HRM vs Activity Tracker -- more helpful with MFP?

Options
KettleTO
KettleTO Posts: 144 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I have a old HRM that I use to measure calories burned through exercise which I manually enter into MFP. I have no real complaints other than the heart rate sensor seems to be dying a slow death (reads 60 or 200 too often during workouts). As I researched what to replace it with, I thought it would be nice to get an activity tracker that can do continuous heart rate (and produce a good total calorie burned per day) but could also do workout heart rates and calories. Unfortunately, the perfect product does not seem to be out there quite yet. What would you suggest is the priority for linking with MFP?

I have a desk job and commute to work by bike so I don't actually take a lot of steps. On the weekends I'm out on my road bike, but I don't do heart rate zone training and I use older analog bike computer (just time, distance and speed). My priority is accurately assessing my calories burned. In the winter I mostly exercise in a gym with some walking. I also want something to link to my android phone.

Thanks, your suggestions are appreciated.

Replies

  • ajbutler45
    ajbutler45 Posts: 525 Member
    Options
    I just bought a Microsoft Band this last weekend. It has a built in optical HRM in the band. I have run with it three times so far and seems as accurate as my Garmin with HRM strap. I was getting tired of the HRM strap. It counts steps, GPS, bicycle mode and sleep mode too. It also lets you read messages and notification on your phone. The microsoft app links to several other apps including myfitnesspal. The Band does have an unusual shape so try t on before you buy it. It works with Andriod, Apple and Microsoft phones. The rechargeable battery last me 1 1/2 days using the GPS one hour each day. I have heard it scratches easily so install the screen protector. I had a Microsoft store close by and the installed it for me.
  • BasicGreatGuy
    BasicGreatGuy Posts: 868 Member
    Options
    Fitness watches that have heart rate monitoring built in, are not very accurate. At this point in time, the heart rate strap is still the most accurate for us lay people. Polar has an excellent reputation (backed up by scientific comparison labs) with heart rate sensors. The H7 sensor is a very affordable model which is very light on the body. I hardly even feel it when I am running or cycling etc.

    I use the Polar M400 GPS and fitness tracker. I use the Polar H7 monitor for running and cycling. The Polar flow app shows me all the technical data the average person could want, in my opinion, and it also syncs with MFP. It costs about $136.00 on Amazon right now, albeit you can find it cheaper some days, if you look at the third party sellers.

    From my understanding, Garmin makes a very good device albeit it is more expensive than the Polar M400.

    Take a look at a fitness watch with GPS. If you want accurate heart rate monitoring, get a strap to go with the watch.
  • DuckReconMajor
    DuckReconMajor Posts: 434 Member
    Options
    If calories burned is what you're most interested in, most people around here have had luck with the FitBit calorie adjustment given by the FitBit Charge HR. It might not be 100% accurate but usually it tends to err on the side of underestimation.

    I did the CVX cardio with weights P90x3 workout with both a Charge HR in workout mode and a Polar FT4 (chest strap monitor) and the Polar gave almost twice the calorie count the FitBit Charge HR did. (Both had my height, weight, etc.)

Categories