Heart rate monitors-chest strap-women

Options
2»

Replies

  • tecat810
    tecat810 Posts: 4,556 Member
    Options
    What are you hoping to gain from using it for that type of session?[/quote]

    I honestly like the data. It tells me how hard I am working, if I need to push it more, etc. I use that to tell me my calorie burn too. I think it’s a little more accurate than the generic calorie expenditures based on time alone.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    tecat73 wrote: »
    I honestly like the data. It tells me how hard I am working, if I need to push it more, etc. I use that to tell me my calorie burn too.

    That's understandable, so relative numbers rather than absolute?

    Again, I think you take the assets out of the equation and use an arm or wrist sensor.

    Which Forerunner model do you use?
    I think it’s a little more accurate than the generic calorie expenditures based on time alone.

    That's highly unlikely. HR isn't a reliable basis for a calorie estimate where you've got variations in HR, out where you've got HR deviations as a result of strength type activity.
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,983 Member
    edited October 2018
    Options
    tecat73 wrote: »

    I honestly like the data. It tells me how hard I am working, if I need to push it more, etc. I use that to tell me my calorie burn too. I think it’s a little more accurate than the generic calorie expenditures based on time alone.

    I always wear a HRM with my Garmin, either an optical armband one or a Garmin Run chest strap depending on what I'm doing. I too like having the data and as a way to provide feedback on effort. I still use distance for my calorie burns because it provides more consistent and reliable counts. Using HR data, even with a Garmin HRM and the FirstBeat algorithm, the Garmin seems to match on average, but it varies quite a fair amount from run to run due to weather. Weather effects HR, but the watch has no way of knowing that (actually mine does have a temperature sensor...) and it's not factored into algorithm used to estimate calorie expenditure. The estimates are always high when it's hot and low when it cools off. Providing you are running the whole time and not doing a run/walk, using distance is actually very good for calorie estimates.

    Net Calories = 0.63 * (Distance in Miles) * (Weight in Pounds)

    Based on years of food/exercise logging and long term weight tracking at mileage running from 60+ MPW to nada, the above formula has been very reliable in my experience.
  • tecat810
    tecat810 Posts: 4,556 Member
    Options
    The_Enginerd wrote: »
    tecat73 wrote: »

    I honestly like the data. It tells me how hard I am working, if I need to push it more, etc. I use that to tell me my calorie burn too. I think it’s a little more accurate than the generic calorie expenditures based on time alone.

    I always wear a HRM with my Garmin, either an optical armband one or a Garmin Run chest strap depending on what I'm doing. I too like having the data and as a way to provide feedback on effort. I still use distance for my calorie burns because it provides more consistent and reliable counts. Using HR data, even with a Garmin HRM and the FirstBeat algorithm, the Garmin seems to match on average, but it varies quite a fair amount from run to run due to weather. Weather effects HR, but the watch has no way of knowing that (actually mine does have a temperature sensor...) and it's not factored into algorithm used to estimate calorie expenditure. The estimates are always high when it's hot and low when it cools off. Providing you are running the whole time and not doing a run/walk, using distance is actually very good for calorie estimates.

    Net Calories = 0.63 * (Distance in Miles) * (Weight in Pounds)

    Based on years of food/exercise logging and long term weight tracking at mileage running from 60+ MPW to nada, the above formula has been very reliable in my experience.

    Thank you. That was helpful!

  • tecat810
    tecat810 Posts: 4,556 Member
    Options
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    tecat73 wrote: »
    I honestly like the data. It tells me how hard I am working, if I need to push it more, etc. I use that to tell me my calorie burn too.

    That's understandable, so relative numbers rather than absolute?

    Again, I think you take the assets out of the equation and use an arm or wrist sensor.

    Which Forerunner model do you use?
    I think it’s a little more accurate than the generic calorie expenditures based on time alone.

    That's highly unlikely. HR isn't a reliable basis for a calorie estimate where you've got variations in HR, out where you've got HR deviations as a result of strength type activity.

