Heart Rate Monitors and Chest Straps??

tlp8rb

I also have a Polar FT4. I liked the looks of it better than the more expensive FT7 and entering my workout manually isn't that big a deal. I use a cotton ball to wet the sensor on the strap and it stays wet (body moisture) until I take it off. The transmitter is less bulky than the Sportline model I used to have and is more comfortable to wear. I like that it keeps track of my last 10 workouts. Means I don't have to rush to enter the data.

I also like that the transmitter sends my heart rate information right to the PreCor machines at my gym. I usually double check the computer's data against the machine and they've been pretty dead on.

The thing I like the best is the range monitor. I can see exactly where on the scale I am at any point in my routine. Very Cool. Cost about $70, shipping free at Amazon.

rileysowner

I have a Sportline with a chest strap, and it has worked for almost a year. However, after reading this, 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 I am thinking of changing to something else as my Sportline, and the really cheap Polars for that matter, don't allow for the settings needed to properly calculate calories based on my heart-rate. Basically, in the Polar HRTs you need an F6 or above, and you have to have a chest strap to calculate calories from heart rate.

Eidajan

I just noticed HRM reviews on the Feb issue of Consumer Reports. The Timex Personal Trainer and Timex Zone Trainer are rated the best -(both come with chest straps) followed by New Balance N5 and Sportline Duo 1010. All of these are cheaper than the Polar FT7 which ranks lower. Does anyone have any experience with these?

rileysowner

The question I have is what were they rating them on? The link I posted above is a good reminder that the accuracy of the calorie calculations is very dependent on the information the HRM will allow you to input. In fact, if it does not allow you to input certain information, the calories calculated a not going to accurate at all (or calculate those things with something like a built in fitness test) If they were looking at other things without considering that, then their ratings may not be very useful for those who primarily want to know the calories they burn. I have not read the article, so I don't know.

Eidajan

They claim that the ratings are based on accuracy ( they compared the heart rate on the HRM to an ECG) and ease of use ( features, clarity of instructions and convenience as judged by the panelists who used the devices). They do state that they did not test the calorie counter feature. They tested 13 models ( 8 with chest straps, 3 wrist models, 1 to be used either way (Polar FT1) and a model worn on the finger). The Bowflex Fit Trainer was their top in the wrist models. I think their focus was on the accuracy of the heart rate.
So.....not sure. I do own a Schwinn wrist model which is very accurate on the heart rate but not so much on the calories - despite the input about gender and age. I am looking to buy one with a chest strap but really want one that is accurate on the calories. Any thoughts?

rileysowner

Pretty much all of them will be accurate as far as heart rate goes, but the calories they count depend on a mathamatical equation that requires knowing not only your age and weight, but things like your V02 Max. The Polars FT6 and above let you input that or have a "fit test" to calibrate it. There is another way to do it as well that the really high end Polars and the newer Garmins use as well. Maybe the more expensive models from the other makers have this as well, I don't know. I know my Wal-mart cheapy Sportline doesn't, so even if it is accurate on measuring my heart-rate, I am not sure how true the calorie counts are.

People like a calorie count, so having the number there sells HRM, but the number might not in any way be a reflection of reality. I use mine because the number is almost always the lower of the HRM or MFP's estimate based on time. I would like something better, and will get one someday.

Having said that, if you happen to fit with the profile they use for calibrating the HRM's calorie count, then it would be accurate for you, and it is better than nothing.

I am just starting to research this, but read the article I linked, he knows more than me. I can say it will cost more than $50 for one.

Eidajan

I agree with everything you said. I don't think the calorie count on mine is accurate by any means for me. I did read the link you posted - very informative. I have been reading reviews on HRMs for weeks and would like to buy one with a strap. It looks like most people seem to like the Polar FT7, at least on this site! Might end up going with that - about $100 depending on where you buy it. Really do not want to get the ones that run in the $300-400 range.

bluespring

Polar FT60 for me.
Love it.
It has training sessions...which helps me track how I'm doing...and how close to goal I am.
Awesome.
The chest strap is comfortable....hardly even notice it when it's on.
Blue

crystal_sapphire

i got a sportline one and i find it accurate. i manually palpated my resting pulse to test if it counted properly and it did.