Heart Rate Monitors ... Worth the Money?

HalfwayGone

So, I've been looking at heart rate monitors the past couple of days, but I can't decide if I should buy one or not. I'm not sure if it will be beneficial or if I'm just trying to convince myself it will be because it's a gadget I don't have :P

I've been going to the gym fairly regularly the past few months, and working out the odd time at home. Now that I've started to try and lose weight properly, tracking calories on MFP and such...would a heart rate monitor be beneficial to my weight loss mission?

3dogsrunning

A good starting point

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

brianpperkins

What data and fitness information are you wanting to track? After answering that question, compare the capabilities of a HRM to your data requirement and go from there.

Sarahsteve7kids

I had one and enjoyed seeing where I was really at and not what I thought I was at! I don't use it much anymore but it was great for getting a realistic idea of what I was doing!

PinkyFett

I believe so. I love mine. It's nice to have a good estimate on calories burned, not just what mfp says.

FatFreeFrolicking

They are absolutely worth the money. I have a Polar FT4 and it's the best $100 I've ever spent.

Exercise machines and MFP over-estimate calories burned by a lot. For example, I rode my stationary bike for 34 minutes the other day. My bike gave me a calorie burn of 313, MFP gave me a calorie burn of 356 and my HRM gave me a burn of 197 calories.

Heart rate monitors are most accurate for determining how many calories you burned through exercise.

3dogsrunning

They are absolutely worth the money. I have a Polar FT4 and it's the best $100 I've ever spent.

Exercise machines and MFP over-estimate calories burned by a lot. For example, I rode my stationary bike for 34 minutes the other day. My bike gave me a calorie burn of 313, MFP gave me a calorie burn of 356 and my HRM gave me a burn of 197 calories.

Heart rate monitors are most accurate for determining how many calories you burned through exercise.

You are assuming that the HRM value is the closest one to the actual calories burned. It may or may not.

brianpperkins

If you're looking to track and compare heart rate vs perceived exertion or pace on constant courses over time .... heart rate recovery time after exertion ... etc then even a relatively inexpensive HRM can provide that data.

If you're looking for better caloric burn estimates then the choice becomes a lot more hit or miss. The relationship between heart rate and calories burned is based more on VO2 max/exertion level/ calories burned formulas than the actual heart rate itself. A cheap HRM with few data inputs and a generic formula is not necessarily more accurate when estimating calories burned than a treadmill or exercise bike. If you know your VO2 max, have a calculated max heart rate (not the generic 220-age), and can input that data to the HRM's software (either in the device itself or online) for calculation then you might get a more accurate estimate.

h7463

Hi there! This is my experience with HR monitors: I first tried to learn what different HRM can actually do, and then I made the appropriate choice.
I am not trying to lose weight, and when I actually track for a while, I usually use the HRM numbers, because the MFP estimates are way too high, even compared to other food tracking apps.
IMO, HMR are great, if you want to monitor the intensity of your workouts ( training in different HR zones), track distance (Polar H7 can use GPS of an iPhone), time set/rest periods or HIIT intervals....the list goes on and on.... (Most HRMs do NOT HAVE A STOP WATCH FUNCTION! If that's an option you need, read the fine print!)
Even though some people might debate the accuracy of calories calculated for various activities, the very least you can get out of the results, is charting your progress. You will definitely be able to notice improvement (hopefully!!!) over time, when you evaluate similar workouts, just by comparing e.g. how your heart rate might be lower, while your endurance improves, or that the (relative) number of calories for the same workout will be lower, because the training is getting too easy for you, and it will signal you to take it up a few notches, if you want continuing progress.
I use a Polar FT7 and H7, and I'm very happy with both.

Wonderob

They are absolutely worth the money. I have a Polar FT4 and it's the best $100 I've ever spent.

Exercise machines and MFP over-estimate calories burned by a lot. For example, I rode my stationary bike for 34 minutes the other day. My bike gave me a calorie burn of 313, MFP gave me a calorie burn of 356 and my HRM gave me a burn of 197 calories.