    I’m using the Garmin forerunner 35. The wrist hear rate measures too low on me, so I like the addition of the chest strap. I’ll have to look at the arm band! It’s a little pricey for my budget at the moment, but could be a good Christmas gift!


  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    The_Enginerd wrote: »
    If you need just the HR reading and not any of the other running dynamics that some of the Garmin HR chest straps have, an optical HRM arm strap such as the Scosche RHYTHM+ or Wahoo TICKR FIT work well without the same issues with the "girls". They both feature Bluetooth and ANT compatibility.

    I'd second the recommendation for the Scosche Rhythm+. My Garmin (FR935) has an optical heart rate sensor which works pretty well tracking my HR during non-exercise activities, but it goes completely whacky once I elevate my HR with exercise - to the point of being basically useless. I wear the Rhythm+ high on my upper arm (right around the bicep/deltoid junction) and it tracks much more accurately and consistently. And the location should completely eliminate OP's problem encountered with chest straps.

    Good review of the Rhythm+ here, courtesy of DCRainmaker: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/05/scosche-antbluetooth-optical.html
  • tecat810
    tecat810 Posts: 4,556 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    The_Enginerd wrote: »
    If you need just the HR reading and not any of the other running dynamics that some of the Garmin HR chest straps have, an optical HRM arm strap such as the Scosche RHYTHM+ or Wahoo TICKR FIT work well without the same issues with the "girls". They both feature Bluetooth and ANT compatibility.

    I'd second the recommendation for the Scosche Rhythm+. My Garmin (FR935) has an optical heart rate sensor which works pretty well tracking my HR during non-exercise activities, but it goes completely whacky once I elevate my HR with exercise - to the point of being basically useless. I wear the Rhythm+ high on my upper arm (right around the bicep/deltoid junction) and it tracks much more accurately and consistently. And the location should completely eliminate OP's problem encountered with chest straps.

    Good review of the Rhythm+ here, courtesy of DCRainmaker: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/05/scosche-antbluetooth-optical.html

    Thank you!!
  • tecat810
    tecat810 Posts: 4,556 Member
    Options
    Ok, biting the bullet and paying for a schosche. I want accuracy!!
  • tecat810
    tecat810 Posts: 4,556 Member
    Options
    The k
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    The_Enginerd wrote: »
    If you need just the HR reading and not any of the other running dynamics that some of the Garmin HR chest straps have, an optical HRM arm strap such as the Scosche RHYTHM+ or Wahoo TICKR FIT work well without the same issues with the "girls". They both feature Bluetooth and ANT compatibility.

    I'd second the recommendation for the Scosche Rhythm+. My Garmin (FR935) has an optical heart rate sensor which works pretty well tracking my HR during non-exercise activities, but it goes completely whacky once I elevate my HR with exercise - to the point of being basically useless. I wear the Rhythm+ high on my upper arm (right around the bicep/deltoid junction) and it tracks much more accurately and consistently. And the location should completely eliminate OP's problem encountered with chest straps.

    Good review of the Rhythm+ here, courtesy of DCRainmaker: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/05/scosche-antbluetooth-optical.html
    Thank you for the recommendation!! I used it today and love it!! It works!
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    tecat73 wrote: »
    The k
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    The_Enginerd wrote: »
    If you need just the HR reading and not any of the other running dynamics that some of the Garmin HR chest straps have, an optical HRM arm strap such as the Scosche RHYTHM+ or Wahoo TICKR FIT work well without the same issues with the "girls". They both feature Bluetooth and ANT compatibility.

    I'd second the recommendation for the Scosche Rhythm+. My Garmin (FR935) has an optical heart rate sensor which works pretty well tracking my HR during non-exercise activities, but it goes completely whacky once I elevate my HR with exercise - to the point of being basically useless. I wear the Rhythm+ high on my upper arm (right around the bicep/deltoid junction) and it tracks much more accurately and consistently. And the location should completely eliminate OP's problem encountered with chest straps.

    Good review of the Rhythm+ here, courtesy of DCRainmaker: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/05/scosche-antbluetooth-optical.html
    Thank you for the recommendation!! I used it today and love it!! It works!

    Glad to hear it worked out for you! :)

Categories