Heart Rate Monitor questions...

impudentputz
impudentputz Posts: 479 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Well as you can guess, im looking for help with a heart rate monitor. The problem im running into, i dont want to get a cheap one based on the fact that its less expensive. I want one that is gonna do what i need it to do... however, im not 100% sure what i need. I know it has to keep track of my pulse... duh i know. Id like it to also track calories burned and im not sure what else. I do most of my exercise at a gym, however i dont trust the calorie trackers / HR monitors on the machines. So im not sure where to start. Any help would be amazing, thanks ahead of time!

Replies

  • Tami113
    Tami113 Posts: 117 Member
    I did some research on different brands. Throguh reviews on here and reviews on amazon i chose the polar ft4. It tracks calories burned, heart rate of course and stores your data for up to a week. You can even log in online to track progress and work outs although i have not used this feature. It has helped me keep better track of calories burned.
    Mine cost about $65 on amazon
  • yesthistime
    yesthistime Posts: 2,051 Member
    One brand: Polar.

    Two options (totally up to you): FT4 or FT7.
  • amfeierabend74
    amfeierabend74 Posts: 134
    I agree about the polar ft4. Watch for good deals on amazon I got mine for $57. Also check http://www.heartratemonitorsusa.com/ they have good prices and they have free shipping. Thats where my boyfriend got his.
  • LondonEliza
    LondonEliza Posts: 456 Member
    Polar for me too. Using its advice re-calories burned, I have lost 2lbs a week for the last 2 weeks.

    I have the F11 and I love it (it's pink)

    The only thing I did that I have seen no-one advise is to have a "no exercise" day wearing the band for 24 hours so you know how many cals you burn over the course of a day. (Mine was 1900 whereas MFP advised me that it was 2300)

    Then I subtract the hourly average non-exercise cals away from exercise. So if I spend an hour cycling and burn 600 cals according to my monitor, I only add 600 - 1900 / 24 = 520 to my day) This means I am not crediting myself with cals that are factored into my daily totals twice.
  • Jezebel_Barbie
    Jezebel_Barbie Posts: 198 Member
    I haven't bought one yet (just waiting for pay day) but I recently asked a similar question and after the answers I got, plus researching on other sites and reading reviews I've decided to go for the Polar FT4. Really looking forward to getting mine.
  • impudentputz
    impudentputz Posts: 479 Member
    Thank you very much guys, im still researching right now, toss up between the FT4 and FT7... not sure which one will give me what i need and i dont wanna pay for stuff im not gonna use, however i think the FT7 is gonna be my final choice, for 20$ more there is a few more options i can use on it... but who knows, im gonna make my decision tonight and get it tomorrow :)
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    The only thing I did that I have seen no-one advise is to have a "no exercise" day wearing the band for 24 hours so you know how many cals you burn over the course of a day. (Mine was 1900 whereas MFP advised me that it was 2300)

    Then I subtract the hourly average non-exercise cals away from exercise. So if I spend an hour cycling and burn 600 cals according to my monitor, I only add 600 - 1900 / 24 = 520 to my day) This means I am not crediting myself with cals that are factored into my daily totals twice.

    The reason why you see no one advising that is because you are not supposed to wear HRM's at rest, because they are not made for that function. The 1900 that you got is not even correct, so I'd ditch that idea and go back to what MFP gave you. Also if you want to figure out what you burn in an hour, then you need to take your BMR and divide by 24.

    To OP:
    Polar is best brand. Depending on what features you want they have corresponding models.
    I've had both an FT7 and FT60. I like both and both are easy to use/set up.
  • htmlgirl
    htmlgirl Posts: 314 Member
    I got the polar ft40. It has a chest strap and it tells you heart rate, calories burned, etc. It also has the ability to have 2 timezones which is useful for me because I travel a lot now. It's the women's version and it's black and has cute little flowers on the watch, but it's not super girly. I love it, I think it's useful to know how many calories I'm burning.

    As for subtracting what I normally would burn just sitting, I don't do that, but I also don't eat my exercise calories (usually) so that's not really a concern for me.

    Definitely can't go wrong with a polar.
  • Di3012
    Di3012 Posts: 2,247 Member
    Well as you can guess, im looking for help with a heart rate monitor. The problem im running into, i dont want to get a cheap one based on the fact that its less expensive. I want one that is gonna do what i need it to do... however, im not 100% sure what i need. I know it has to keep track of my pulse... duh i know. Id like it to also track calories burned and im not sure what else. I do most of my exercise at a gym, however i dont trust the calorie trackers / HR monitors on the machines. So im not sure where to start. Any help would be amazing, thanks ahead of time!

    I have the Polar FT4, it is easy to set up, tracks your heartrate and calories. Has a database of previous 10 workouts and the info gleaned during those times. It has a chest-strap that really is necessary if you want accuracy.

    I used it for the first time at the gym the other day on their treadmills and it synched to the machine so that I could read my heartrate off the actual treadmill which was excellent. I had only used it at home before that.

    I bought mine off Amazon for £54 and it arrived within two days.

    Brilliant piece of equipment and absolutely invaluable for interval training that includes the heartrate going down to 120bpm before you do your next rep.

    Don't hesitate, they are great!
  • AzzCampbell
    AzzCampbell Posts: 4
    I have the FT7 and its pretty neat. You won't be disappointed with it. :-)

    A nice little feature that I discovered yesterday is that it syncs with some of the cardio machines at the gym, showing my heart rate on the display so I don't have to keep checking my wrist, very neat!
  • LondonEliza
    LondonEliza Posts: 456 Member


    The reason why you see no one advising that is because you are not supposed to wear HRM's at rest, because they are not made for that function. The 1900 that you got is not even correct, so I'd ditch that idea and go back to what MFP gave you. Also if you want to figure out what you burn in an hour, then you need to take your BMR and divide by 24.

    Fair enough, that is your experience and what you have read ...... but I have been losing 2lbs a week for 3 months steadily using this approach.

    I joined MFP after realising I would like some ppl to talk to who were not going to be bored to death of diet talk. Doing it this way constantly works for me. Not everyone is me, I realise that.

    Dieting does not seem to be a straight-forward thing for a lot of people and a lot of scientifically dubious "rules" seem to be in circulation making things very confusing for practically minded people like myself. To make things easy, I have just reduced calories in compared to calories out to a simple mathematical formula, one which is showing results in the form of a consistant slow weight loss.

    Could you point me towards the research that says that HRM's are not supposed to be used when at rest? I would appreciate it and be genuinely interested to read it. I am particularly interested in the measurable quantification of "not supposed".

    Thank you for your comment.
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member


    The reason why you see no one advising that is because you are not supposed to wear HRM's at rest, because they are not made for that function. The 1900 that you got is not even correct, so I'd ditch that idea and go back to what MFP gave you. Also if you want to figure out what you burn in an hour, then you need to take your BMR and divide by 24.

    Fair enough, that is your experience and what you have read ...... but I have been losing 2lbs a week for 3 months steadily using this approach.

    I joined MFP after realising I would like some ppl to talk to who were not going to be bored to death of diet talk. Doing it this way constantly works for me. Not everyone is me, I realise that.

    Dieting does not seem to be a straight-forward thing for a lot of people and a lot of scientifically dubious "rules" seem to be in circulation making things very confusing for practically minded people like myself. To make things easy, I have just reduced calories in compared to calories out to a simple mathematical formula, one which is showing results in the form of a consistant slow weight loss.

    Could you point me towards the research that says that HRM's are not supposed to be used when at rest? I would appreciate it and be genuinely interested to read it. I am particularly interested in the measurable quantification of "not supposed".

    Thank you for your comment.

    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

    That two pound a week lose could be attributed to anything... Be it food, exercise, calorie deficit etc.. But it is advised that you don't wear an HRM at rest. If you want to know what you burn all day, then you need a bodybugg/bodymedia fit
  • LondonEliza
    LondonEliza Posts: 456 Member

    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

    That two pound a week lose could be attributed to anything... Be it food, exercise, calorie deficit etc.. But it is advised that you don't wear an HRM at rest. If you want to know what you burn all day, then you need a bodybugg/bodymedia fit

    The message of that blog post is 'Don't use that equipment because it is hard to calculate properly'. Not impossible, not wrong, just hard. Based on my experience, I beg to differ. What the author says about the fitness tests models costing £££'s is out of date too because I got mine for less than £70. It is not hard to calculate properly. Anyone with half a brain can do it. It is just common sense.

    Measure a sedintary day (for me it was 1900 cals)
    Add your exercise for a workout day (I average about an extra 700 cals 6 times a week)
    Cals burned per week = 1900x7+700x6 = 175000
    Take away 7000 to burn 2lbs per week = 105000

    Daily allowance based on figures from HRM = 1500 cals (or more if I exercise more, have a busy rush around day)

    Your comment about what my constant weight loss could be attributed to made me smile. Yes, you are right. It is based on a calorie deficit, it is based on exercise. I calculated the exact levels for this exact weight loss using my HRM by knowing my base level from a sedentary day.

    You are telling me I am doing the wrong thing based on an internet post but I am basing my assertion on facts. I don't need to buy another piece of equipment. What I have is working for me based on the calculations obtained using my HRM.

    So, I guess I'll just agree to differ with you. Bye.

Categories