If You Are Going To Buy a HRM - THEN READ THIS PLEASE!!!!
kapeluza
Posts: 3,434 Member
Repeating just in case people missed it in the other forum:
Hope this helps! Very important when buying a HRM!!
"The Real Facts about HRMs and Calories -- What you need to know before purchasing an HRM (or using one)
Posted on 03/24/2010 by Azdak
Every week, there are at least a dozen questions about heart rate monitors--which model to buy, what the numbers mean, how the calories compare to readings from machines, etc. I have answered these questions numerous times, but wanted to go into more detail for those who are interested.
HRMs can be great training tools. I have used various types of heart rate monitoring for my training for over 20 years. I currently have a Polar F11, although I don't use most of the features. About 10-15 years ago, Polar introduced their "OwnCal" feature--using heart rate to estimate calories burned during exercise.
This has proven to be extremely popular and has really driven the sale of HRMs. Now virtually every manufacturer includes some type of calorie-counting feature with their HRMs. Effective marketing has created the following beliefs about HRMs and calories:
1.HRMs directly "measure" caloric expenditure.
2. HRMs are the most accurate way to measure calorie expenditure during exercise.
3. All HRMs have the same level of accuracy when counting calories. .
4. HRMs can be used to accurately count calories expended during strength training and during rest and 24-hour activity periods.
5. HRMs are always more accurate than the readout from exercise machines.
6. If your heart rate response becomes lower when doing a certain activity, it means you are burning fewer calories.
None of these are true. HRMs only indirectly estimate calories expended during certain types of exercise. Unless they are set up properly and the profile information updated regularly, they can have significant inaccuracies. And not all HRMs are the same.
Let's look at all of these:
HRM Theory
First of all--how do HRMs count calories? First thing is that HRMs do NOT measure caloric expenditure--neither directly nor indirectly. HRMs measure heart rate and that's it. They estimate caloric expenditure during steady-state cardiovascular exercise using the relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake (or VO2).
The most commonly accepted method for measuring the calories burned for a particular activity is to measure oxygen uptake (VO2).
During *steady-state*, aerobic exercise, oxygen is utilized at a relatively consistent rate depending on the intensity of the exercise. There is an observable and reproducible relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake.When workload intensity increases, heart rate increases and vice versa.
If we have some individual data--resting heart rate, maximum heart rate, VO2 max, weight--it is possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of caloric expenditure based on the percentage of HRmax or percentage of HRreserve at which someone is working.
For example, we know that 70% of HRmax is equivalent to approx 57% of VO2max. If we know that person's VO2 max is 12 METs and they are working at 70% of HRmax, we can estimate that they are working at (57% x 12 METS) or 6.8 METs. If that person weighs 80 kg, we can estimate that they are burning ~545 Cals/hour (MET value x Body wt in kg).
The major HRM manufacturers (Polar and Suunto) use much more sophisticated sensing technology and algorithms, but they are still based on the same basic principle--the association of HR to oxygen uptake.
So, it must be emphasized again: HRMs calorie counts are only accurate when there is a consistent and measurable relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake. That means exercises and exercise movements that are aerobic in nature and that are performed at intensities between 40% of VO2 max and the lactate threshold
There are a number of conditions under which heart rate can increase, but without an increase in oxygen uptake:
-Stress, Illness
-Dehydration
-Environment (high heat and humidity)
-Heavy strength training (HR increases because of increased pressure)
-Changes in posture
-Cardiovascular drift during extended aerobic exercise
In other conditions--arm work, overhead work, "anaerobic" or sprint exercise--an HR increase will reflect in increase in VO2, but it is not a consistently measurable and reproducible relationship, therefore the HRM calorie count is not as accurate.
Note: Certain higher-end HRMs--the Polar RS800 and Suunto T6c use a very sophisticated method of analyzing the R-R interval of heart beat signals. When using this method, it is claimed that they can more accurately estimate caloric expenditure at rest, during anaerobic exercise and even during post-exercise oxygen consumption. Since these models are in the $350-$400 range, I am not including them in this review--if you are interested in more detail, check out www.firstbeattechnologies.com and www.suunto.com
HRM Setup
Even if you have purchased a quality HRM, the readings will only be as good as your setup information. An accurate estimation of caloric expenditure requires the following input:
Resting heart rate (HR rest)
Maximum heart rate (HR max)
VO2 max
Weight
Age
Gender
Not only must this data be accurate when you set up the HRM, it must be updated as well if your fitness level increases or if your weight decreases.
