Heart rate monitor

Emwalker3406

I have seen a lot of people post on here about having or wanting a hrm. My question is while I know it's more accurate just how much more? Also what brands/kind do you recommend? Thank you in advance.

peteb79

I would like to know this as well. I used my Pedometer and Endomondo on C25K today and one said 270 and the other said 427... I have been thinking about getting the Polar FT7.

Codefox

More accurate than what?

I love numbers so I love having mine. I run with a Polar RS300x + S1 footpod. I've had 3 different HRMs over the years from Timex, Suunto & Polar and Polar is my favorite because I think they have the most research in theirs but I would say Suunto is right up there as well as Timex. If I got a new running watch I'd serious consider the new Timex coming out this month and their HRMs are all very nice.

But if I just wanted an HRM I'd get a Polar again.

Emwalker3406

More accurate then the MFP cal burn numbers

Timdog57

It depends on the type of excercise you are doing... A decent HRM will be more accurate than MFP for aerobic training (like running), and in fact may get you pretty darn close to what you're actually burning. Don't however expect a dramatic difference in calories burned from what MFP shows you, because it may not materialize.

If however you are doing things like interval training, strength training, or really anything else that isn't sustained cardio, your HRM will be dramatically less accurate than MFP. Your HRM is assuming that you are jogging when it calculates your caloric effort, so it won't do a good job of calculating anything that doesn't mimic jogging.

The lesson that I recently learned is buy a HRM if you what the ability to monitor your HR, and the capabilities that it will offer you there. Don't buy a HRM to get more accurate calories burned estimates, because it just won't happen. HRM's are for monitoring your HR not your caloric effort. If you're really wanting to monitor your caloric effort super accurately you're going to have to get a Body Bugg.

Codefox

Tim, I do most of my training as a runner so I tend to trust my HRM numbers as being reasonably accurate (especially since Polar does a good job of calculating VO2) but I know that Polar also makes HRMs that are very specifically geared towards activities other than running. Are those perhaps more accurate for non-aerobic activities?

Timdog57

I'm sorry I really don't know about those products. I think that the reason that Body Bugg (and similar products) do a better job estimating caloric effort for non-steady state things, is that they have a motion sensor in them. Those products are using the motion sensor to estimate the movement/work side of the caloric expenditure equation, instead of making the assumption that you are jogging. I would guess that other sport-specific HRM's are simply just tweaking the equation by using a movement/work rate for say riding a bicycle. Therefore, those models wouldn't necessarily be any better at the calculations for non-steady state activities.

dad106

More accurate than what?

I love numbers so I love having mine. I run with a Polar RS300x + S1 footpod. I've had 3 different HRMs over the years from Timex, Suunto & Polar and Polar is my favorite because I think they have the most research in theirs but I would say Suunto is right up there as well as Timex. If I got a new running watch I'd serious consider the new Timex coming out this month and their HRMs are all very nice.

But if I just wanted an HRM I'd get a Polar again.

Timex is actually one of the worst brands to buy for estimated calories burned because of how inflated the number is. They do not ask for anything like gender, or height.. all things that can affect a calorie burn. For females that is esp important because then the Timex assumes they are a male too, and thus gives them the calorie burn of a male.

To Timdog57: Actually Polar HRM's are very spot on at estimating calories burned in all types of aerobic activity because of the formula they use. I'm pretty sure the formula is not geared towards joggers only because I never ever run, and use my FT7 for walking and the elliptical and the calorie estimates seem pretty reasonable. Plus theres more to estimating calorie burn then just heart rate and the activity.. you also need to look at age, weight, height, gender and how fit a person is(thats where VO2max comes into play).
For something like bodybugg, just because it has a motion sensor means nothing as far as accurately estimating calories burned. Its not going to know the difference between you lifting a weight and swinging your arms for running because the motion is pretty similar.

To Op:
In my opinion, Polar is the best brand for HRM's. Simple, easy to use and pretty accurate as far as calories burned goes.

Timdog57

Yes, I'm aware that VO2Max is a big part of the equation, but in this case it really doesn't come into play in this conversation. My point was simply that HRM's can only accurately calculate caloric effort for steady state aerobic activities. They will not do a good job of estimating calories burned on non-steady state activities.

Emwalker3406

Thank you for the info. I am doing c25k as well as RI30 & 30DS and really want to track my cal as accurate as possible.