Heart rate monitor

Options
Sweet_Pea4
Sweet_Pea4 Posts: 447 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hello :)

I had a garmin band and lost the heart rate monitor strap. So I'm looking just to buy a new heart rate monitor, which shows cals burnt etc. anyone know of a food one?
«1

Replies

  • Sweet_Pea4
    Sweet_Pea4 Posts: 447 Member
    Options
    Good*
  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    I used the Polar FT 4 for 2 years with no issues. I have been using the Polar FT 7 for the past few months and like it a lot. Don't know about other brands as Polar HRM's are the only ones that I've tried.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    Garmin and others sell ANT+ HR straps.

    All HRM calorie numbers are nothing more than estimates. Some models come closer to accurate than others under certain circumstances (steady state cardio) but none of them count calories.
  • Sweet_Pea4
    Sweet_Pea4 Posts: 447 Member
    Options
    Thank you
  • cmbauer99
    cmbauer99 Posts: 184 Member
    Options
    I use the Polar H7 Bluetooth HRM strap it works with my iPhone or attaches to my Polar m400 watch.

    By far the best combo I have used
  • Upstate_Dunadan
    Upstate_Dunadan Posts: 435 Member
    Options
    Microsoft Band here. Love it. HRM, exercise modes, sleep mode, guided workouts. Looks like they're starting to sell them at Best Buy, Amazon, and Target now.
  • TrishaCisneros
    TrishaCisneros Posts: 171 Member
    Options
    I used a Polar FT4 for a little over 2 years and it just died on me. I will be purchasing the new Polar A300 the end of this month.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    The straps are all comparable when it comes to HR accuracy from the older Polar H1 to the H6 and H7, the Garmin basic or premium, Wahoo Tickr, 4iiii Viiiiva, Mio Alpha and Link .... the difference being in comfort and how they communicate to a phone/watch/head unit. For the most part Polar uses Gymlink and/or bluetooth 4.0 ... Garmin uses ANT+ ... Wahoo, Mio, and 4iiii do simultaneous bluetooth and ANT+.

    The math is all done in the watch, head unit, phone, or piece of equipment. How close to accurate the caloric estimations are depends on the formula in the device. HR data is only useful for estimating calories from steady state cardio. There is no direct relationship between HR and calories burned for things like lifting and yoga. There isn't an established relationship for things like Zumba. That leaves cycling, rowing, running type activities for steady state with the study behind it to establish a relationship between HR, exertion level, VO2 max, and calories.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Options
    Cant you just buy a new strap, unless ofc you want a change. Get one off ebay.
  • Upstate_Dunadan
    Upstate_Dunadan Posts: 435 Member
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    HR data is only useful for estimating calories from steady state cardio. There is no direct relationship between HR and calories burned for things like lifting and yoga. There isn't an established relationship for things like Zumba. That leaves cycling, rowing, running type activities for steady state with the study behind it to establish a relationship between HR, exertion level, VO2 max, and calories.

    That's not entirely true. My Microsoft Band measures HR and some other collected data like steps and reps to come up with an estimate of calories burned while I'm working out at the gym (weights and HIIT). Most of this (I believe) is based off HR because I can see my HR post workout and see how much of it I spent in aerobic vs. anaerobic zone.

    Can it tell if I'm deadlifting with 135 vs. 405? No. But...I can tell you there is a difference in my HR (during and after) between those two weights.

    Also, as Microsoft turns on more sensors (galvanic, etc.) and tweaks their algorithms, it will get closer.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Options
    Giving you a figure is one thing, knowing its accurate is another.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    sm4astan wrote: »
    That's not entirely true. My Microsoft Band measures HR and some other collected data like steps and reps to come up with an estimate of calories burned while I'm working out at the gym (weights and HIIT). Most of this (I believe) is based off HR because I can see my HR post workout and see how much of it I spent in aerobic vs. anaerobic zone.

    Well if HR is the most significant contributor to the estimation that you get from your M$ toy, then it's unlikely to be a meaningful number. HR and calorie expenditure don't have a meaningful relationship in the anaerobic range.

    fwiw I don't actually think that the M$ algorithm meaningfully uses much else, despite the marketing gibberish.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    sm4astan wrote: »
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    HR data is only useful for estimating calories from steady state cardio. There is no direct relationship between HR and calories burned for things like lifting and yoga. There isn't an established relationship for things like Zumba. That leaves cycling, rowing, running type activities for steady state with the study behind it to establish a relationship between HR, exertion level, VO2 max, and calories.

    That's not entirely true. My Microsoft Band measures HR and some other collected data like steps and reps to come up with an estimate of calories burned while I'm working out at the gym (weights and HIIT). Most of this (I believe) is based off HR because I can see my HR post workout and see how much of it I spent in aerobic vs. anaerobic zone.

    Can it tell if I'm deadlifting with 135 vs. 405? No. But...I can tell you there is a difference in my HR (during and after) between those two weights.

    Also, as Microsoft turns on more sensors (galvanic, etc.) and tweaks their algorithms, it will get closer.

    The SCIENCE does not support using HRM for estimating burns from intervals or lifting. There is not a relationship between HR and caloric burn for lifting. I'm sure your band can tell the difference in HR when you are excited or scared ... there isn't a relationship between HR and those conditions either.
  • Upstate_Dunadan
    Upstate_Dunadan Posts: 435 Member
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    sm4astan wrote: »
    The SCIENCE does not support using HRM for estimating burns from intervals or lifting. There is not a relationship between HR and caloric burn for lifting. I'm sure your band can tell the difference in HR when you are excited or scared ... there isn't a relationship between HR and those conditions either.

    Exercise in the Aerobic or Anaerobic zone (based on HR) yields the same benefits whether your HR is high from weights, cardio, or both. To say otherwise is silly. It's easy to structure a lifting workout with short rest periods and HIIT that elevates your HR and yields equal results (actually better - but not going there) as doing the same thing with straight cardio.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    sm4astan wrote: »
    Exercise in the Aerobic or Anaerobic zone (based on HR) yields the same benefits whether your HR is high from weights, cardio, or both. To say otherwise is silly. It's easy to structure a lifting workout with short rest periods and HIIT that elevates your HR and yields equal results (actually better - but not going there) as doing the same thing with straight cardio.

    Notwithstanding the issues with your points, that doesn't support the suggestion that HR is a meaningful proxy for calorie expenditure when one is training in a way that the software isn't designed around.

    The software is designed on the basis of research done using steady state, aerobic range, activity.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    No. That isn't how it works. The burns between anaerobic and aerobic activities differ greatly. Lifting is not a big calorie burner. EPOC is greatly over hyped. Actually for HIIT to get near they hyped benefits requires exertion at over 95% of LTHR during the high intensity periods. Again, that is if you want to discuss this based on science and fact rather than marketing.
  • Sweet_Pea4
    Sweet_Pea4 Posts: 447 Member
    Options
    999tigger wrote: »
    Cant you just buy a new strap, unless ofc you want a change. Get one off ebay.

    Yes it seems to be one of the best anyway. Think I'll get a new strap. Do you know if you need to syn. It or anything or if it just picks up you're wearing one?
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    lulum1986 wrote: »
    999tigger wrote: »
    Cant you just buy a new strap, unless ofc you want a change. Get one off ebay.

    Yes it seems to be one of the best anyway. Think I'll get a new strap. Do you know if you need to syn. It or anything or if it just picks up you're wearing one?

    Any ANT+ heart rate strap will work with a modern Garmin watch. Garmin's several HR straps, Wahoo Tickr (does ANT+ and Bluetooth simultaneously), Viiii Viiiiva strap (does ANT+ and Bluetooth simultaneously), Suunto.
  • Sweet_Pea4
    Sweet_Pea4 Posts: 447 Member
    Options
    Thanks
  • rwcw89
    rwcw89 Posts: 143 Member
    Options
    Fitbit charge hr. No band needed it's all in one, connects to mfp and calculates calories burned via heart rate. I'm in love with it

Categories