Determining HR max and VO2 max are the most difficult tasks. You can use a prediction formula (e.g. 220-age) or the built-in "fitness test" of a Polar, but these have a not insubstantial standard of error. For HR max, I would recommend that you Google the web for various predicted HR max fornulae and determine a range of possibilities. Then compare your exercise heart rate to your feelings of perceived exertion. If your HRM shows your HR during exercise is 90+% of maximum, but you feel like you are cruising at an easy effort, your HR max is probably higher than the predicted number.
VO2 max is even trickier. You can try some field tests (1-mile run, Cooper 12-min run) or a submax fitness test protocol programmed into a treadmill (if there is one) if you have the ability or access.
Keep in mind that as you continue to exercise, it is likely that you will lose weight and that your cardiovascular fitness level will improve (that's the whole point, right?). When that happens, you need to adjust the VO2 number up and the weight number down in your setup.
Choosing an HRM
The first thing you must do is determine what features are important to you.
Accurate heart rate measuring
Accurate (as possible) caloric estimation
Exercise planning or "coaching"
Stopwatch features
Data storage/transfer/analysis
If you are primarily interested in heart rate monitoring and basic stopwatch functions, then many different brands and models will probably fill your needs.
However, if you want the most accurate caloric estimation, there are significant differences between brands and models.
Just because an HRM provides a calorie count doesn't mean that number is any more accurate than one from a machine or even a number you just made up. Manufacturers know this feature is popular--some will stick any old number on the display to make you think you are "measuring" calories.
For greatest calorie count accuracy, an HRM must have the following features:
1. Chest strap sensor for continuous monitoring
2. Ability to manually input HR max, VO2 max, gender, age weight and HR rest.
3. Sophisticated analysis technology and software which has been validated on large numbers of test subjects.
For those features, your choices are going to be limited and you cannot go super-cheap. If you cannot enter VO2 max, then the HRM is using a more general format to determine your fitness level, which means greater inaccuracy.
Note: The only HRMs I know that meet the above criteria are the Sunnto T-series HRMs and the Polar F6 and above (Polar F4 does not allow manual VO2 input). Suunto does not use VO2 max, but they have a detailed series of "activity levels" that accomplish the same thing. They may not be the only ones, but they are the only ones I can say with certainty. I have looked at the owner manuals of other brands (Timex, Sportsline, Mio) and they do not allow manual VO2 input. Don't know about Reebok or Nike products.
Note #2 Update: Someone in the comments suggests that the Garmin Forerunner 405 also uses Firstbeat Technology software, which means they might also use R-R analysis--worth checking out.
So I bought a cheapie, now what?
Well, it's not a complete waste--but you do have to be careful about how you include those calories in your overall eating and exercise plan.
Even if the HRM uses a less accurate method of determining your caloric expenditure, the relative changes in the numbers should give you some insight. Calories are a measure of total aerobic work performed. If you do 30 minutes on a cross trainer and burn "300" calories for example with an avg HR of 130, then 3 weeks later burn "330" calories on the same machine in the same amount of time at the same average HR, that represents a significant increase in your aerobic work capacity and probably a similar percentage increase in the caloric expenditure. You can use the relative numbers to gauge your progress for different machines or activities.
I hope this is helpful. "
Hope this helps! Very important when buying a HRM!!
"The Real Facts about HRMs and Calories -- What you need to know before purchasing an HRM (or using one)
Posted on 03/24/2010 by Azdak
Every week, there are at least a dozen questions about heart rate monitors--which model to buy, what the numbers mean, how the calories compare to readings from machines, etc. I have answered these questions numerous times, but wanted to go into more detail for those who are interested.
HRMs can be great training tools. I have used various types of heart rate monitoring for my training for over 20 years. I currently have a Polar F11, although I don't use most of the features. About 10-15 years ago, Polar introduced their "OwnCal" feature--using heart rate to estimate calories burned during exercise.
This has proven to be extremely popular and has really driven the sale of HRMs. Now virtually every manufacturer includes some type of calorie-counting feature with their HRMs. Effective marketing has created the following beliefs about HRMs and calories:
1.HRMs directly "measure" caloric expenditure.
2. HRMs are the most accurate way to measure calorie expenditure during exercise.
3. All HRMs have the same level of accuracy when counting calories. .
4. HRMs can be used to accurately count calories expended during strength training and during rest and 24-hour activity periods.
