Importance of HR for a low-impact exerciser?

kiela64

I’m considering getting a Fitbit. I have a variety of activity levels with my jobs and school (desk vs active/retail), and I lose track of time when I swim.

I’m looking at the Inspire and Inspire HR because they are less expensive and have a watch face and are waterproof. I don’t really understand the value of having that HR measurement.

From what I’ve read, wrist HR is unreliable and doesn’t influence calorie burn. I don’t care to track sleep. My workouts will be: walking, swimming, stationary bike, yoga, callisthenics, aqua fit, potentially other group classes. I can’t run.

Am I missing something about why people are interested in it? If you have HR, what do you use it for?

middlehaitch

I’ve done all the activities you mentioned and never owned an activity tracker, never mind an HR one.

Lost weight in 2008/9 maintaining 10 yr.

I haven’t found a need for one as I am not a competitive athlete, just recreational, and MFP’s cal burn, at 100% eat back, compared to actual date derived from MFP has given me the numbers I needed to lose and maintain successfully.

Before jumping in and getting one, think of why you may want one, and how you may benifit from it.

Cheers, h.

AnnPT77

I like training data of many types, which is where HR data interests me.

My wrist-based device seems to do fine for most activities, when worn correctly, as long as there isn't a lot of arm flexion involved (I need to use a chest belt that pairs to it while rowing, otherwise the data is silly-wrong). (I'm sure it helps the wrist-based device that I have a light skin tone.)

I don't really see why HR data is important for someone who doesn't data-geek their exercise . . . though it might be casually interesting to see progress over time or something, like how you might have a lower heart rate for similar exercise as you get fitter.

HR is possibly not all that useful for guiding training for people who don't know their actual maximum heart rate, because the age based formulas are so frequent wildly wrong.

robertw486

It really just depends on your desires. As said above many on wrist HRMs are fine most of the time if adjusted correctly. Do you want or need that HR data? That's up to you really.

For me I enjoy the data trend with training over time, but I don't use a wearable type device. Instead I use one only when training. In that regard it helps me with output, since I generally know how long I can push to XXX beats per minute sustained. It just works as a secondary input to my perceived exertion level.

NorthCascades

There's not much reason for most people to care about their heart rate. For some types of training it can be beneficial, and you can learn a bit from your HR response, but generally that's stuff to guide your training.

A lot of people have decided an HRM has special insight into what's going on in the rest of your body that isn't your heart, not because there's evidence but because it's a neat idea. Also, spending money is fun.

I've had trackers with and without HR. The ones without got my calories just as well, they still knew how much walking I did.

beulah81

NorthCascades wrote: »

There's not much reason for most people to care about their heart rate. For some types of training it can be beneficial, and you can learn a bit from your HR response, but generally that's stuff to guide your training.

A lot of people have decided an HRM has special insight into what's going on in the rest of your body that isn't your heart, not because there's evidence but because it's a neat idea. Also, spending money is fun.

I've had trackers with and without HR. The ones without got my calories just as well, they still knew how much walking I did.

Do the ones with HR estimate your calorie burn better when you walk briskly as oppose to more leasurely or does the tracker figures it out by the miles walked and takes that pace into account?

emmamcgarity

I have the Inspire HR and I love it. I wasn’t sure if I was interested in the heart rate data. But now that I have it I am intrigued at looking at heart rate information after exercise or even looking at the patterns of my resting heart rate data. I enjoy looking at how my “cardio fitness score” has improved over time. This data has encouraged me to keep exercising and look for new ways to improve my fitness.

MeanderingMammal

beulah81 wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

There's not much reason for most people to care about their heart rate. For some types of training it can be beneficial, and you can learn a bit from your HR response, but generally that's stuff to guide your training.

A lot of people have decided an HRM has special insight into what's going on in the rest of your body that isn't your heart, not because there's evidence but because it's a neat idea. Also, spending money is fun.

I've had trackers with and without HR. The ones without got my calories just as well, they still knew how much walking I did.

Do the ones with HR estimate your calorie burn better when you walk briskly as oppose to more leasurely or does the tracker figures it out by the miles walked and takes that pace into account?

HR as a proxy for calorie expenditure only applies for a limited asset of circumstances. If you're walking briefly, your HR shouldn't be in the range where it's a meaningful indicator.

What takes estimate place length and count steps, so they'll estimate distance walked and extrapolate from that.

quemalosuerte

I have the fitbit alta, which includes heartrate. It made sense for me, bc my heartrate is generally high (90s and 100s). While it is /questionable/ for instantaneous heartrate, especially during workout, it is good for overall and trends. As I have been working out over the past 3 months, I have noticed a downward trend in resting heartrate that tells me I am successfully building my heart muscle. Although, i do understand my increased stamina also tells the same info, but in a more anecdotal wY.

Maxxitt

I use the HR function for interval training.

sijomial

kiela64 wrote: »

Am I missing something about why people are interested in it? If you have HR, what do you use it for?

Off the top of my head I would split "people" into groups:

• Those with the very mistaken belief that HR is an accurate guide to calorie expenditure under all conditions and for all people (it really isn't).
• Those with high cardio exercise goals where knowing your HR can actually be useful for training purposes (the original and small market for HRMs)
• Those who just enjoy data or monitoring aspects of their heart health/CV fitness such as speed of recovery, resting HR improvements

I use it only during either outdoor cycling or indoor cycle training. It's useful to me as an indicator of exertion levels and my fitness level. It backs up perceived exertion as a guide to what is sustainable/unsustainable for me for certain durations either for entire rides or for certain sections of rides or training sessions.

Used to use a previous HRM to track my min HR but since that broke I just do that manually during periods of very intense training. (A rising min HR can be a sign of over-training.)

kiela64

sijomial wrote: »

kiela64 wrote: »

Am I missing something about why people are interested in it? If you have HR, what do you use it for?

Off the top of my head I would split "people" into groups:

• Those with the very mistaken belief that HR is an accurate guide to calorie expenditure under all conditions and for all people (it really isn't).
• Those with high cardio exercise goals where knowing your HR can actually be useful for training purposes (the original and small market for HRMs)
• Those who just enjoy data or monitoring aspects of their heart health/CV fitness such as speed of recovery, resting HR improvements

I use it only during either outdoor cycling or indoor cycle training. It's useful to me as an indicator of exertion levels and my fitness level. It backs up perceived exertion as a guide to what is sustainable/unsustainable for me for certain durations either for entire rides or for certain sections of rides or training sessions.

Used to use a previous HRM to track my min HR but since that broke I just do that manually during periods of very intense training. (A rising min HR can be a sign of over-training.)

Thank you! I understand the first group, for high impact cardio, high impact interval training, and running. But if the majority of exercise is low impact like walking and swimming, I kind of doubt it’s going to be a valuable tool?

When I use a stationary bike the palm HR sensors on it often just tell me my HR is too high. I mostly ignore it and just work out. But it could be nice to have info if it dropped. I am not sure it will though.

I can see it being valuable over time to see resting HR drop, but I think you can just count your pulse and write it down every couple weeks or so right?

The HR tracking is continuous which seems like too much. I’m not sure I could turn it off and it seems like it might be a battery drain.

Regarding the calorie count, do you think a model based on HR might actually be less accurate than one without it? Especially if you’re a non-high-impact person?

kiela64

quemalosuerte wrote: »

I have the fitbit alta, which includes heartrate. It made sense for me, bc my heartrate is generally high (90s and 100s). While it is /questionable/ for instantaneous heartrate, especially during workout, it is good for overall and trends. As I have been working out over the past 3 months, I have noticed a downward trend in resting heartrate that tells me I am successfully building my heart muscle. Although, i do understand my increased stamina also tells the same info, but in a more anecdotal wY.

