HRM in UK that tracks calories etc
HamsterNut
Posts: 78 Member
Im just after some advice of what to get :-)
My exercise bike gives me a heart rate read out and cals burned but it says I burn 900 cals in 15 mins cycling so its totally wrong I cant burn that much that fast!
My exercise bike gives me a heart rate read out and cals burned but it says I burn 900 cals in 15 mins cycling so its totally wrong I cant burn that much that fast!
0
Replies
-
Hiya
Think i have the same problem, I have a Garmen running watch and heart rate chest strap and a casual walk with my dog says i burn 321 cals pretty impressive if i do
i keep wondering how i can put xbox kiniet on here :drinker:0 -
Depends on your budget - you can get one for <£20 from Lloyds that works quite well, Polar do some under the £40 mark that will do the basic functions well & the prices can go all the way up to £500 for gps, cadence, power meter, stride all singing & dancing uber HRM for Tri-athletes
Oh aye, meant to say - exercise machines are notoriously inaccurate on their calorie estimates, but I'd say 900 for 15 minutes was excessive even for gym kit !0 -
have a look on Amazon:) I got the Polar FT4 for under £50 - I wanted one that I could swim with - the FT1 is cheaper and often discounted
you can get the older versions on ebay really cheap
check out the Polar website to decide which one you need, but don't buy from them!0 -
Iv been using this one
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pulse-Sonic-K920D-Heart-Monitor/dp/B005560PU4/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1342766404&sr=8-7
Iv never used a HRM before and didn't want to spend alot of money in case I decided I didn't like them.
I do like this one. enter usual details, height,weight age. It allows you to enter min & max heart rate. There's a stop watch for your workouts and it measures calories during this time.
Only down side is the stopwatch will only run for 30 min so if you going a longer workout I quickly read the calories burnt at about 29min in.
I may eventually upgrade but this doe's what I need it to do, tell me my calorie burn.0 -
I think im being dim here, do they all tell you calorie burn automatically?
FT1 looks like my sort of budget, or the lloyds one
Also my bikes pulse reader seems wrong too ... i doubt my heart rate was 80bpm as well seems low that0 -
Hey I have a polar FT4 i got it from argos about 2 years ago and hasn't failed me yet and seems accurate, i always use mine for exercising, the battery needed replaced twice so far i think and thats it i recommend it0
-
I got one from lidls last week. Been using it daily and its great. Everything i need. Timer, heart rate, cals burnt, fitness level with 5 minute cool down, oh and it tells the time.0
-
Hi
I have a polar and was given a garmin to help me take up running. The garmin logs about half the calories of a polar, both have height, weight and age in.
I now use the polar in the gym and the garmin outside but would love to know why the difference. I tried both companies but bothy say they use the right method to find the calories.
I like the garmin because I can follow my heart rate throughout after the jog so I can see how high it has got ( I am unfit) and how quickly it drops afterwards.0 -
not all HRMs give calorie burn - but most do.
The Polar ones do not deduct our BMR (you can work out your hourly bmr burn easy enough and subtract it yourself) which might explain the different readings.....0 -
Hi
I have a polar and was given a garmin to help me take up running. The garmin logs about half the calories of a polar, both have height, weight and age in.
I now use the polar in the gym and the garmin outside but would love to know why the difference. I tried both companies but bothy say they use the right method to find the calories.
I like the garmin because I can follow my heart rate throughout after the jog so I can see how high it has got ( I am unfit) and how quickly it drops afterwards.
I have recently bought a Garmin due to running. The calorie burn that the Garmin gives is about 20% less than my previous HRM. I don't know how this compares to the Polar though. The garmin used something called the "first beat method" to calculate calorie burn and excercise intensity. I think the Garmin takes into consideration speed and altitude as well as just heart rate.0 -
I have just done a 12k jog. When I put it into exercise it gave me about 1000 cals burnt but the Gramin gave me 430. I have decided it does not matter what matters is the weight lost but it is interesting why there is such a discrepancy ( I would prefer the 1000 cals)0
-
Bought this one from Tesco online for £19 and it does the job fine. Including calorie counting which is the reason I wanted it really :-)
http://www.tesco.com/direct/one-body-heart-rate-monitor/203-3529.prd
The instructions were in tinny letters so I used my photocopier at work to blow them up and voila! Perfect :-)0 -
I have just done a 12k jog. When I put it into exercise it gave me about 1000 cals burnt but the Gramin gave me 430. I have decided it does not matter what matters is the weight lost but it is interesting why there is such a discrepancy ( I would prefer the 1000 cals)
Ahh! I had that happened before, I did a walk which is normally 400 calories and it showed half. I later realised that the watched can lose connectivity, like the belt can sit in the wrong place.
What I did was check the rate of the work out, the time I did it for and my stats on several websites and it was clear that the watched had under estimated.
Hope this helps!0 -
I checked the garmin on the web page and I could see the speed, elevation and heart rate throughout no gaps. So I am going to change the activity level and see if that makes a difference. I will put on polar and garmin and see how close I can get them... bit of a geek approach but will get me out exercising as I try and sort this out.0
-
I have the Polar FT4. It's great, the chest strap is really comfy and the watch part isn't ugly or huge so you can wear it outside and it pretty much looks like a normal watch! You can get one on ebay or amazon for about £50 I think.0
-
Hi
I have a polar and was given a garmin to help me take up running. The garmin logs about half the calories of a polar, both have height, weight and age in.
I now use the polar in the gym and the garmin outside but would love to know why the difference. I tried both companies but bothy say they use the right method to find the calories.
I like the garmin because I can follow my heart rate throughout after the jog so I can see how high it has got ( I am unfit) and how quickly it drops afterwards.
One thing it could be is that Polar don't take out your BMR calculation, I don't know about Garmin but it may be the difference.0 -
I have a Polar FT4. I have had another Polar before, and they are great, never let me down, the battery lasts a long time also.
I'd definitely suggest a HRM with a chest strap to get more accurate data.0 -
I just got a cheapy argos special one with a chest strap super easy to use and if I become a hard core exercise freak ill get a good one :-)0
-
I just got a cheapy argos special one with a chest strap super easy to use and if I become a hard core exercise freak ill get a good one :-)
Good plan I think, if you come to rely on it and use it to drive your fitness forward then you know it will be worth upgrading. If not then you haven't wasted a ton of cash !0 -
I just got a cheapy argos special one with a chest strap super easy to use and if I become a hard core exercise freak ill get a good one :-)
Good plan I think, if you come to rely on it and use it to drive your fitness forward then you know it will be worth upgrading. If not then you haven't wasted a ton of cash !
Yup my thoughts exactly :-) as a casual user a cheapy would do the job and at £15 in a sale if I decide not to ever use it its no great loss :-)0