5. HRMs are always more accurate than the readout from exercise machines.
6. If your heart rate response becomes lower when doing a certain activity, it means you are burning fewer calories.
None of these are true. HRMs only indirectly estimate calories expended during certain types of exercise. Unless they are set up properly and the profile information updated regularly, they can have significant inaccuracies. And not all HRMs are the same.
Let's look at all of these:
HRM Theory
First of all--how do HRMs count calories? First thing is that HRMs do NOT measure caloric expenditure--neither directly nor indirectly. HRMs measure heart rate and that's it. They estimate caloric expenditure during steady-state cardiovascular exercise using the relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake (or VO2).
The most commonly accepted method for measuring the calories burned for a particular activity is to measure oxygen uptake (VO2).
During *steady-state*, aerobic exercise, oxygen is utilized at a relatively consistent rate depending on the intensity of the exercise. There is an observable and reproducible relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake.When workload intensity increases, heart rate increases and vice versa.
If we have some individual data--resting heart rate, maximum heart rate, VO2 max, weight--it is possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of caloric expenditure based on the percentage of HRmax or percentage of HRreserve at which someone is working.
For example, we know that 70% of HRmax is equivalent to approx 57% of VO2max. If we know that person's VO2 max is 12 METs and they are working at 70% of HRmax, we can estimate that they are working at (57% x 12 METS) or 6.8 METs. If that person weighs 80 kg, we can estimate that they are burning ~545 Cals/hour (MET value x Body wt in kg).
The major HRM manufacturers (Polar and Suunto) use much more sophisticated sensing technology and algorithms, but they are still based on the same basic principle--the association of HR to oxygen uptake.
So, it must be emphasized again: HRMs calorie counts are only accurate when there is a consistent and measurable relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake. That means exercises and exercise movements that are aerobic in nature and that are performed at intensities between 40% of VO2 max and the lactate threshold
There are a number of conditions under which heart rate can increase, but without an increase in oxygen uptake:
-Stress, Illness
-Dehydration
-Environment (high heat and humidity)
-Heavy strength training (HR increases because of increased pressure)
-Changes in posture
-Cardiovascular drift during extended aerobic exercise
In other conditions--arm work, overhead work, "anaerobic" or sprint exercise--an HR increase will reflect in increase in VO2, but it is not a consistently measurable and reproducible relationship, therefore the HRM calorie count is not as accurate.
Note: Certain higher-end HRMs--the Polar RS800 and Suunto T6c use a very sophisticated method of analyzing the R-R interval of heart beat signals. When using this method, it is claimed that they can more accurately estimate caloric expenditure at rest, during anaerobic exercise and even during post-exercise oxygen consumption. Since these models are in the $350-$400 range, I am not including them in this review--if you are interested in more detail, check out www.firstbeattechnologies.com and www.suunto.com
HRM Setup
Even if you have purchased a quality HRM, the readings will only be as good as your setup information. An accurate estimation of caloric expenditure requires the following input:
Resting heart rate (HR rest)
Maximum heart rate (HR max)
VO2 max
Weight
Age
Gender
Not only must this data be accurate when you set up the HRM, it must be updated as well if your fitness level increases or if your weight decreases.
Determining HR max and VO2 max are the most difficult tasks. You can use a prediction formula (e.g. 220-age) or the built-in "fitness test" of a Polar, but these have a not insubstantial standard of error. For HR max, I would recommend that you Google the web for various predicted HR max fornulae and determine a range of possibilities. Then compare your exercise heart rate to your feelings of perceived exertion. If your HRM shows your HR during exercise is 90+% of maximum, but you feel like you are cruising at an easy effort, your HR max is probably higher than the predicted number.
VO2 max is even trickier. You can try some field tests (1-mile run, Cooper 12-min run) or a submax fitness test protocol programmed into a treadmill (if there is one) if you have the ability or access.
Keep in mind that as you continue to exercise, it is likely that you will lose weight and that your cardiovascular fitness level will improve (that's the whole point, right?). When that happens, you need to adjust the VO2 number up and the weight number down in your setup.
Choosing an HRM
The first thing you must do is determine what features are important to you.
Accurate heart rate measuring
Accurate (as possible) caloric estimation
Exercise planning or "coaching"
Stopwatch features
Data storage/transfer/analysis
If you are primarily interested in heart rate monitoring and basic stopwatch functions, then many different brands and models will probably fill your needs.
However, if you want the most accurate caloric estimation, there are significant differences between brands and models.
Just because an HRM provides a calorie count doesn't mean that number is any more accurate than one from a machine or even a number you just made up. Manufacturers know this feature is popular--some will stick any old number on the display to make you think you are "measuring" calories.
