Heart Rate Monitor Recommendations

Options
Savannahmiamaddie
Savannahmiamaddie Posts: 54 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hi, I need to buy a new heart rate monitor. I am not interested in a fitness tracker that tracks steps taken, sleep; etc. I want to track my heart rate and calories burned when I work out. I've read that heart rate monitors that use a chest strap are more reliable so that's what I want to buy. For cardio, I either use my elliptical, do step aerobics or jog. I had a polar fit 7 but it konked out and I also found that it was hard to read the screen. Any recommendations?
«1

Replies

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    Miasavannah wrote: »
    I've read that heart rate monitors that use a chest strap are more reliable so that's what I want to buy.

    For most people an optical HRM is perfectly acceptable. ECG based reading is more accurate with high end head ends like the Fenix and 735XT that look at variation in our HR and build information from that.
    For cardio, I either use my elliptical, do step aerobics or jog. I had a polar fit 7 but it konked out and I also found that it was hard to read the screen. Any recommendations?

    There isn't much to differentiate in the lower end of the market at the moment. Most Polar devices within your budget, Garmin VivoSmart HR or VivoActive etc.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,402 Member
    Options
    Heart rate doesn't equate to calories burnt. First of all you'd need to know your maximum heart rate to get any idea at all on how hard you're workout out - and you need to be very fit to determine you maximum heart rate and for example run so fast until you fall down and puke to get to that: really you need to be able to give everything for long enough to get your heart rate that high up!

    Secondly, measuring a high heart rate doesn't mean much as it's easily influenced by so many things: temperature, being a bit tired, your thyroid condition changing.. hell, my thyroid is completely messing up my training heart rate at the moment! On some days I go on an easy run at 75% of my maximum heart rate and I can keep that up for ages! Yesterday evening I hardly got to 70% and was running as fast as never before on that distance, and I was dead afterwards. The measurements were correct though! Yea, going through a period of adjusting medication at the moment.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    I wasn't impressed by my FT7 either. Nice watch but unreliable and died a sudden and premature death.

    Much prefer my FT60 - bigger screen as well.
    It's one of the cheapest HRM's that you can easily customise with your max HR and VO2 max (if known) which can make a big difference to calorie burn estimates if you are an outlier.
  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member
    Options
    None. There aren't needed for any exercise you mentioned unless you are training for a race.
  • Ngegee
    Ngegee Posts: 35 Member
    Options
    Although I've got a Garmin chest strap hrm , i wish I'd got an optical version now just for convenience. Maybe the chest type are more accurate but i think the optical versions are sufficiently accurate for any non- medical use.
  • the_oakster
    the_oakster Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    I use a Garmin HRM chest strap that works with my cycling computer Edge 810 and I think it's helped a lot.

    They are worth having depending on how you work out your calorie burn. But If you're seeing weight loss or maintaining (depending on what you want to happen) with what you currently do then why spend the extra money?

    For me, I uploaded my cycling rides to Strava before I got a HRM and that would estimate my calorie burn for me. If I use my HRM it can be as much as 50% less and my HRM calorie birn has never been as high as on Straba. I know Strava is wrong because I can ride the same route harder or faster or in windy conditions and I get the same calorie burn. If I use the HRM then when I've worked harder the calorie burn goes up. Strava by its own admission does a lot of guess work that excludes various data. At least a HRM measures your actual heart rate.

    Heart rate is definitely a measure of calorie burn! Yes it can be affected by other conditions such as illness and so on but thats a given. Over time you will work out an average of what your burn per hour of an exercise is. Your maximum heart rate is easy to work out on a piece of paper for average use and most if not all HRM will work it out and adjust your zones for you.

    Even if you'd like to work it ou, its a hard one off effort that only needs to be repeated as you want to check your fitness levels but unless you're an athlete I'd guess it won't really be much difdif andrent to the guestimated level and the few beats it may change by won't make a difference to the average user heart rate zones.

  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    For most people an optical HRM is perfectly acceptable. ECG based reading is more accurate with high end head ends like the Fenix and 735XT that look at variation in our HR and build information from that.

    For the record, the type of heart rate variability (HRV, or variability in R-R times) cannot be measured accurately enough with an optical HRM. An OHR can measure how many times per minute your heart beats but not exactly when. Blood doesn't travel at exactly the same rate through all parts of the body and when you bend your shoulder or elbow the distance the blood has to travel before your OHR can read it has changed slightly. ("A train arrives in Denver at 5 pm, what time did it leave Chicago?") But the Fenix and FR use algorithms that measure it down to the millisecond. A chest strap is basically instant because it picks up an electrical pulse, and the fancy, high end features in the Fenix and Forerunner are meant to be used with a chest strap.

    Which is ironic because the newest Fenix 3 has an OHR wrist sensor.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    yirara wrote: »
    Yea, going through a period of adjusting medication at the moment.

    I suspect this is why your HR vs running speed wasn't reliable.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,402 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    yirara wrote: »
    Yea, going through a period of adjusting medication at the moment.

    I suspect this is why your HR vs running speed wasn't reliable.

    Yep, I think so. Could be anything else as well, really. Like temperature, tiredness and other things.
  • residentx10
    residentx10 Posts: 1 Member
    edited August 2017
    Options
    Is anyone using the Scosche Heart Rate monitor with the Fitness Pal Premium? I cannot get this thing to sync up. Even the apps on the iPhone and Android store are gone or missing?
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,402 Member
    Options
    I have a scosche but I only link it to my running app.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    Recommend the Wahoo series.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    residentx10 wrote: »
    Is anyone using the Scosche Heart Rate monitor with the Fitness Pal Premium? I cannot get this thing to sync up. Even the apps on the iPhone and Android store are gone or missing?

    How would it sync? MFP doesn't store heartbeat data.
  • jennifer_runs
    jennifer_runs Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    I actually disagree that the chest strap is more accurate. For me it was always cutting out, and I get more reliable readings from a wrist-based HRM.

    I've been using a wrist-based HRM for about 2 years now-- the first year it was the Mio Link, and now I have a Garmin 235 with a built-in optical wrist-based HRM (I could also use the ANT+ chest strap if I want, but I got rid of mine). For years before that I used a Garmin or Polar with a chest strap. I get much more reliable readings from the optical wrist-based. Sometimes the signal cuts out, but as long as I have it snug on my wrist it works well about 90% of the time. Contrarily, the chest strap would often cut out and it had a lot of electrical interference.

    The Garmin 235 is also an all-day activity tracker, which I know you don't want. But you can also use it just for your workouts. I would highly recommend it.

  • texteach66
    texteach66 Posts: 92 Member
    Options
    My Wahoo works great and was pretty reasonably priced.
    https://amazon.com/Wahoo-TICKR-Monitor-iPhone-Android/dp/B00INQVYZ8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502291091&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=wahoo+heart+rate+monitor&psc=1
  • need2belean
    need2belean Posts: 353 Member
    Options
    Miasavannah wrote: »
    Hi, I need to buy a new heart rate monitor. I am not interested in a fitness tracker that tracks steps taken, sleep; etc. I want to track my heart rate and calories burned when I work out. I've read that heart rate monitors that use a chest strap are more reliable so that's what I want to buy. For cardio, I either use my elliptical, do step aerobics or jog. I had a polar fit 7 but it konked out and I also found that it was hard to read the screen. Any recommendations?

    POLAR A300!! It's the best, waterproof, smart watch, someone inexpensive, accurate HR via chest strap. The best.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    jennifer_runs wrote: »
    I actually disagree that the chest strap is more accurate.

    But there's lots of received wisdom and anecdata...
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,402 Member
    Options
    How well an optical sensor works depends a lot on the skin colour (pale is better), hairs (less is better), shape of the location, how cold it is and how close to the wrist it's work (wrist is not so good due to smaller blood vessles and effect of coldness) and the type of sensor used. A chest strap is generally more precise, if more uncomfy for many people.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    edited August 2017
    Options
    yirara wrote: »
    How well an optical sensor works depends a lot on the skin colour (pale is better), hairs (less is better), shape of the location, how cold it is and how close to the wrist it's work (wrist is not so good due to smaller blood vessles and effect of coldness) and the type of sensor used. A chest strap is generally more precise, if more uncomfy for many people.

    For some people like @jennifer_runs and my wife it's impossible to wear a chest strap and thus a schosche is a better option.

    For the record, it's a geometric not a volumetric problem. Alternative mounts vs a strap for a chest based monitor are prohibitively expensive for someone who wants to work out more than once a week($100-150 each)
  • Djproulx
    Djproulx Posts: 3,084 Member
    edited August 2017
    Options
    The members of my training group use either Garmin 920XT or Fenix devices to display and capture our workout data. We use HR zone info when run training and also as backup measurement to Power when cycling.

    We all have chest strap style HRM's from either Garmin or Wahoo. No issues that I'm aware of with either brand HRM over the last two years. And at least 3 of the HRM's have gone through the washer a few times with no loss of performance.

Categories