I do think that's nice to know. My HR is also high I think.

kiela64

emmamcgarity wrote: »

I have the Inspire HR and I love it. I wasn’t sure if I was interested in the heart rate data. But now that I have it I am intrigued at looking at heart rate information after exercise or even looking at the patterns of my resting heart rate data. I enjoy looking at how my “cardio fitness score” has improved over time. This data has encouraged me to keep exercising and look for new ways to improve my fitness.

Thank you! I am going to wait until December to buy one, and maybe I will start occasionally tracking my resting HR on my own to see if it's a metric I'm interested in continuing to know. I'm fairly sure it's high, but I honestly haven't truly tracked it since I was in high school gym class, where we had a worksheet of things to fill in. I kinda wish I still had those worksheets haha, it would be a nice starting point.

Gamliela

I'm most interested in my resting HR and as long as it stays around 60 to 65 bpm as it has for two years I know I'm ok.
If I were more athletic it might be of value though.

NorthCascades

kiela64 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

kiela64 wrote: »

Am I missing something about why people are interested in it? If you have HR, what do you use it for?

Off the top of my head I would split "people" into groups:

• Those with the very mistaken belief that HR is an accurate guide to calorie expenditure under all conditions and for all people (it really isn't).
• Those with high cardio exercise goals where knowing your HR can actually be useful for training purposes (the original and small market for HRMs)
• Those who just enjoy data or monitoring aspects of their heart health/CV fitness such as speed of recovery, resting HR improvements

I use it only during either outdoor cycling or indoor cycle training. It's useful to me as an indicator of exertion levels and my fitness level. It backs up perceived exertion as a guide to what is sustainable/unsustainable for me for certain durations either for entire rides or for certain sections of rides or training sessions.

Used to use a previous HRM to track my min HR but since that broke I just do that manually during periods of very intense training. (A rising min HR can be a sign of over-training.)

Thank you! I understand the first group, for high impact cardio, high impact interval training, and running. But if the majority of exercise is low impact like walking and swimming, I kind of doubt it’s going to be a valuable tool?

When I use a stationary bike the palm HR sensors on it often just tell me my HR is too high. I mostly ignore it and just work out. But it could be nice to have info if it dropped. I am not sure it will though.

I can see it being valuable over time to see resting HR drop, but I think you can just count your pulse and write it down every couple weeks or so right?

The HR tracking is continuous which seems like too much. I’m not sure I could turn it off and it seems like it might be a battery drain.

Regarding the calorie count, do you think a model based on HR might actually be less accurate than one without it? Especially if you’re a non-high-impact person?

Experience says yes. These things can be fooled by HR and give wrong calorie numbers. Sometimes goofy wrong.

Here's an example. Based on weight and distance, I probably burned about 3k calories, because of HR it's giving me almost double. My HR was elevated from becoming dehydrated over the course of the day and from looking down, not from working crazy hard.

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3866173895

BarbaraHelen2013

NorthCascades wrote: »

There's not much reason for most people to care about their heart rate. For some types of training it can be beneficial, and you can learn a bit from your HR response, but generally that's stuff to guide your training.

A lot of people have decided an HRM has special insight into what's going on in the rest of your body that isn't your heart, not because there's evidence but because it's a neat idea.Also, spending money is fun.

I've had trackers with and without HR. The ones without got my calories just as well, they still knew how much walking I did.

This is related to something I’ve noticed since getting a Fitbit as a gift a couple of years ago. My resting heart rate sits around 62 - 64 most of the time which for a woman of my age, (58) and fitness (plenty fit enough for life, but not an athlete) is acceptable.

What I’ve observed and it’s pretty near infallible is if it starts to rise closer to 70 over the course of a few days I know I might be coming down with a virus or bacterial infection. Sore throat, stomach bug those sorts of things. I’ll feel fine when it starts to climb but three or four days later I’m feeling less well. It will start to drop again quite quickly once I start to feel better. It’s just crept up to 65 in the last day or so...🙁 Early warning system!

sijomial

kiela64 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

kiela64 wrote: »

Am I missing something about why people are interested in it? If you have HR, what do you use it for?

Off the top of my head I would split "people" into groups:

• Those with the very mistaken belief that HR is an accurate guide to calorie expenditure under all conditions and for all people (it really isn't).
• Those with high cardio exercise goals where knowing your HR can actually be useful for training purposes (the original and small market for HRMs)
• Those who just enjoy data or monitoring aspects of their heart health/CV fitness such as speed of recovery, resting HR improvements

I use it only during either outdoor cycling or indoor cycle training. It's useful to me as an indicator of exertion levels and my fitness level. It backs up perceived exertion as a guide to what is sustainable/unsustainable for me for certain durations either for entire rides or for certain sections of rides or training sessions.

Used to use a previous HRM to track my min HR but since that broke I just do that manually during periods of very intense training. (A rising min HR can be a sign of over-training.)

Thank you! I understand the first group, for high impact cardio, high impact interval training, and running. But if the majority of exercise is low impact like walking and swimming, I kind of doubt it’s going to be a valuable tool?

When I use a stationary bike the palm HR sensors on it often just tell me my HR is too high. I mostly ignore it and just work out. But it could be nice to have info if it dropped. I am not sure it will though.

I can see it being valuable over time to see resting HR drop, but I think you can just count your pulse and write it down every couple weeks or so right?

The HR tracking is continuous which seems like too much. I’m not sure I could turn it off and it seems like it might be a battery drain.

Regarding the calorie count, do you think a model based on HR might actually be less accurate than one without it? Especially if you’re a non-high-impact person?

HRMs are actually pretty dreadful for interval training - especially for the less fit when extended periods recovering back to normal HR at low effort fool the device into thinking harder work is being done than the reality. For your walking and swimming I think it's pointless.

"HR too high" is unlikely - if it's too high you would feel exhausted and have to slow down. Humans are generally good at protecting themselves from harm. Perceived exertion is free and a fine guide for most. Also a number that is too high for one person can be just right for another. (My brother is a complete outlier in terms of HR, extraordinary low resting HR and maximum way above what any age related formula would indicate.)

Yes from what you have written there is every change a tracker with HR could be less accurate for calorie estimates compared to one without.

Tracking your resting HR over time is a nice feedback loop that your fitness is improving, a finger on your pulse is free!

NorthCascades

BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

There's not much reason for most people to care about their heart rate. For some types of training it can be beneficial, and you can learn a bit from your HR response, but generally that's stuff to guide your training.

A lot of people have decided an HRM has special insight into what's going on in the rest of your body that isn't your heart, not because there's evidence but because it's a neat idea.Also, spending money is fun.

I've had trackers with and without HR. The ones without got my calories just as well, they still knew how much walking I did.

This is related to something I’ve noticed since getting a Fitbit as a gift a couple of years ago. My resting heart rate sits around 62 - 64 most of the time which for a woman of my age, (58) and fitness (plenty fit enough for life, but not an athlete) is acceptable.

What I’ve observed and it’s pretty near infallible is if it starts to rise closer to 70 over the course of a few days I know I might be coming down with a virus or bacterial infection. Sore throat, stomach bug those sorts of things. I’ll feel fine when it starts to climb but three or four days later I’m feeling less well. It will start to drop again quite quickly once I start to feel better. It’s just crept up to 65 in the last day or so...🙁 Early warning system!

A lot of people have this experience. Sadly I've never been one of them, my RHR bounces around enough that it's hard to see any short term pattern.

kiela64

NorthCascades wrote: »

kiela64 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

kiela64 wrote: »

Am I missing something about why people are interested in it? If you have HR, what do you use it for?