For greatest calorie count accuracy, an HRM must have the following features:
1. Chest strap sensor for continuous monitoring
2. Ability to manually input HR max, VO2 max, gender, age weight and HR rest.
3. Sophisticated analysis technology and software which has been validated on large numbers of test subjects.
For those features, your choices are going to be limited and you cannot go super-cheap. If you cannot enter VO2 max, then the HRM is using a more general format to determine your fitness level, which means greater inaccuracy.
Note: The only HRMs I know that meet the above criteria are the Sunnto T-series HRMs and the Polar F6 and above (Polar F4 does not allow manual VO2 input). Suunto does not use VO2 max, but they have a detailed series of "activity levels" that accomplish the same thing. They may not be the only ones, but they are the only ones I can say with certainty. I have looked at the owner manuals of other brands (Timex, Sportsline, Mio) and they do not allow manual VO2 input. Don't know about Reebok or Nike products.
Note #2 Update: Someone in the comments suggests that the Garmin Forerunner 405 also uses Firstbeat Technology software, which means they might also use R-R analysis--worth checking out.
So I bought a cheapie, now what?
Well, it's not a complete waste--but you do have to be careful about how you include those calories in your overall eating and exercise plan.
Even if the HRM uses a less accurate method of determining your caloric expenditure, the relative changes in the numbers should give you some insight. Calories are a measure of total aerobic work performed. If you do 30 minutes on a cross trainer and burn "300" calories for example with an avg HR of 130, then 3 weeks later burn "330" calories on the same machine in the same amount of time at the same average HR, that represents a significant increase in your aerobic work capacity and probably a similar percentage increase in the caloric expenditure. You can use the relative numbers to gauge your progress for different machines or activities.
I hope this is helpful. "
0
Replies
-
thanks for the info..bump0
-
Alot of info I dig it! thanks!0
-
I think I will pass on an HRM now. thanks0
-
bump0
-
bump0
-
bump0
-
bump0
-
bump0
-
bump0
-
great info!0
-
Bump0
-
Bout time it actually got posted... I always pass the link around because people never seem to believe me when I state these exact facts..0
-
WOW - thanks for that. Makes me rethink my goal of buying one of these.0
-
Great info. My head is spinning now. So basically everyone needs to get a Polar F6 or above. These will cost around 100 dollars and up but the money is well spent. I think my FT7 will suffice until I can afford more bells and whistles.0
-
Bump!0
-
I hope and don't think that was the OP's intent.I think I will pass on an HRM now. thanks0 -
Great info indeed, however; my experience along with SO many others is that the HRM IS still more accurate than the site or the machine you are on...
I can only hope that people are able to accurately gauge their caloric burn so as NOT to overeat and get discouraged...
My HRM shows me roughly 50% in between what the machine says (lower) and what MFP says (higher)
I go with that middle ground and I lose - was going with MFP once and wasn't - tried the machines and went into starvation mode so...
I think without the use of high end medical equipment the HRM like so many other health-related equipment can be an excellent tool if used properly...
CJ0 -
Actually, the whole idea for posting that was that people make an informed decision when getting a HRM so they get accurate calorie count when exercising! That was all :flowerforyou:
If you are looking to invest in a HRM minus will invest in an accurate one no?
I saved up and got a FT60 and it calculates the Vo2max as mentioned in the article! In any case, like others mentioned, you're better off going by any HRM than the machine!0 -
That's how I took it. However with that much info a newbie can be scared off. Thanks for the information. It looks like my FT7 is lacking in only the VO2 max input.Actually, the whole idea for posting that was that people make an informed decision when getting a HRM so they get accurate calorie count when exercising! That was all :flowerforyou:0 -
Bump0
-
Actually, the whole idea for posting that was that people make an informed decision when getting a HRM so they get accurate calorie count when exercising! That was all :flowerforyou:
If you are looking to invest in a HRM minus will invest in an accurate one no?
I saved up and got a FT60 and it calculates the Vo2max as mentioned in the article! In any case, like others mentioned, you're better off going by any HRM than the machine!
YES!!! Sorry if I didn't suggest that - I really LOVE this article
I'm currently saving for the FT60 actually - so you like it?
Thanks again for the post!0 -
Actually, the whole idea for posting that was that people make an informed decision when getting a HRM so they get accurate calorie count when exercising! That was all :flowerforyou:
If you are looking to invest in a HRM minus will invest in an accurate one no?
I saved up and got a FT60 and it calculates the Vo2max as mentioned in the article! In any case, like others mentioned, you're better off going by any HRM than the machine!
YES!!! Sorry if I didn't suggest that - I really LOVE this article I'm currently saving for the FT60 actually - so you like it?
Thanks again for the post!
Yes, I love it :happy: I highly recommend it!0 -
Yeah, as an uber newbie, this was a lot of helpful but mind boggling info that made my heart sink whilst reading. I bought a crivit hrm a few weeks ago and was suprised when it told me I was burning more calories than MFP calculations, especially in exercises like running/jogging, walking etc was about the same. I assumed this was because I am hilariously unfit for my height and weight, less so now I have been exercising a lot (its a lot harder to get the calorie count to go up these days which I assumed was a good thing) My HRM has a chest strap and actually everything on the list apart from the VO2max etc.
I'm feeling really naive in just taking as gospel what the calorie (and fat count as my HRM also does this) says and eating accordingly regardless of what MFP calorie counter said.
Thank you for the post though, really good advice for someone who hasn't fallen into the trap I have already
Vic x0 -
That's how I took it. However with that much info a newbie can be scared off. Thanks for the information. It looks like my FT7 is lacking in only the VO2 max input.Actually, the whole idea for posting that was that people make an informed decision when getting a HRM so they get accurate calorie count when exercising! That was all :flowerforyou:
Actually the FT7 is the replacement for the F6 thats mentioned in the article.. so in a way it uses Vo2max(I believe!) but I can't say 100%.0 -
Bump
Wow definately going to have to re-read that to make sure I understand it lol.
BTW thanks
0 -
OH, I WILL LOVE YOU 'TIL DEATH if that is true (as he takes his FT7 out of the garbage can)
That's how I took it. However with that much info a newbie can be scared off. Thanks for the information. It looks like my FT7 is lacking in only the VO2 max input.Actually, the whole idea for posting that was that people make an informed decision when getting a HRM so they get accurate calorie count when exercising! That was all :flowerforyou:
Actually the FT7 is the replacement for the F6 thats mentioned in the article.. so in a way it uses Vo2max(I believe!) but I can't say 100%.
0 -
Just out of curiosity, what are the sources for this information? I'm not trying to discount the original writer's expertise out of hand, I'd just like to know more about his/her background. People have vastly differing opinions on all matters regarding health and fitness, so I always like to know more about the background of a writer.
Personally, I'm inclined to think I'm getting pretty accurate numbers (if not a bit on the low side) from my heart rate monitor. Why do I think that? Because I'm losing weight, and probably faster than my 'on paper' numbers indicate I should be.
Also, my HRM lets me see fitness information beyond the calorie burn estimate. I can see that my resting heart rate is lower now than it was 3 months ago. I also know that I have to work a lot harder now to get my heartrate up into my training zone as I've become more fit. I like having information like that, and I think my HRM is a handy tool.0 -
Just out of curiosity, what are the sources for this information? I'm not trying to discount the original writer's expertise out of hand, I'd just like to know more about his/her background. People have vastly differing opinions on all matters regarding health and fitness, so I always like to know more about the background of a writer.
Personally, I'm inclined to think I'm getting pretty accurate numbers (if not a bit on the low side) from my heart rate monitor. Why do I think that? Because I'm losing weight, and probably faster than my 'on paper' numbers indicate I should be.
Also, my HRM lets me see fitness information beyond the calorie burn estimate. I can see that my resting heart rate is lower now than it was 3 months ago. I also know that I have to work a lot harder now to get my heartrate up into my training zone as I've become more fit. I like having information like that, and I think my HRM is a handy tool.
Here's the original link to the blog post..
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
The member who wrote it, his name is Azdak. I've seen other posts by him on this matter, and they all make sense.0 -
bump0
-
Just out of curiosity, what are the sources for this information? I'm not trying to discount the original writer's expertise out of hand, I'd just like to know more about his/her background. People have vastly differing opinions on all matters regarding health and fitness, so I always like to know more about the background of a writer.
Personally, I'm inclined to think I'm getting pretty accurate numbers (if not a bit on the low side) from my heart rate monitor. Why do I think that? Because I'm losing weight, and probably faster than my 'on paper' numbers indicate I should be.
Also, my HRM lets me see fitness information beyond the calorie burn estimate. I can see that my resting heart rate is lower now than it was 3 months ago. I also know that I have to work a lot harder now to get my heartrate up into my training zone as I've become more fit. I like having information like that, and I think my HRM is a handy tool.
You should check out his bio on his page. He's actually legit.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions