Why bother with a heart rate monitor?

Azdak

I actually burn more calories than MFP's database says I've burned. I'm either more out of shape than I thought I was, or I'm over-medicating my thyroid (heart is working harder to do things). Either way, I wouldn't have known without my HRM.

Based on your remarks, your HRM is almost certainly overestimating your calories, likely because you are using the default max HR setting, which is too low. Plus, an elevated heart rate due to medication does not result in more calories being burned (it's a greater load on the heart muscle itself, but no significant effect on the rest of the body).

This is my biggest criticism of HRMs and of using HRMs as the "gold standard" for estimating calories. At best, HRMs are probably only 80% accurate, and most people do not have them set up properly, so the error factor is even higher.

Azdak

There are a lot of HRM haters out there.

Are they 100% accurate? - NO. Are the calorie burned calculators of MFP and other sites 100% accurate? - NO. Are the calorie burn calculators on the cardio machines 100% accurate. NO Its ALL an estimate.


It is a tool to help me gauge my progress and estimate my burn. I find it especially effective when doing a fitness class or video. There is a BIG difference between doing EVERY rep to my max or simply sloughing through the workout. My HRM shows how much harder I worked.

Necessary? No. Motivating? YES And motivation is a big part of the battle IMHO

My only criticisms concern the misplaced belief in the calorie numbers. The other things you describe--which are the original reasons HRMs were developed--are what make HRMs important training tools. I have been using heart-rate training for over 25 years--since before HRMs were even invented. I agree that the motivating aspect of HRMs are one of their most important features.

But even the HR part of the training can be confusing to those who don't understand the physical response to exercise. Before Polar inflicted their calorie-burning feature on the public, there were also issues with the concept of "zone training" as newly-minted "Polar experts" emerged to preach hopelessly complicated training schemes (I saw one presentation where the speaker outlined no fewer than 10 separate "training zones").

Between the normal variability in HRmax across the population and phenomena such as cardiovascular drift, HR numbers can also lead people astray and make their programs less effective. To get the best use of an HRM, you have to be in touch with your body and your feelings of perceived exertion. Learning to associate performance and feelings of exertion with your HR numbers will make the HRM a much more effective tool.

sunkisses

I actually burn more calories than MFP's database says I've burned. I'm either more out of shape than I thought I was, or I'm over-medicating my thyroid (heart is working harder to do things). Either way, I wouldn't have known without my HRM.

Based on your remarks, your HRM is almost certainly overestimating your calories, likely because you are using the default max HR setting, which is too low. Plus, an elevated heart rate due to medication does not result in more calories being burned (it's a greater load on the heart muscle itself, but no significant effect on the rest of the body).

This is my biggest criticism of HRMs and of using HRMs as the "gold standard" for estimating calories. At best, HRMs are probably only 80% accurate, and most people do not have them set up properly, so the error factor is even higher.

My comment was that my HRM helped me see that I have a higher resting heart rate than I should, coupled with unexpected weight loss it lead me to believe I am possibly over medicating. I'm pretty sure I stated that my heart was working harder, so thank you for restating my comments in other words.

You're wrong about the assumptions you've made here. I have not had any confusion during weight-loss. I've been rather text-book until I noticed I was able to drop more weight than I calculated to lose. Say what you want about HRMs, just don't go around making assumptions about people and what they're doing. You're not an endocrinologist or even a physician. You have no idea how **my** thyroid reacts when I'm burning the calories I burn.

ETA: 3 posts to the same thread about your HRM opinions? Really?

Azdak

I actually burn more calories than MFP's database says I've burned. I'm either more out of shape than I thought I was, or I'm over-medicating my thyroid (heart is working harder to do things). Either way, I wouldn't have known without my HRM.

Based on your remarks, your HRM is almost certainly overestimating your calories, likely because you are using the default max HR setting, which is too low. Plus, an elevated heart rate due to medication does not result in more calories being burned (it's a greater load on the heart muscle itself, but no significant effect on the rest of the body).

This is my biggest criticism of HRMs and of using HRMs as the "gold standard" for estimating calories. At best, HRMs are probably only 80% accurate, and most people do not have them set up properly, so the error factor is even higher.

My comment was that my HRM helped me see that I have a higher resting heart rate than I should, coupled with unexpected weight loss it lead me to believe I am possibly over medicating. I'm pretty sure I stated that my heart was working harder, so thank you for restating my comments in other words.

You're wrong about the assumptions you've made here. I have not had any confusion during weight-loss. I've been rather text-book until I noticed I was able to drop more weight than I calculated to lose. Say what you want about HRMs, just don't go around making assumptions about people and what they're doing. You're not an endocrinologist or even a physician. You have no idea how **my** thyroid reacts when I'm burning the calories I burn.

ETA: 3 posts to the same thread about your HRM opinions? Really?

Obviously, we misconnected in our comments--nothing negative was intended. That happens in forums sometimes.

Unfortunate that you felt the need to make it personal.

andrejjorje

Well said. Thank you.

Can anyone recommend a good one? I'm interested in getting accurate numbers for calories burned.

Accuracy is based on the calculations they use, which will be impossible to know or compare between brands.

Never ever listen to someone say "mine is accurate". I'm not sure how they could possibly know that.

But, studies have shown a few items of info are needed to be as accurate as you can get outside a lab.
Gender, age, weight.
What can make it more accurate, resting HR, max HR, or VO2max.

Mainly Polar's are the only ones getting this info, may be others I've not seen may too. And it may be a matter of the price of the unit. I've seen some Polar's that don't get enough info either, and some expensive other brands do.. Polar is probably also the only ones to have paid for studies to get good formulas to use.

Most studies have shown they are only accurate from 90-150 bpm, after that the calculation accuracy falls off.

Hence the reason they may not be useful for pure weight lifting, where during recovery you may fall below that, and go well above it too.

I was surprised to use mine for the first time doing new low volume training weights, and it stayed above 100 the entire time, perhaps because that was my cutoff to go to next lift.

Pr1c3rA

In reference to the person who said that higher heart rate from medicinal sources didn't contribute to a higher calorie burn, it just strained the heart muscle worse:

Sorry to necro this old comment, but this is false. If it weren't false, body builders wouldn't utilize an ECA Stack to increase calories burned. If you don't know what an ECA Stack is, google it.

Pr1c3rA

For Strength training, I love the Polar FT80. You can set your HRmax and VO2max for the most accurate account of calories burned without sophisticated tests and lab grade machinery. It also includes tests to find those values.

HRmax is your maximum Heart Rate, of course.

VO2max is the maximum capacity of an individual's body to transport and use oxygen during incremental exercise, which reflects the physical fitness of the individual.

No other device is going to get consistently as close to an actual calories burned as something like this, in theory.

**Of course, nothing we as consumers can purchase is going to be 100% accurate. However, I believe this type of device to be the most accurate. +/- 2%

davert123

Thanks for the replies.

So are they primarily used by someone doing mostly cardio/aerobics/running/etc., where you might be targeting a HR zone, rather than someone doing strength/resistance training? I had one (the kind that goes around your chest) when I had an elliptical, and it would adjust the machine's resistance based on my heart rate, which was pretty cool, but haven't found a use for one otherwise.

Also I've heard they can be wildly inaccurate for calories ... thoughts?

This is the way I look at it. I wear one for cardio but not for resistance. Your body's energy supply system works in different modes and a HRM will allow you to find the points at which your body changes mode and will allow you to target each mode separately. Going full belt all the time isn't always the best or most sensible way to progress. HRM will allow you to train hard enough but not at full belt as it were which will allow you to go for longer or harder for a short period of time without hurting yourself. If you want to know more there is a great book called "total heart rate training" by Joe Friel. which will teach you all about HRM and how to use them to progress your fitness.

PS calories given are going to be rough say the least. I suppose they are better than nothing but in my experience only just. I wouldn't use it just for this though, as I've said they are brilliant for helping you increase your fitness

Azdak

For Strength training, I love the Polar FT80. You can set your HRmax and VO2max for the most accurate account of calories burned without sophisticated tests and lab grade machinery. It also includes tests to find those values.

HRmax is your maximum Heart Rate, of course.

VO2max is the maximum capacity of an individual's body to transport and use oxygen during incremental exercise, which reflects the physical fitness of the individual.

No other device is going to get consistently as close to an actual calories burned as something like this, in theory.

**Of course, nothing we as consumers can purchase is going to be 100% accurate. However, I believe this type of device to be the most accurate. +/- 2%

The Polar FT80 is designed to use HR to monitor various parameters of training and recovery. It is no more accurate for estimating calories burned during strength training than any other device--meaning, it is not accurate at all.

pinkiemarie252

I deduced that my HRM was off on calories, but it still has the function of tracking my heart rate so it's all good It helps me determine when I'm working too hard vs just feeling tired, make sure I'm working hard enough, etc.