Best, most reliable HRM

2»

Replies

  • AreUjoking2
    AreUjoking2 Posts: 142
    I recently purchased a Timex Ironman, and I love it. I have never own a Polar, so I can't compare to that. But I previously had a different one (cheap one) and it was crap too. So compared to that, I hit the jackpot!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I've only had experience with the Garmin HRMs. Similar experience to the OPs, Sometimes they were fine, other times I could have up to 50% error rate. What I found is that some of the dropouts/spikes can be a result of static on your shirt, especially non-cotton technical/running shirts. I found that even running the shirt through a dryer for a few minutes with no heat but with a fabric softener would help. Also, getting some conductive HRM gel helped as well. Either one would help cut down the error percentage during any run, but doing both would typically get me down to under 5% error.

    Just a thought. Good luck.

    Spray can of Static Guard works great too. Have to use for most bike rides with strong wind flapping poly shirt, spray inside before zip up.
    Also during winter gym use on treadmills, so dry, and fan blowing.
  • Tigredia
    Tigredia Posts: 107 Member
    To read later
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Interesting thread... I've recently ordered a Polar FT4, which should be delivered soon. I know that HRMs are most accurate for steady-state cardio, which is fine by me (I jog a lot), and pretty useless for pure resistance/weight stuff. I'm guessing that for mixed circuit training (e.g. Jillian Michaels DVDs) I should view them as "better than the MFP estimates but not entirely correct."

    I also know that they log gross calories (i.e. including the calories that would be burnt even if I were just watching TV) -- but, on the other hand, there's a mild afterburn effect from a good workout. Does anyone have a feel for whether these are close enough just to ignore the net/gross difference?

    There are studies looking at the 24-36 hr burn post lifting or HIIT workout, and I'm sure they say how much they burned during the workout.

    But I don't recall them ever saying "the HRM mistakenly said ...." to compare.

    As for the net burn - since in a diet, you don't actually want to remove the resting calories, you want to remove the calories already account for that you were expected to burn.

    Which is - your MFP maintenance under My Home - Goals tab.
    Divide that by 24, and that's what you are expected to burn every hour that your diet is based on.

    So now HRM calories minus that amount (83-110) is what you burned above and beyond what you were planning on.
  • alpine1994
    alpine1994 Posts: 1,915 Member
    I have a Polar FT4 and it's always been good to me! I got it almost 2 yrs ago for $60 online. I just bought a Garmin Forerunner 110. It's a GPS watch with a HRM (strap). I only used it once so far but it worked great, no problems with that either. That one is about $150 (since it also has GPS).
  • SteveMoto
    SteveMoto Posts: 41 Member
    Love my Garmin 310XT and all it's configuration options. The GF had a Polar FT60 but I thought the display was a bit on the small side. She also had issues getting her pulse with the Polar and switched to my Garmin. Know what we found out? It's not the watch it's her, or something about how she sweats or doesn't. After doing some research I landed on Buh Bump (http://www.amazon.com/Buh-Bump-2-5-Ounce-Heart-Monitor-Electrode/dp/B000HZD2NU) to increase electrode sensitivity and it picked up her pulse right off the bat.
  • aemac70
    aemac70 Posts: 3
    Polar seems the most popular - I have an FT7 which is used 5 days out of 7 and I've had no issues with it since purchase (March 2013)..I like the daily and weekly summaries and the training zone feature.

    This is my 2nd Polar - my first was really basic! - and I'll probably buy another.
  • tashalloyd330
    tashalloyd330 Posts: 28 Member
    I use Polar and found it priced $20 cheaper on Amazon than in stores. I like it a lot, but my last was a Schosche (which majorly sucked and never worked), so it didn't take much for the Polar to make me happy.
  • har465
    har465 Posts: 8 Member
    I have a Suunto M2 - always been reliable for me!
  • Kargicq
    Kargicq Posts: 72 Member
    As for the net burn - since in a diet, you don't actually want to remove the resting calories, you want to remove the calories already account for that you were expected to burn.

    Which is - your MFP maintenance under My Home - Goals tab.
    Divide that by 24, and that's what you are expected to burn every hour that your diet is based on.

    So now HRM calories minus that amount (83-110) is what you burned above and beyond what you were planning on.

    That makes a lot of sense... got it! Will adjust my HRM figures accordingly. Thanks!
  • Timelordlady85
    Timelordlady85 Posts: 797 Member
    I love my Polar FT7, not that expensive on amazon either!!

    Ditto, love my polar FT7
  • AllonsYtotheTardis
    AllonsYtotheTardis Posts: 16,947 Member
    soaking it won't hurt it a bit. You can actually put the strap in the washing machine.

    Some HR straps don't have a removable sensor, so you would be putting the entire sensor and battery in the washing machine too. I don't think it's recommended that you wash those type of straps.

    Good point. I've only ever had the ones with the removable sensor, so I didn't know that some were not.
  • AllonsYtotheTardis
    AllonsYtotheTardis Posts: 16,947 Member

    I also know that they log gross calories (i.e. including the calories that would be burnt even if I were just watching TV) -- but, on the other hand, there's a mild afterburn effect from a good workout. Does anyone have a feel for whether these are close enough just to ignore the net/gross difference?

    I ignored it, as the difference wasn't that big for me. Might be a more significant number for someone who starts out at a higher weight than I did.
  • Kargicq
    Kargicq Posts: 72 Member

    I also know that they log gross calories (i.e. including the calories that would be burnt even if I were just watching TV) -- but, on the other hand, there's a mild afterburn effect from a good workout. Does anyone have a feel for whether these are close enough just to ignore the net/gross difference?

    I ignored it, as the difference wasn't that big for me. Might be a more significant number for someone who starts out at a higher weight than I did.

    Yes, I can see that -- I'm still pretty overweight, and I do quite a lot of cardio, so the numbers all add up over a week! :smile:
  • FitMe758
    FitMe758 Posts: 177 Member
    I have a Polar FT4 too and I like it. I don't need a Forerunner because I don't need the GPS nor plan to run significant distances.
  • princessnuriko
    princessnuriko Posts: 50 Member
    Ditto, Ditto, Ditto on the Polar FT4. I bought my on Amazon.com around last Christmas for like $48 when they were on sale for Christmas. Basic, easy to use, and Reliable.
  • gerla_k
    gerla_k Posts: 495 Member
    Polar FT4 here . Love it!
  • Deena_Bean
    Deena_Bean Posts: 906 Member
    I did it! I ordered myself a pretty pink Polar FT4 and it shipped today. I'll have it early next week and as silly as it sounds I am SO excited about it LOL. It's like a present coming that I've been contemplating for a few months (tried a few others and they were awful). Can't wait, can't wait!! :love:
  • tabbyblack13
    tabbyblack13 Posts: 299 Member
    I need to start looking into a new HRM since mine decided that my heart rate was over 200 when I wasn't wearing the strap.

Categories