Heart Rate Monitor

trishalackin

I'm interested in buying a heart rate monitor, but I'm lost among all the options. I want something that isn't bulky, shows calories burned and heart rate, and won't get in my way or fall off during a workout. Does anyone have a suggestion for a good monitor that also won't break the bank?

Thanks in advance!

MeanderingMammal

What sort of training do you do?

That helps identify whether an HRM to count calories is actually of value to you in the first place.

trishalackin

I do cardio workouts (currently using sites like Fitness Blender) and strength training with both body weight and 10lb weights

ominousdusk

I use polar H7 its comfortable and accurate. I connect it to the app "icardio" on my phone. it syncs with myfitnesspal. It also has the option of syncing with the Polar Loop activity tracker if you want to get one of those in the future.

marcolbmp

Polar FT 7 is pretty nice, I have the Polar RS100 and I'm happy with it.
If you plan to jog outdoors, check out the GPS enabled watches, they give you lots of cool information and integrate nicely in to lots of apps out there, like endomondo and similar

daynes23

I love my good ol' Polar FT4. I've never had any others to compare it to but i adore mine!

MeanderingMammal

trishalackin wrote: »

I do cardio workouts (currently using sites like Fitness Blender) and strength training with both body weight and 10lb weights

In that case the calorie estimates will be high so dont rely on it.

I'd suggest not bothering, but an FT4 is cheap.

smileinfinity

Polar FT7 is what I have it's simple and gives you calories burned, heart rate and also logs your workouts for you on the watch. Everything I needed (:

SwainyMK

I have the polar ft7, works great. Shows heart rate and calories burned. The watch strap has loads of holes for adjustment and so far the chest strap has been fine.

Noelv1976

I use a Garmin 110. I can sync it with MFP once I connect it to the computer. Can track not only GPS, but can use it for any other type of exercises. Battery power is awesome on this one. Bought for $150 and it looks great. Use the watch alone for work, but on standy mode so it doesn't drain the battery.

brianpperkins

I really want to meet the guy that started the HRMs can accurately calculate caloric burn marketing concept and shake his hand ... then wring his neck. Some models can come close to accurate estimations for a narrow range of steady state cardio activities but for intervals, dance (including Zumba), walking, lifting, yoga, all day calculations, pilates, etc they are inaccurate.

marcolbmp

brianpperkins wrote: »

I really want to meet the guy that started the HRMs can accurately calculate caloric burn marketing concept and shake his hand ... then wring his neck. Some models can come close to accurate estimations for a narrow range of steady state cardio activities but for intervals, dance (including Zumba), walking, lifting, yoga, all day calculations, pilates, etc they are inaccurate.

Outside of strength training I would argue this point with you, before you make a statement like that maybe you can provide some real proof. There's more than enough studies out there proving that when accurate data is entered, most, especially Polar, are very accurate (+/- 10%).
Again, not even close for strength training, since the heart is actually trying to pull blood back from the swelled muscle tissue instead of feed oxygen to them the way it does for cardio.

brianpperkins

marcolbmp wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

I really want to meet the guy that started the HRMs can accurately calculate caloric burn marketing concept and shake his hand ... then wring his neck. Some models can come close to accurate estimations for a narrow range of steady state cardio activities but for intervals, dance (including Zumba), walking, lifting, yoga, all day calculations, pilates, etc they are inaccurate.

Outside of strength training I would argue this point with you, before you make a statement like that maybe you can provide some real proof. There's more than enough studies out there proving that when accurate data is entered, most, especially Polar, are very accurate (+/- 10%).
Again, not even close for strength training, since the heart is actually trying to pull blood back from the swelled muscle tissue instead of feed oxygen to them the way it does for cardio.

The fact you call a 20% range (+/- 10%) "very accurate" really made me laugh.

There are a limited number of activities with established relationships between oxygen uptake, heart rate, and caloric burn along with multiple biometric factors (VO2 max, weight, etc) ... once you stray from those activities, the burn totals become inaccurate. Hence the common posts that say things along the lines of "I wore my HRM all day and my real burn is ...." and "My HRM said I burned .... during yoga" ... all based on use of a device in a way that it is neither designed nor programmed to operate.

brandiuntz

brianpperkins wrote: »

marcolbmp wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

I really want to meet the guy that started the HRMs can accurately calculate caloric burn marketing concept and shake his hand ... then wring his neck. Some models can come close to accurate estimations for a narrow range of steady state cardio activities but for intervals, dance (including Zumba), walking, lifting, yoga, all day calculations, pilates, etc they are inaccurate.

Outside of strength training I would argue this point with you, before you make a statement like that maybe you can provide some real proof. There's more than enough studies out there proving that when accurate data is entered, most, especially Polar, are very accurate (+/- 10%).
Again, not even close for strength training, since the heart is actually trying to pull blood back from the swelled muscle tissue instead of feed oxygen to them the way it does for cardio.

The fact you call a 20% range (+/- 10%) "very accurate" really made me laugh.

There are a limited number of activities with established relationships between oxygen uptake, heart rate, and caloric burn along with multiple biometric factors (VO2 max, weight, etc) ... once you stray from those activities, the burn totals become inaccurate. Hence the common posts that say things along the lines of "I wore my HRM all day and my real burn is ...." and "My HRM said I burned .... during yoga" ... all based on use of a device in a way that it is neither designed nor programmed to operate.

^^This. Unless you're doing steady-state cardio, it's not going to give you an accurate calorie count, if that's what's important to you.