Heart rate monitors are most accurate for determining how many calories you burned through exercise.

You are assuming that the HRM value is the closest one to the actual calories burned. It may or may not.

I can only speak for myself but after months of exact logging using a HRM and a speadsheet, my weight loss/maintenance is an exact science. If my calorie counting and HRM say I will lose 1lb in a week, then that's what I have lost.

I have factored in some things too, for example if my HRM says I have burnt 500 calories in an hour then my spreadsheet will deduct 72 (60 minutes *1.2) calories as this is what my body would have burnt in an hour without doing the exercise.

I haven't used the MFP calculations for exercise so I don't know how accurate they are; however I can't see that they would be as accurate as a HRM

RaggedyPond

Not worth it. It over estimated my burned calories and I couldn't lose weight with it.

3dogsrunning

They are absolutely worth the money. I have a Polar FT4 and it's the best $100 I've ever spent.

Exercise machines and MFP over-estimate calories burned by a lot. For example, I rode my stationary bike for 34 minutes the other day. My bike gave me a calorie burn of 313, MFP gave me a calorie burn of 356 and my HRM gave me a burn of 197 calories.

Heart rate monitors are most accurate for determining how many calories you burned through exercise.

You are assuming that the HRM value is the closest one to the actual calories burned. It may or may not.

I can only speak for myself but after months of exact logging using a HRM and a speadsheet, my weight loss/maintenance is an exact science. If my calorie counting and HRM say I will lose 1lb in a week, then that's what I have lost.

I have factored in some things too, for example if my HRM says I have burnt 500 calories in an hour then my spreadsheet will deduct 72 (60 minutes *1.2) calories as this is what my body would have burnt in an hour without doing the exercise.

I haven't used the MFP calculations for exercise so I don't know how accurate they are; however I can't see that they would be as accurate as a HRM

But there are any number of variables that affect a HRM as well. Being accurate for you doesn't mean it will be accurate in every case. Fitness levels will affect accuracy, what type of exercise it is used for, what HRM make and model it is, etc etc.

People have found the same thing using MFP numbers.

Wonderob

They are absolutely worth the money. I have a Polar FT4 and it's the best $100 I've ever spent.

Exercise machines and MFP over-estimate calories burned by a lot. For example, I rode my stationary bike for 34 minutes the other day. My bike gave me a calorie burn of 313, MFP gave me a calorie burn of 356 and my HRM gave me a burn of 197 calories.

Heart rate monitors are most accurate for determining how many calories you burned through exercise.

You are assuming that the HRM value is the closest one to the actual calories burned. It may or may not.

I can only speak for myself but after months of exact logging using a HRM and a speadsheet, my weight loss/maintenance is an exact science. If my calorie counting and HRM say I will lose 1lb in a week, then that's what I have lost.

I have factored in some things too, for example if my HRM says I have burnt 500 calories in an hour then my spreadsheet will deduct 72 (60 minutes *1.2) calories as this is what my body would have burnt in an hour without doing the exercise.

I haven't used the MFP calculations for exercise so I don't know how accurate they are; however I can't see that they would be as accurate as a HRM

But there are any number of variables that affect a HRM as well. Being accurate for you doesn't mean it will be accurate in every case. Fitness levels will affect accuracy, what type of exercise it is used for, what HRM make and model it is, etc etc.

People have found the same thing using MFP numbers.

Yep I agree - which is why I started with "I can only speak for myself"

I'm merely suggesting that a HRM takes more factors into account than MFP numbers so is more likely to be accurate for an individual. A HRM takes uses every factor that MFP numbers use, and in addition uses your heart rate; so has more chance of being accurate

3dogsrunning

They are absolutely worth the money. I have a Polar FT4 and it's the best $100 I've ever spent.

Exercise machines and MFP over-estimate calories burned by a lot. For example, I rode my stationary bike for 34 minutes the other day. My bike gave me a calorie burn of 313, MFP gave me a calorie burn of 356 and my HRM gave me a burn of 197 calories.

Heart rate monitors are most accurate for determining how many calories you burned through exercise.

You are assuming that the HRM value is the closest one to the actual calories burned. It may or may not.

I can only speak for myself but after months of exact logging using a HRM and a speadsheet, my weight loss/maintenance is an exact science. If my calorie counting and HRM say I will lose 1lb in a week, then that's what I have lost.

I have factored in some things too, for example if my HRM says I have burnt 500 calories in an hour then my spreadsheet will deduct 72 (60 minutes *1.2) calories as this is what my body would have burnt in an hour without doing the exercise.

I haven't used the MFP calculations for exercise so I don't know how accurate they are; however I can't see that they would be as accurate as a HRM

But there are any number of variables that affect a HRM as well. Being accurate for you doesn't mean it will be accurate in every case. Fitness levels will affect accuracy, what type of exercise it is used for, what HRM make and model it is, etc etc.

People have found the same thing using MFP numbers.

Yep I agree - which is why I started with "I can only speak for myself"

I'm merely suggesting that a HRM takes more factors into account than MFP numbers so is more likely to be accurate for an individual. A HRM takes uses every factor that MFP numbers use, and in addition uses your heart rate; so has more chance of being accurate

If you read the link I posted it explains why that isn't always true.

Wonderob

They are absolutely worth the money. I have a Polar FT4 and it's the best $100 I've ever spent.

Exercise machines and MFP over-estimate calories burned by a lot. For example, I rode my stationary bike for 34 minutes the other day. My bike gave me a calorie burn of 313, MFP gave me a calorie burn of 356 and my HRM gave me a burn of 197 calories.

Heart rate monitors are most accurate for determining how many calories you burned through exercise.

You are assuming that the HRM value is the closest one to the actual calories burned. It may or may not.

I can only speak for myself but after months of exact logging using a HRM and a speadsheet, my weight loss/maintenance is an exact science. If my calorie counting and HRM say I will lose 1lb in a week, then that's what I have lost.

I have factored in some things too, for example if my HRM says I have burnt 500 calories in an hour then my spreadsheet will deduct 72 (60 minutes *1.2) calories as this is what my body would have burnt in an hour without doing the exercise.

I haven't used the MFP calculations for exercise so I don't know how accurate they are; however I can't see that they would be as accurate as a HRM

But there are any number of variables that affect a HRM as well. Being accurate for you doesn't mean it will be accurate in every case. Fitness levels will affect accuracy, what type of exercise it is used for, what HRM make and model it is, etc etc.

People have found the same thing using MFP numbers.

Yep I agree - which is why I started with "I can only speak for myself"

I'm merely suggesting that a HRM takes more factors into account than MFP numbers so is more likely to be accurate for an individual. A HRM takes uses every factor that MFP numbers use, and in addition uses your heart rate; so has more chance of being accurate

If you read the link I posted it explains why that isn't always true.

I've already conceded that it isn't always true - but there's still a greater chance of it being accurate then MFP numbers. Not necessarily, not definitely, but more chance that a HRM is more accurate

Even MFP themselves have conceded that you are more likely to get an accurate calorie burn figure from your HRM than from their own figures. Here's what they say:

"These calculations, while reasonably accurate, are not as accurate as the feedback from a cardio machine in the gym, or an activity tracker, that can calculate your calories burned based on data collected moment to moment. For this reason, our system allows users to input their own values for calories burned, in case they have a more accurate figure from such a source"

Ready2Rock206

I never use mine. I use the TDEE method and don't waste time tracking what are probably inaccurate calorie burns anyway. Plus they only track cardio and I don't spend all my time on the treadmill - I'd much rather do strength training! Makes my life much easier to just not bother with tracking those calories!

HalfwayGone

Thanks for the replies

A good lot of the cardio I do isn't on gym equipment, it'd be more exercise classes or workout DVDs.