A daily heart rate monitor that does it ALL!!

3dogsrunning

This thread is a little old, but I wanted to say something.

I have an older polar HRM with a chest strap. Great for workouts, bad for tracking all day (because the strap needs to be moist to work).

However, I was just on the polar website and they're coming out with a new HRM due out in April of 2014, that will do everything (so it seems). But I can't figure out if it's strapless or not. I haven't seen the word 'strapless' which tends to mean it's not, but I'm just not sure yet. It's called the V800. It'll probably be 3-400 bucks at first...but I'll wait a bit and maybe get one. It is clear though that it will monitor activities and HR 24/7 (it says this).

I really want something that tracks calories burned BASED on heart rate, age, and weight, as this is the most accuracy you can hope for. I'd really love to get a better ballpark on actual calories burned on days I go to work but don't do exercise, days I'm super lazy and lay around all day (on weekends), days I do work out and go to work, and days I don't go to work, but work out.

Its bad for tracking calories all day not just because the chest strap needs to be moist. It is not meant to track all day. You will get an over inflated burn. The calorie estimation formulas are based on heart rate during steady state moderate intensity cardio. It assumes that is what you are doing and applies the formula. When you are sitting on the couch, this is not steady state moderate intensity cardio, you aren't burning the same calories, the forumla does not apply.

I haven't heard about the new one coming out, i'll be interested to see how it works.

Heart rate, age and weight are not what make calorie estimates accurate. Calories burned is determined by weight and intensity. HRM need the additional data points because it using a formula based on averages. It is not necessarily more accurate because it accounts for these things.

THe links above are really informative. Especially this one
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

halleymw

Here is a link to a Prview of the 800. looks like it has a strap.

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/01/polar-v800-triathlon.html

Mike

Firehawk734

It's a lot more than just weight and intensity. If I'm 250lbs and work out every day, that makes my body more efficient at burning calories (I breathe less because I'm using oxygen more efficiently, and therefore heart rate doesn't go up as much). SO I disagree that it's based on weight and intensity (to an extent). If I'm 250lbs and haven't worked out in 2 yrs, and then do the same workout someone else has been doing for 2 years, I'm going to burn more calories than the athlete. Heart rate will be higher, body is inefficient at calorie burning, etc. This is why changing routines is important for continued calorie burning (fat loss).

So, my point is that there's no perfect solution here when relying on a machine. All you can do is try to get 'more accurate' than another machine.

I am sure you are right regarding my post about my F7 heart rate monitor and laying around all day. You're probably right that it uses a formula that assumes a workout is going on when i'm laying on the couch...but clearly it slows down calorie counting. After my workout yesterday, i continued to wear my monitor for 2 1/2 hours and when my heart rate fell back to 70ish, I was only burning 4 calories a minute (per the watch) and even slower. It was burning about 136 calories an hour or so with a lower heart rate of 70ish. That could be a bit higher than what reality is, if the formula assumes i'm working out and my heart rate is 70bpm.

KeepGoingKylene

The Amiigo does it all just have to wait for it to come out and boy have we been waiting lol.
I bought it during the backing stage, its been a long wait but should be well worth it when it comes, hopefully

3dogsrunning

It's a lot more than just weight and intensity. If I'm 250lbs and work out every day, that makes my body more efficient at burning calories (I breathe less because I'm using oxygen more efficiently, and therefore heart rate doesn't go up as much). SO I disagree that it's based on weight and intensity (to an extent). If I'm 250lbs and haven't worked out in 2 yrs, and then do the same workout someone else has been doing for 2 years, I'm going to burn more calories than the athlete. Heart rate will be higher, body is inefficient at calorie burning, etc. This is why changing routines is important for continued calorie burning (fat loss).

So, my point is that there's no perfect solution here when relying on a machine. All you can do is try to get 'more accurate' than another machine.

I am sure you are right regarding my post about my F7 heart rate monitor and laying around all day. You're probably right that it uses a formula that assumes a workout is going on when i'm laying on the couch...but clearly it slows down calorie counting. After my workout yesterday, i continued to wear my monitor for 2 1/2 hours and when my heart rate fell back to 70ish, I was only burning 4 calories a minute (per the watch) and even slower. It was burning about 136 calories an hour or so with a lower heart rate of 70ish. That could be a bit higher than what reality is, if the formula assumes i'm working out and my heart rate is 70bpm.

It really is about weight and intensity. It requires the same energy to move 250lbs regardless.

Azdak has a great explaination in this thread. ( I linked the second page because my post and his are on that page)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1173371-long-distance-running-and-having-trouble-losing-weight?page=2#posts-18395130

And in his blog
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak?month=201005


RE - sedentary activities
"The linear HR vs. VO2 relationship applies to moderate-intensity activity but is nearly a flat slope during low-intensity activity, resulting in a low correlation between HR and EE (Energy Expenditure) during sedentary and low-intensity activities. "

Study here
"If you want to read the studies those references are pointing to, Page 36 in the following study. "
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/2292/305/02whole.pdf?sequence=9

From Heybales thread here which also outlines other issues with HRMs.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn

JoeBottillo

There is an hrm which measures heart rate through the wrist (MIO Global & MIO Alpha). They measure hr continuously using sensors to determine blood flow and apply an algorithm to determine hr. The Amiigo will do everything you want (not only within our life time but before the end of summer) pre-order cost is 179.99. Early bird backers are already receiving devices and current pre-orders will be shipped by August.

DavPul

It's a lot more than just weight and intensity. If I'm 250lbs and work out every day, that makes my body more efficient at burning calories (I breathe less because I'm using oxygen more efficiently, and therefore heart rate doesn't go up as much). SO I disagree that it's based on weight and intensity (to an extent). If I'm 250lbs and haven't worked out in 2 yrs, and then do the same workout someone else has been doing for 2 years, I'm going to burn more calories than the athlete. Heart rate will be higher, body is inefficient at calorie burning, etc. This is why changing routines is important for continued calorie burning (fat loss).

There's a lot of NO in this post. Both guys will burn the same amount of calories but the fitter person is going to be less fatigued and able to do more while the untrained guy is going to lay on the ground gasping for air.

Heart rate =/= calories burned or we'd all just walk thru bad neighborhoods at night in order to lose weight.