Off the top of my head I would split "people" into groups:

• Those with the very mistaken belief that HR is an accurate guide to calorie expenditure under all conditions and for all people (it really isn't).
• Those with high cardio exercise goals where knowing your HR can actually be useful for training purposes (the original and small market for HRMs)
• Those who just enjoy data or monitoring aspects of their heart health/CV fitness such as speed of recovery, resting HR improvements

I use it only during either outdoor cycling or indoor cycle training. It's useful to me as an indicator of exertion levels and my fitness level. It backs up perceived exertion as a guide to what is sustainable/unsustainable for me for certain durations either for entire rides or for certain sections of rides or training sessions.

Used to use a previous HRM to track my min HR but since that broke I just do that manually during periods of very intense training. (A rising min HR can be a sign of over-training.)

Thank you! I understand the first group, for high impact cardio, high impact interval training, and running. But if the majority of exercise is low impact like walking and swimming, I kind of doubt it’s going to be a valuable tool?

When I use a stationary bike the palm HR sensors on it often just tell me my HR is too high. I mostly ignore it and just work out. But it could be nice to have info if it dropped. I am not sure it will though.

I can see it being valuable over time to see resting HR drop, but I think you can just count your pulse and write it down every couple weeks or so right?

The HR tracking is continuous which seems like too much. I’m not sure I could turn it off and it seems like it might be a battery drain.

Regarding the calorie count, do you think a model based on HR might actually be less accurate than one without it? Especially if you’re a non-high-impact person?

Experience says yes. These things can be fooled by HR and give wrong calorie numbers. Sometimes goofy wrong.

Here's an example. Based on weight and distance, I probably burned about 3k calories, because of HR it's giving me almost double. My HR was elevated from becoming dehydrated over the course of the day and from looking down, not from working crazy hard.

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/3866173895

This is a great insight, thank you! If/when I do get a tracker it will not have HR.

I was definitely picking up the hype but not the why, and I think it’s just hype.

aokoye

kiela64 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

kiela64 wrote: »

Am I missing something about why people are interested in it? If you have HR, what do you use it for?

Off the top of my head I would split "people" into groups:

• Those with the very mistaken belief that HR is an accurate guide to calorie expenditure under all conditions and for all people (it really isn't).
• Those with high cardio exercise goals where knowing your HR can actually be useful for training purposes (the original and small market for HRMs)
• Those who just enjoy data or monitoring aspects of their heart health/CV fitness such as speed of recovery, resting HR improvements

I use it only during either outdoor cycling or indoor cycle training. It's useful to me as an indicator of exertion levels and my fitness level. It backs up perceived exertion as a guide to what is sustainable/unsustainable for me for certain durations either for entire rides or for certain sections of rides or training sessions.

Used to use a previous HRM to track my min HR but since that broke I just do that manually during periods of very intense training. (A rising min HR can be a sign of over-training.)

Thank you! I understand the first group, for high impact cardio, high impact interval training, and running. But if the majority of exercise is low impact like walking and swimming, I kind of doubt it’s going to be a valuable tool?

When I use a stationary bike the palm HR sensors on it often just tell me my HR is too high. I mostly ignore it and just work out. But it could be nice to have info if it dropped. I am not sure it will though.

I can see it being valuable over time to see resting HR drop, but I think you can just count your pulse and write it down every couple weeks or so right?

The HR tracking is continuous which seems like too much. I’m not sure I could turn it off and it seems like it might be a battery drain.

Regarding the calorie count, do you think a model based on HR might actually be less accurate than one without it? Especially if you’re a non-high-impact person?

While I agree with more or less everything that NorthCascades and sijomial have said, I did want to touch on what I bolded. Don't mix up high impact and high intensity. High impact is about impact with the ground or presumably another surface. So running is a high impact but I would assume that diving is also high impact sport. High intensity is what it sounds like you're trying to talk about.

High intensity is about the essentially physical rigour that you're putting into the sport. If we use the example of biking, I can ride my bike at 6 mph as well as 17 mph. Riding my bike at 17mph would be considered high intensity exercise whereas riding at 6 mph on a flat surface would not be.

Whether or not using HR for swimming would be useful is really up to how you're using it. That said it appears that it isn't used very frequently given how few HR monitors that can be used underwater.