again lots of variables. If you're only burning 200 cals and have a 2000 cal daily target then fair enough. If you have a 1200 cal daily (1600 for men) then you leave yourself vulnerable to driving yourself into ill health from under-eating.
My sessions start at 600 cals and go anything up to 2000 cals for a long workout. Given that I've got a 2200 daily target then I can't afford to not eath back what I expend.0 -
My HRM is invaluable for giving me a more accurate calorie count on workouts. With it, I can also do things like train to a certain heart rate. With it, I can wonder why it is so unusually strenuous to run when the only difference is that I am carrying 3ltrs of milk in my arms, then realise that I'm already at max heart rate, no wonder I feel maxed out.0
-
If you are mainly walking don't bother - use an online calculator or a free app on your smart phone.
The so-called "fat burn zone" hasn't any relevance at all - please do a little more research and you will see that overall calorie burn is king not what HR zone you exercise in.
IMHO opinion unless you are using it as a training aid you are wasting your money.0 -
If you are mainly walking don't bother - use an online calculator or a free app on your smart phone.
The so-called "fat burn zone" hasn't any relevance at all - please do a little more research and you will see that overall calorie burn is king not what HR zone you exercise in.
IMHO opinion unless you are using it as a training aid you are wasting your money.
In the book "Heart rate training" by Roy Benson (which you can find on Amazon) he details exactly why your post is inaccurate and false0 -
I have a FT7 and not a serious athlete. I love it, really motivating.0
-
indianwin2001 wrote: »If you are mainly walking don't bother - use an online calculator or a free app on your smart phone.
The so-called "fat burn zone" hasn't any relevance at all - please do a little more research and you will see that overall calorie burn is king not what HR zone you exercise in.
IMHO opinion unless you are using it as a training aid you are wasting your money.
In the book "Heart rate training" by Roy Benson (which you can find on Amazon) he details exactly why your post is inaccurate and false
That's a bit of a tall order isn't it? Having to read the entire book and then figure out what was wrong about the initial post?
I have to say I agree with the previous poster. If a person's primary concern when training is fat loss then worrying about being in the "fat burning zone" is a bit pointless. It is true that at lower intensities the body utilises a great percentage of fat in comparison to stored carbs/glycogen. However the actual amount of fat used in even a long session isn't great. A person is better off therefore concentrating on doing the exercise they enjoy and that which secures the greatest amount of total calories burned.
That said, from a training (rather than fat loss) focus low intensity training is awesome and forms the foundation of a decent endurance training plan.
Horses for courses innit?
0 -
indianwin2001 wrote: »If you are mainly walking don't bother - use an online calculator or a free app on your smart phone.
The so-called "fat burn zone" hasn't any relevance at all - please do a little more research and you will see that overall calorie burn is king not what HR zone you exercise in.
IMHO opinion unless you are using it as a training aid you are wasting your money.
In the book "Heart rate training" by Roy Benson (which you can find on Amazon) he details exactly why your post is inaccurate and false
That's a bit of a tall order isn't it? Having to read the entire book and then figure out what was wrong about the initial post?
I have to say I agree with the previous poster. If a person's primary concern when training is fat loss then worrying about being in the "fat burning zone" is a bit pointless. It is true that at lower intensities the body utilises a great percentage of fat in comparison to stored carbs/glycogen. However the actual amount of fat used in even a long session isn't great. A person is better off therefore concentrating on doing the exercise they enjoy and that which secures the greatest amount of total calories burned.
That said, from a training (rather than fat loss) focus low intensity training is awesome and forms the foundation of a decent endurance training plan.
Horses for courses innit?
Thats true--The book is written from a "training" perspective and not for losing weight. I forgot the forum I am on when I saw this thread. Plus I agree with everything in your post0 -
Hey there! I bought myself a Polar FT4 a couple of years ago for the same purposes that you're looking at (at-home workouts and walking/running outside). I used it all the time and logged my calorie burns into MFP. I would say that the best weight loss tools that I bought are a digital food scale, the Polar HRM, and good sneakers so I definitely recommend it. I think the FT4 is around $50-60 online and well worth it.
Also for what it's worth, I use a Garmin with HRM now since I run and train for races and stuff a lot more. If you think that's in your future, maybe it would be better to skip over the regular HRM and buy one with GPS? I have the Forerunner 110 and it will run you about $150.0 -
indianwin2001 wrote: »indianwin2001 wrote: »If you are mainly walking don't bother - use an online calculator or a free app on your smart phone.
The so-called "fat burn zone" hasn't any relevance at all - please do a little more research and you will see that overall calorie burn is king not what HR zone you exercise in.
IMHO opinion unless you are using it as a training aid you are wasting your money.
In the book "Heart rate training" by Roy Benson (which you can find on Amazon) he details exactly why your post is inaccurate and false
That's a bit of a tall order isn't it? Having to read the entire book and then figure out what was wrong about the initial post?
I have to say I agree with the previous poster. If a person's primary concern when training is fat loss then worrying about being in the "fat burning zone" is a bit pointless. It is true that at lower intensities the body utilises a great percentage of fat in comparison to stored carbs/glycogen. However the actual amount of fat used in even a long session isn't great. A person is better off therefore concentrating on doing the exercise they enjoy and that which secures the greatest amount of total calories burned.
That said, from a training (rather than fat loss) focus low intensity training is awesome and forms the foundation of a decent endurance training plan.
Horses for courses innit?
Thats true--The book is written from a "training" perspective and not for losing weight. I forgot the forum I am on when I saw this thread. Plus I agree with everything in your post
Cool.
Unfortunately, and mostly due to the idiotic ramblings of so called weight loss / fitness "experts", low intensity training has gotten a bad rap recently and the two issues often get mixed up.
0 -
FWIW - I use a 'every bell and whistle' HRM and other than using it a good way of logging miles and keeping an idea of effort while i'm running/cycling I don't use it to anywhere near its full potential.
It might be worth looking at just getting a Bluetooth/ANT+ enabled HR strap if you have a smart phone as you may be able to link them together to an app like strava.0 -
FWIW - I use a 'every bell and whistle' HRM and other than using it a good way of logging miles and keeping an idea of effort while i'm running/cycling I don't use it to anywhere near its full potential.
It might be worth looking at just getting a Bluetooth/ANT+ enabled HR strap if you have a smart phone as you may be able to link them together to an app like strava.
That's a good point. I'm not sure Strava supports HRM monitoring but Endomondo certainly does.
That said, I got the Polar FT4 on a deal an Amazon and it works out a little cheaper than buying a strap and phone holder together!
0 -
FWIW - I use a 'every bell and whistle' HRM and other than using it a good way of logging miles and keeping an idea of effort while i'm running/cycling I don't use it to anywhere near its full potential.
It might be worth looking at just getting a Bluetooth/ANT+ enabled HR strap if you have a smart phone as you may be able to link them together to an app like strava.
That's a good point. I'm not sure Strava supports HRM monitoring but Endomondo certainly does.
That said, I got the Polar FT4 on a deal an Amazon and it works out a little cheaper than buying a strap and phone holder together!
A lot of people use them for music though so would be carrying them with them regardless.
Certainly an option worth considering for many though.
Plus the latest generation of optical HR straps that can be worn on the arm/wrist are starting to get pretty reliable so that saves having to wear a strap round the chest which for some is uncomfortable especially if you combine it with a tight sports bra(so I've been told, i let my moobs swing free!!! lol)0 -
The best investments in 2014 for me were good sport shoes, my blendtec blender and my Polar RCX5 multisportswatch.
I went from C25K to running HMs and the watch helped me tons with heart rate zone training.
Also, while I am fully aware that calorie expenditures are only estimates, nevertheless the multisportswatch encouraged me to work out longer and more and better. I love earning calories, particularly as I am on 1500 a day which does not allow me many treats. I do not eat all of these calories back, but a part of them.
I have been maintaining my weight for a couple of months now and it works for me very well.
I would have a good look at the new a Polar M400 which got great reviews. See dcrainmaker's extensive review.
Best of luck with your decision
Stef.0 -
I would have a good look at the new a Polar M400 which got great reviews. See dcrainmaker's extensive review.
Not read that review as i've not had my Garmin FR620 long but echo the DCrainmaker.com suggestion. A fantastic blog for all things sports technology mainly focussing on the 3 aspects of triathlon.0 -
See Azdak blog on heart rate monitor, it's very good. http://www.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
Choice between Ant+/Bluetooth BLE communication protocol is dependent on your sport and gadget for tracking. Cycling for the most part has adopted Ant+ as well as most gym equipment. Bluetooth is more in line with personal devices like smart phones (some like Samsung S4, HTC One, etc has both). There are plus/minus for both protocols.
I use HR monitor for cycling to keep me in the zone since I can't afford a power meter yet. I also use IpBike to record and Golden Cheetah (but can be setup to work with just HR) to track my ride matrices (speed, distance, cadence, training stress, etc). IpBike has calculations for virtual power. VP is very susceptible to environmental factors (wind, climbs, speed, cadence, etc) so it's not very reliable outdoors but on a trainer (I have a Kurt Kinetic road machine) it very good. The HR monitor keeps me from blowing up on rides when I cannot monitor my power outputs and stay in the aerobic zone for fat utilization. For anaerobic training (power - sprints/climbs) it's ok and better than nothing; need lose another 15+ pounds before I'll start working on that (for overall power increase and thus faster speeds).
I hate running. If I do run, I'll use a HR monitor as it's the best matrix to keep me in the zone. Step counting is garbage as far as I'm concern (although I wish I had that when I was in the Army for a totally different application). It gives you no indication of intensity unless it is also coupled with pace. Both would give an estimation of calorie expenditures but it's as good as the dirt if you don't know how that actually correlate to your body's metabolic rate (same goes with power in cycling but it far more accurate as we are talking about a few percentages as to complete unknown/enigma). If you match the test subjects used in deriving the correlations, congrats, but hardly anyone does. That said, it's better than nothing and coupled with careful monitoring one can dial-in based on those results.
Last but not least, anything you can use to monitor your progress is better than nothing. Only the very trained athletes has the skill (and will, as well as the coaching) to be subjective enough to determine if a workout is on par. The rest of us need some kind of matrix for evaluation. So long you know the limitation and make adjustments, anything will work as long as it's not colored by subjectivity.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 412 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions