Heart Rate Monitor Recommendations

heybales

Like all fitness equipment that measures calorie burn, a heart rate monitor uses an estimate of what your maximum heart rate is to determine what the appropriate heart rate range for exercise should be. Even though a heart rate monitor is more accurate than the counter on an elliptical trainer, for example, it still uses a general formula to estimate that range. For instance, based on my age (23), my max heart rate should be around 197. But when I had a cardiac stress test (By a cardiologist--I work in exercise physiology), I found my maximum heart rate to be 211. That means that the appropriate heart rate range for me to work out in is actually a little higher than the one on my Polar FT4 (which I love!)

So, bottom line, it's a great estimate for calorie burn, and it's more accurate than most things you can get outside a doctor's office, but it's also not super surprising if your heart rate exceeds the range for exercise.

One more thing: For fat loss, it's recommended to maintain a heart rate between 65% and 85% of your max heart rate. But that's just for steady state cardio. If you took a Bootcamp class, it was likely more of a high-intensity interval format. In that case, its expected that your heart rate should exceed 85% of your max for short time periods. Great for conditioning and calorie burn Hope that helps!

Excellent advice.

One point on the "fat burning zone" idea to burn fat.

It's been found, and you can do the math on your own numbers, that unless you are doing marathon/triathlon training, something over 2 hrs, keeping in the fat burning zone doesn't really burn much more fat calories then working out at higher zone that burns same fat calories, even if the percentage is lower.

I'll use my own numbers from my own VO2 max test, which also included max HR and lactate threshold, and the whole data table of my RQ during the whole test. This is simplified explanation, but the figures are true.

So 0.85 RQ is 50% of energy (calories) is supplied by fat, the other glucose. (even 100% fat usage isn't totally true as some carbs used to burn fat completely, down at RQ 0.71).

So mine came at 135 HR. Best of studies outside actual measurements shows that to be 796 calories for gender, age, weight, VO2max, for 60 min.

So in pretty decent fat burning zone according to tables and formulas, that would be 398 cal from fat, 398 cal from glucose already stored.

But if I exercised for 60 min at RQ 0.9, 33% of calories would be from fat, other glucose.

So mine came at 155 HR. That would be 977 calories total.

So fat calories from that would be 322. Mere 78 calories less.

But my total calorie burn is 181 more.

You add that up over 6 days perhaps, and that's a 1000 calories.

So unless you have no problem with longer time doing that cardio to obtain a lot of actual fat burn, those with time schedules and limited time exercising would be better served getting the intensity up for that available time, assured they are burning about the same number of calories of fat (even if % is less), and more calories overall.

The one problem with this as you get more aerobic, the intensity to get the HR up may be difficult for some exercises, and impact type may be too hard, so bike, elliptical, stairs, ect may be better for extended times. Jogging for those 20 min times.

This is indeed why a HRM can be so useful.

heybales

A slightly more accurate formula to determine your heart rate zone than 220-age is called the Karvonen formula. It is Target HR = ((HRmax − HRrest) × % intensity) + HRrest. It's also known as the heart rate reserve formula. Your true resting heart rate occurs right after you wake up in the morning, when you're still lying in bed. If you take that resting heart rate, and use the HR max (220-age), and then 0.65 and 0.85 as your intensities, you can get a more accurate read on the heart rate range you should be using. It does require a little more math though!

As for finding the more accurate heart rate max....you can see if the gym you go to offers fitness testing. I work as a trainer at a gym where we perform a submaximal (no cardiologist necessary) assessment for $35 for members. It's worth a shot, since short of that test I am not aware of a more accurate way to measure your max.

There are several nice sub-maximal tests you can do yourself too if you have a HRM and stopwatch.

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/CardioTests.html

And the site has the calculators too.

Another nice site to see different heart rate zone ranges based on different methods.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm

srhlaskey

Awesome! Thank you, I will check both of those out.

heybales

Polar RS300x ... You can add on optional extras such as foot pod or gps sensor to store more data but I just bought it with the polar flow link and it's great. Takes into account much more biometric data such as RHR, MHR and VO2 max which give a better calorie burn. You can also link the data up to polar personal trainer to maximise your training, it's gots lots of bells and whistles. Chest strap (wear link+) is amazingly comfy and chaff free compared to my old t31 chest strap which was made from plastic. Cost me £109.99 for the watch, strap and a polarflowlink + free carry case and free next day delivery from polar mega fitness store in Durham. X

Thanks for this reference.
Polar backed a study that found a great formula that is in their patents, but I could never find which one of their HRM's actually used the more accurate formula.

Of course, anyone with knowledge of their VO2 max and what their avg HR was during a workout can use the same formula, but still something to be said for having it on the watch if you like the extra features too.
Saves a bit of time re-entering data.

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

According to the reference, energy expenditure is a linear function of heart rate over the range of approximately 90 to 150 bpm. In other words, it is a straight line. As you would expect, everyone has their "own" straight line, characterized by a slope and intercept. Early heart rate monitors with a Calorie (Kcal) option used an experimentally obtained "average" line and applied that "average" line to everyone. Today, individual physiological parameters, such as weight, age, resting heart rate, max heart rate, VO2max, etc. are used to minimize the total error between a "measurement class" and a "test class" in deriving an optimum set of coefficients for predicting an individual's slope and intercept. The equations below are taken from the reference paper and modified to reflect calorie output. Companies like Polar, use equations of this form with different coefficients obtained from their statistical analysis of experimental data. Details can be found in their patent applications.

htimpaired

A slightly more accurate formula to determine your heart rate zone than 220-age is called the Karvonen formula. It is Target HR = ((HRmax − HRrest) × % intensity) + HRrest. It's also known as the heart rate reserve formula. Your true resting heart rate occurs right after you wake up in the morning, when you're still lying in bed. If you take that resting heart rate, and use the HR max (220-age), and then 0.65 and 0.85 as your intensities, you can get a more accurate read on the heart rate range you should be using. It does require a little more math though!

This link has a pretty good calculator. Just fill in your age, gender, resting heart rate, and max heart rate and it will generate the heart rate zones you can train in.

http://www.livelongbestrong.com/resources/karvonen.htm

As for finding the more accurate heart rate max....you can see if the gym you go to offers fitness testing. I work as a trainer at a gym where we perform a submaximal (no cardiologist necessary) assessment for $35 for members. It's worth a shot, since short of that test I am not aware of a more accurate way to measure your max.

This is what I use for training, personally! Just so I cover my butt here, I'm an ACSM certified personal trainer Good luck!

Ok, so using that formula on top, using an estimate of my resting heart rate at about 80 (it really does appear to run that high at baseline). So my target heart rate range could be 150-188? If that is the case it would make sense that my average heart rate yesterday at a step aerobics class was around 170....
I am assuming it's ok that some people just have a higher heart rate, and I'm not going to drop dead of a heart attack. My blood pressure is really low, last time it was taken it was 90/50-I'm not kidding.

heybales

I am assuming it's ok that some people just have a higher heart rate, and I'm not going to drop dead of a heart attack. My blood pressure is really low, last time it was taken it was 90/50-I'm not kidding.

Yep, it's genetic what your max is, and that slowly lowers as you get older.
If you are out of shape the max is artificially lowered until you get into shape.

So that is probably no problem being that high. Young and female, you do get to go higher!

Now that 80 resting is of concern. Is that first thing in the morning before you get up and move around? Keep watch at bed and time for full minute and count carefully with that low blood pressure.
If really 80 since you have been exercising for awhile, does seem rather high. Normally would be much lower, around or less than 60 since you must be in good heart shape now.
If really that elevated in the morning, you might want to examine if you are getting enough rest days from workouts to fully recovery.

And that low blood pressure could be a danger sign too, for some other side issue.

htimpaired

I really stink at finding my pulse, so maybe this weekend I will leave my HRM by the bed and strap it on first thing in the AM to get a closer resting heart rate. I've never tried to count it before I moved around. Thanks for the feedback!