I use a GPS/HRM, the Tomtom Runner's Cardio watch, but I don't think it's at all what you're looking for.

marcolbmp

brianpperkins wrote: »

marcolbmp wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

I really want to meet the guy that started the HRMs can accurately calculate caloric burn marketing concept and shake his hand ... then wring his neck. Some models can come close to accurate estimations for a narrow range of steady state cardio activities but for intervals, dance (including Zumba), walking, lifting, yoga, all day calculations, pilates, etc they are inaccurate.

Outside of strength training I would argue this point with you, before you make a statement like that maybe you can provide some real proof. There's more than enough studies out there proving that when accurate data is entered, most, especially Polar, are very accurate (+/- 10%).
Again, not even close for strength training, since the heart is actually trying to pull blood back from the swelled muscle tissue instead of feed oxygen to them the way it does for cardio.

The fact you call a 20% range (+/- 10%) "very accurate" really made me laugh.

There are a limited number of activities with established relationships between oxygen uptake, heart rate, and caloric burn along with multiple biometric factors (VO2 max, weight, etc) ... once you stray from those activities, the burn totals become inaccurate. Hence the common posts that say things along the lines of "I wore my HRM all day and my real burn is ...." and "My HRM said I burned .... during yoga" ... all based on use of a device in a way that it is neither designed nor programmed to operate.

+/- 10% made you laugh? Compared to relying on the estimate provided by the equipment you're using? Or compared to dumping in numbers to a calculator online? Where does your logic come from? HRM's use a very basic calculation that factors in your BMR, heart rate and VO2, all of which can change during an aerobic exercise. HRM's, while not 100% accurate, give you a consistent baseline to which you can tailor your workouts to.
I suppose you're going to tell me that when you pedal, it's all steady state? No hills or headwinds? Or how about swimming? No currents? Same with running. No hills or headwinds?

The OP asked for advice on an HRM suggestion, and out of all that are available, Polar or Suunto have always shown to be the most accurate. Is it worth wearing one all day? Not in my opinion, not even the fitbits that are so popular now, but again if it gets people motivated to work out and stay accountable for their caloric intake and expenditure, there's merit in using one.

Ftw37

I've enjoyed both the Mio Alpha and the Mio Link optical wrist HRMs (paired with my iPhone and with various Garmin watches, respectively), and have had some success with the HRM-Run electro-magnetic chest belt for advanced running dynamics (paired with Garmin 920xt watch).

I've only ever used them during running or cycling activities. I have no experience with the always-on 24/7 kind (the new Fitbit ones, Mio Fuse, etc.)

MeanderingMammal

marcolbmp wrote: »

Again, not even close for strength training, since the heart is actually trying to pull blood back from the swelled muscle tissue instead of feed oxygen to them the way it does for cardio.

Umm, you do appreciate that the heart generates pressure rather than vacuum?

brianpperkins

marcolbmp wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

marcolbmp wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

I really want to meet the guy that started the HRMs can accurately calculate caloric burn marketing concept and shake his hand ... then wring his neck. Some models can come close to accurate estimations for a narrow range of steady state cardio activities but for intervals, dance (including Zumba), walking, lifting, yoga, all day calculations, pilates, etc they are inaccurate.

Outside of strength training I would argue this point with you, before you make a statement like that maybe you can provide some real proof. There's more than enough studies out there proving that when accurate data is entered, most, especially Polar, are very accurate (+/- 10%).
Again, not even close for strength training, since the heart is actually trying to pull blood back from the swelled muscle tissue instead of feed oxygen to them the way it does for cardio.

The fact you call a 20% range (+/- 10%) "very accurate" really made me laugh.

There are a limited number of activities with established relationships between oxygen uptake, heart rate, and caloric burn along with multiple biometric factors (VO2 max, weight, etc) ... once you stray from those activities, the burn totals become inaccurate. Hence the common posts that say things along the lines of "I wore my HRM all day and my real burn is ...." and "My HRM said I burned .... during yoga" ... all based on use of a device in a way that it is neither designed nor programmed to operate.

+/- 10% made you laugh? Compared to relying on the estimate provided by the equipment you're using? Or compared to dumping in numbers to a calculator online? Where does your logic come from? HRM's use a very basic calculation that factors in your BMR, heart rate and VO2, all of which can change during an aerobic exercise. HRM's, while not 100% accurate, give you a consistent baseline to which you can tailor your workouts to.
I suppose you're going to tell me that when you pedal, it's all steady state? No hills or headwinds? Or how about swimming? No currents? Same with running. No hills or headwinds?

The OP asked for advice on an HRM suggestion, and out of all that are available, Polar or Suunto have always shown to be the most accurate. Is it worth wearing one all day? Not in my opinion, not even the fitbits that are so popular now, but again if it gets people motivated to work out and stay accountable for their caloric intake and expenditure, there's merit in using one.

Thank you for illustrating the effectiveness of marketing and the lack of scientific understanding all in the span of two posts.

trishalackin

Thanks everyone for the feedback! I appreciated everyone's input. I have no interest in wearing something all day, and I know that HRM aren't 100% accurate. Purchasing one would simply give me a faster way of calculating about how many calories I burned and would also allow me to see where my heart rate falls during certain activities. I have a long way to go, and I think a HRM would make things a little easier, at least in the beginning while I get used to how my body works under new pressures.

Thanks again; I look forward to researching the suggestions made!