I need HRM advice

essa78

Last month I went from a kitchen job, a very physically demanding job with access to all the food I wanted, to a desk job where I'm required to sit. All. Day. Long. Sit. Sit. Sit. I take my lunch and I ride my bike there and back (3 miles, each way) and I get a good ride in on the weekend (at least 11 miles)

I have my activity level set at sedentary and I use the Map My Ride to gauge my calories burned but only on the way in, since I know that the apps have a tendency to overestimate calories burned.

I would like a Heart Rate Monitor to accurately gauge what all my hard work is doing, but what should I look for when I'm shopping around? What are your favorites?

Mr_Knight

HRM won't do what you want it to do.

AngstyMcJoe

I enjoy my Polar H7 bluetooth HRM paired with the Polar Beat app for android phone. The HRM will record your heart rate and calories burned, and the app will track your trip using GPS. You can also use the app to do heart rate training. http://www.polar.com/us-en/products/accessories/H7_heart_rate_sensor

wildskies

HRM won't do what you want it to do.

Why? The way I'm reading that is the OP wants an HRM to give a more accurate estimate of calories burned during their rides. That's a steady state cardio workout so an HRM should work fine for that unless I've totally misunderstood the point of HRM's.

OP: I don't have much experience with HRM's but I got a Polar FT4 yesterday and used it for the first time today when I went hiking. I wasn't sure about it at first but after using it today I'm pretty pleased with it. It may not be completely accurate, especially for hiking since we were going at a very slow pace, but it estimated my calories burned at 1640 compared to MFP's 3600 estimate and Endomondo's 5250 estimate. The 1640 seems much more realistic to me. I'll also be trying it out cycling tomorrow.

Orfygirl

I have a polar ft 4 and I LOVE it!

DeterminedBex

I use a polar ft4, about to upgrade tho as that model doesn't track distance.
Wouldn't work out with out it tho- there great

Kevalicious99

Had a Polar FT4 ... gave it away to my sister. The calorie burn was just so freaking far out .. like it measured 1998 calories burned for about a 3 hour walk. Yes ... walking. Pretty steady state stuff .. but it sucked.

So .. for those people that love their HRM's you are probably loving it cause you are misinformed how bad they really are when it comes to accurate calorie burns.

Sure the FT4 worked very very well and did as advertised .. but if it is not accurate, then it is of little use for me.

Time to leave the HRM to do what it does best ... and the only thing that it really can do accurately .. measure your heart rate. Anything else is a crap shoot.

Sorry Polar FT4 lovers .. but you are being duped.

essa78

HRM won't do what you want it to do.

Why? The way I'm reading that is the OP wants an HRM to give a more accurate estimate of calories burned during their rides. That's a steady state cardio workout so an HRM should work fine for that unless I've totally misunderstood the point of HRM's.

OP: I don't have much experience with HRM's but I got a Polar FT4 yesterday and used it for the first time today when I went hiking. I wasn't sure about it at first but after using it today I'm pretty pleased with it. It may not be completely accurate, especially for hiking since we were going at a very slow pace, but it estimated my calories burned at 1640 compared to MFP's 3600 estimate and Endomondo's 5250 estimate. The 1640 seems much more realistic to me. I'll also be trying it out cycling tomorrow.

Thanks wildskies and everyone else for the info! I read on a looooong and drawn out bike forum about cals burned per hour is on average about 30-40 cals per mile at a 12-15mph pace. They are NOT factoring in wind resistance, or hills and curves. If you think about it, let me know how the Polar FT4 works for you on your ride tomorrow, I'd love to crunch the numbers...

flatlndr

Had a Polar FT4 ... gave it away to my sister. The calorie burn was just so freaking far out .. like it measured 1998 calories burned for about a 3 hour walk. Yes ... walking. Pretty steady state stuff .. but it sucked.

So .. for those people that love their HRM's you are probably loving it cause you are misinformed how bad they really are when it comes to accurate calorie burns.

Sure the FT4 worked very very well and did as advertised .. but if it is not accurate, then it is of little use for me.

Time to leave the HRM to do what it does best ... and the only thing that it really can do accurately .. measure your heart rate. Anything else is a crap shoot.

Sorry Polar FT4 lovers .. but you are being duped.

I do a lot of walking, and multiple tools have me burning about 110 cals/mile at a 3.5-3.7 mph pace, so unless you are walking much more quickly, 1998 cals for 3 hours seems like a lot. 1200 seems more reasonable. Perhaps your HRM was defective, because mine gives expected data.

Kevalicious99

Had a Polar FT4 ... gave it away to my sister. The calorie burn was just so freaking far out .. like it measured 1998 calories burned for about a 3 hour walk. Yes ... walking. Pretty steady state stuff .. but it sucked.

So .. for those people that love their HRM's you are probably loving it cause you are misinformed how bad they really are when it comes to accurate calorie burns.

Sure the FT4 worked very very well and did as advertised .. but if it is not accurate, then it is of little use for me.

Time to leave the HRM to do what it does best ... and the only thing that it really can do accurately .. measure your heart rate. Anything else is a crap shoot.

Sorry Polar FT4 lovers .. but you are being duped.

I do a lot of walking, and multiple tools have me burning about 110 cals/mile at a 3.5-3.7 mph pace, so unless you are walking much more quickly, 1998 cals for 3 hours seems like a lot. 1200 seems more reasonable. Perhaps your HRM was defective, because mine gives expected data.

I typically walk up to 5 mph (average about 4.6 mph) and my FT4 was not defective as generally it was not too bad .. but people just need to know that these devices are not 100% accurate like some seem to think they are.

MeanderingMammal

HRM won't do what you want it to do.

Why?

I'd agree that it's no more accurate than using MapMyFitness or the approximations on MFP

unless I've totally misunderstood the point of HRM's.

An HRM measures heart rate, to support training. They approximate calorie expenditure using HR as a proxy. That proxy isn't all that meaningful in many circumstances, which makes it as inaccurate as any other tool.

MeanderingMammal

I have my activity level set at sedentary and I use the Map My Ride to gauge my calories burned but only on the way in, since I know that the apps have a tendency to overestimate calories burned.

I have a Polar FT60, but use Endomondo, Strava and Runkeeper for GPS tracking. I've found the HRM slightly lower than Endomondo but generally higher than Runkeeper and Strava.

Personally I'd suggest not bothering, given your concerns about elevation, wind resistance and the like an HRM isn't going to capture those any more than the GPS tracking will.

I use the HRM to track my HR when I'm training though, in that sense I'd recommend it if you're looking for performance improvement.

johnwhitent

HRM won't do what you want it to do.

Why?

I'd agree that it's no more accurate than using MapMyFitness or the approximations on MFP

unless I've totally misunderstood the point of HRM's.

An HRM measures heart rate, to support training. They approximate calorie expenditure using HR as a proxy. That proxy isn't all that meaningful in many circumstances, which makes it as inaccurate as any other tool.

True. There are many post here at MFP about hrm's and calorie burn deficiencies. I wish I had links to post but they can be found by searching. HRM's don't measure calories burned, but approximate them based on heart rate, which is only close in very limited situations, so they simply are not as accurate as many people think. But, I do use one for other fitness purposes, which is what they are actually designed for. The calorie burn is just a gimmicky feature to help sales. I do recommend a gps/hrm, such as the Garmins and some top end Polar's and others, if you are doing your activities outdoors. I depend on my Timex RunTrainer for running and cycling training data, but I ignore the calorie feature. Because of the lack of a good way to derive accurate calorie burns I use the TDEE method, so precise calorie burns are irrelevant to me, other than making sure I don't go below BMR with net calories.

brianpperkins

HRM won't do what you want it to do.

Why? The way I'm reading that is the OP wants an HRM to give a more accurate estimate of calories burned during their rides. That's a steady state cardio workout so an HRM should work fine for that unless I've totally misunderstood the point of HRM's.

OP: I don't have much experience with HRM's but I got a Polar FT4 yesterday and used it for the first time today when I went hiking. I wasn't sure about it at first but after using it today I'm pretty pleased with it. It may not be completely accurate, especially for hiking since we were going at a very slow pace, but it estimated my calories burned at 1640 compared to MFP's 3600 estimate and Endomondo's 5250 estimate. The 1640 seems much more realistic to me. I'll also be trying it out cycling tomorrow.

Thanks wildskies and everyone else for the info! I read on a looooong and drawn out bike forum about cals burned per hour is on average about 30-40 cals per mile at a 12-15mph pace. They are NOT factoring in wind resistance, or hills and curves. If you think about it, let me know how the Polar FT4 works for you on your ride tomorrow, I'd love to crunch the numbers...

If you're looking to factor in hills, air resistance, etc then a HRM alone is not going to meet your needs. To factor in that type of data requires a cycling computer connected to a HRM, cadence sensor, and power meter. At the inexpensive end that's a iBike Newton with prices scaling up through the more direct power reading options.

wildskies

Thanks wildskies and everyone else for the info! I read on a looooong and drawn out bike forum about cals burned per hour is on average about 30-40 cals per mile at a 12-15mph pace. They are NOT factoring in wind resistance, or hills and curves. If you think about it, let me know how the Polar FT4 works for you on your ride tomorrow, I'd love to crunch the numbers...

I rode 5.21 miles this morning at an average speed of 13 mph. My HRM said I burned 177 calories, an average of 33.97 per mile. No wind, hills, etc. Just a few resistance changes since I was riding stationary but overall it was a pretty steady ride. My heart rate stayed between 125-133 for most of the ride. So it estimated right in where the forum you read (and sites I've read) have said. In comparison, MFP said that same ride was 266 calories and Endomondo said it was 471 calories.

I don't expect 100% accuracy from anything and I put off getting an HRM for several months. But I do like knowing an approximate calorie burn from my workouts and seeing the huge estimates from MFP and other apps was driving me nuts because I KNEW I wasn't burning that much.

So for me personally, the FT4 is ideal. I still use it in conjunction with apps like Endomondo, etc. And I don't rely on it completely but it gives me more data to watch and that makes me stress less.

Hornsby

Meh, I use a Polar FT4 to track my heart rate during bike rides. The calorie burns seem to be pretty close to accurate for me.

gobonas99

A polar HRM (I have an FT60) is a great tool. If it is set up correctly, it is more accurate than an app that doesn't have access to your HR, but still just an approximation of calories burned (I typically only eat back half of the cals burned per my HRM).

I only use my Polar HRM now for non-GPS-able activities (like lap swimming, yoga, workout videos, treadmill). Otherwise, I use my Garmin 310XT with HR strap for ALL of my outdoor biking and running. The calorie burn estimated is in line with what my Polar gave me, but it also gives me my route (including distance and elevation changes) and with the added sensor on my bike, cadence.

If biking is the primary thing that you want to track, a Garmin is the way to go. The 310XT is designed for triathlon....but I know there are models specific to biking only....the big thing is to ensure it either comes with a cadence sensor, or has a compatible one that you can add later.

HTH! :happy: