Heart rate monitor recommendation

Options
jayleeskinner
jayleeskinner Posts: 35 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Looking for recommendations for a heart rate monitor that tells you how many calories you have burned during a workout (other than a fitness tracker like the fitbit) Thanks in advance :)
«1

Replies

  • Be_Fit_Babs
    Be_Fit_Babs Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    I love my Polar FT4. It has a replaceable battery which some of the other models don't offer (they have to be replaced buy polar or a official dealer). The chest strap is easy to clean, I can run it under the faucet after a work out and dry it with a towel. Hope this helps in your search. :)
  • fiddletime
    fiddletime Posts: 1,862 Member
    Options
    I also use a Polar FT7 (4?) with a chest strap. I find it seems to be accurate on calories burned.
  • ms_smartypants
    ms_smartypants Posts: 8,278 Member
    Options
    I love my garmin vivosmart hr ...I use to have a fitbit until it took a *kitten*
  • NadiaMayl
    NadiaMayl Posts: 496 Member
    Options
    Polar M400! Love it!
  • SylviazSpirit
    SylviazSpirit Posts: 694 Member
    Options
    I also have the Polar FT4 and LOVE IT! The battery life in it is amazing and as mentioned, easy to replace and not very expensive to replace when needed either. It's easy to use and put on and take off. Great buy imho.
  • StealthHealth
    StealthHealth Posts: 2,417 Member
    Options
    Depends on the work out type - HRMs are OK for steady state cardio, less so for HIIT/Interval workouts, and terrible for strength work outs.
  • Morgaen73
    Morgaen73 Posts: 2,818 Member
    Options
    I have the Polar H7 that I use with the app on my phone. I would recommend it.
  • moesis
    moesis Posts: 874 Member
    Options
    The Polar H7 works great, is comfortable, the strap is easy to clean, and the battery is replaceable. Polar did just come out with the H10 heart rate monitor, but I have yet to try that one out.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    What kind of workout OP?

    A HRM could be totally inappropriate way of getting an estimate - remember they only count heartbeats and not calories.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    StealthHealth wrote: »
    Depends on the work out type - HRMs are OK for steady state cardio, less so for HIIT/Interval workouts, and terrible for strength work outs.

    This ^^^ needs to be clarified.

    HRMs are fantastic for HIIT workouts. If you want to keep your heart rate in zone 5 for, say, 30 seconds, an HRM is the tool to know whether you hit your target or not. If you're not hitting your targets, there's no point to the workout.

    For calories, well, that's not what HRMs are for.
  • StealthHealth
    StealthHealth Posts: 2,417 Member
    edited March 2017
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    StealthHealth wrote: »
    Depends on the work out type - HRMs are OK for steady state cardio, less so for HIIT/Interval workouts, and terrible for strength work outs.

    This ^^^ needs to be clarified.

    HRMs are fantastic for HIIT workouts. If you want to keep your heart rate in zone 5 for, say, 30 seconds, an HRM is the tool to know whether you hit your target or not. If you're not hitting your targets, there's no point to the workout.

    For calories, well, that's not what HRMs are for.

    To be honest my HIIT/Interval comment was not well thought out or researched - I bow to your greater knowledge on that point. But, I standby the "terrible for strength work outs" comment.

    I think the key thing for the OP is (as other posters have also tried to get across) - They are not suitable for all applications and so what the OP means by "a workout" will influence the recommendation.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    @StealthHealth we both agree that an HRM will not tell you the right number of calories you've burned doing HIIT. I'm on the same page with you there.

    I'm a little bit sad that people think that's what HRMs are for. You're right that they're not suitable for all applications, and calorie guessing is one of those things they're really not suitable for. I wish people would accept that and move on. Because HRMs are really great at telling you and recording what your heart rate is, and once you move past calories, there are some really great reasons to want to know that. Probably beyond the scope of this thread because we're talking about calories and not how to do HIIT.
  • Morgaen73
    Morgaen73 Posts: 2,818 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    @StealthHealth we both agree that an HRM will not tell you the right number of calories you've burned doing HIIT. I'm on the same page with you there.

    I'm a little bit sad that people think that's what HRMs are for. You're right that they're not suitable for all applications, and calorie guessing is one of those things they're really not suitable for. I wish people would accept that and move on. Because HRMs are really great at telling you and recording what your heart rate is, and once you move past calories, there are some really great reasons to want to know that. Probably beyond the scope of this thread because we're talking about calories and not how to do HIIT.

    I get that HRM wont accurately tell you how many calories you burn. Hell I dont even believe that MFP has my TDEE and BMR correct and when it comes to food consumtion it is not 100% correct either.

    So what else do I use, other than estimated calories from an HRM, to determine how many calories I've burned? Considering that the CO in CICO needs to be measured somehow.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    @Morgaen73 what are you doing for HIIT?
  • Morgaen73
    Morgaen73 Posts: 2,818 Member
    Options
    @NorthCascades I dont do HIIT. I do weights but the point still stands. I get that measuring calorie consumption by way of HRM is not accurate but is there a better way of doing it and if not is HRM not the lessor of 2 evils?
  • swingsnatchlift
    swingsnatchlift Posts: 194 Member
    Options
    I have used both an Polar FT7 and an H7. I like both. The only reason I recently bought and started using the H7 with the app is for kettlebell work as I'm afraid I'm going to smash the watch wearing my FT7. If you want something waterproof, the Polar H10 would be an option.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Morgaen73 wrote: »
    @NorthCascades I dont do HIIT. I do weights but the point still stands. I get that measuring calorie consumption by way of HRM is not accurate but is there a better way of doing it and if not is HRM not the lessor of 2 evils?
    @Morgaen73
    Just log the duration of your workout as "strength training" (under CV section of the diary). You get a very rough estimate based on METS and your weight.
    I get about 237cals an hour. It's simply not a big calorie burner compared to cardio.

    A HRM would massively over estimate.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    @Morgaen73 This is going to be slightly long and detailed. Sorry.

    When you exercise, most of the energy comes from stored fats. You "burn" them with oxygen, and people have figured out the ratio of oxygen to calories. Heart rate is a decent "proxy" for how fast you're breathing.

    My background is as a cyclist. Most of the time on the bike I'm doing aerobic work, using oxygen and fat to move the bike. Sometimes I have to pass someone, though, and it's usually a sprint. Then I just can't get enough energy fast enough from fat alone, so I go anaerobic and start using glycogen. Which means the way I'm powering my legs isn't what the HRM is programmed for. So its guess for this part is going to be in left field. Now, once I pass the guy, I want to stay in front of him, but I don't just keep sprinting for the rest of my ride, so, if I ride 2 hours and I spent 5 minutes of it sprinting, on the whole, the HRM won't be too confused.

    Weight lifting is even more intense than sprinting, energy comes (in the moment) from a third energy source, I forget what it's called, and also from glycogen, but not much from stored fat. An HRM doesn't know how to account for this.

    When I lift, I assume about 200 to 250 kCal for an hour session, depending how much rest between sets. If I'm bulking I'll eat more anyway, and if I'm cutting, that's a fair enough estimate for me to be able to lose fat with.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    Very informative read here: 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
  • GaryRuns
    GaryRuns Posts: 508 Member
    Options
    Lots of info on HRMs. For distance running they give you great estimates of calories burned, otherwise, not so much. They have trouble with activities that aren't at a constant level of effort. They are pretty good at helping you focus your workout for a particular goal though. For example, I like distance running and my HRM helps me during my aerobic base build-up, keeping me focused on maintaining my level of effort where it should be.

    With all the information that myself and others have given you, if you you still want an HRM I'll diverge from some of the other folks and recommend something other than the chest-strap models, a Scosche Rhythm. They're optical like the wrist ones, but you wear it on your forearm where it has better contact with your skin and it uses more powerful LEDs than is typical in the wrist devices, and so it's more accurate. I have had horrible luck with the chest-strap based models. I have to replace the straps at least every 6 months, sometimes more often. And I've tried washing them, not washing them, showering with them, not showering with them. You name it and I've tried it. I've had the Scosche for about 6 months and it's been flawless. Way happier than I've been with the chest-strap ones, and I've had 4 chest-strap models, including Polars. And it's comparably priced so that's not an issue.

Categories