What kind of HRM do you have?

PibblesRun
PibblesRun Posts: 236 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I want one and dont know where to start! Something simple and inexpensive...cant afford 100 dollar one! Thanks
«1

Replies

  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    If you're on a budget don't get one. It's not necessary at all. I promise you that you can lose fat just as quickly without an HRM. Heck, I better you lose more faster without one. Set up and follow a work out schedule, eat sensibly, track everything. If at some later date you have $100 to waste and an HRM still floats your boat, go ahead. But please don't feel like you can't reach your goals without strapping a $100 gadget to your chest every day. I know someone from the Cult of HRM is going to bounce in here and say you aren't serious about fitness unless you have one, but they are wrong wrong wrong.

    Best of luck reaching your fitness goals.
  • AmyRhubarb
    AmyRhubarb Posts: 6,890 Member
    New Balance N4 - retails for $70, I got a brand new one on eBay for $26. Works great.

    I did my homework here and by reading reviews on Amazon. Narrowed my choices down to the New Balance or a Polar (Polar is the most popular here at MFP). Put auctions for both models on my watchlist and waited - the New Balance came up first. :smile:

    Use the search feature here and read through the old threads for user comments and reviews, and check Amazon too - I found both very helpful in figuring out what I wanted.
  • quietasariot
    quietasariot Posts: 198 Member
    I spent $26 on mine on Amazon, it was a Pulsesonic. I used it for quite a few months but felt it got to be a competition/obsession to burn x amount of calories. It was definitely useful, though!!
  • dane11235813
    dane11235813 Posts: 682 Member
    Don't listen to that negative guy. If I had not bought a HRM I never would have found out how many calories I burn while driving to the gym in my car
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Side note....anyone want to buy a hardly used Polar HRM?
  • TachaB
    TachaB Posts: 16 Member
    I bought the Polar FT4 based on my research and comments from other users. I'm loving it so far.... I wanted to have a more accurate reading of the calories I burn. I used it for a Zumba class yesterday and was surprised by the calories I burned. :) I bought mine on Amazon for $60 since stores near me wanted nearly $100 for it. Definitely a good investment. :) I hope you find one that fits your weight loss and budget needs. :)
  • PibblesRun
    PibblesRun Posts: 236 Member
    Don't listen to that negative guy. If I had not bought a HRM I never would have found out how many calories I burn while driving to the gym in my car
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Side note....anyone want to buy a hardly used Polar HRM?

    Well im obviously looking for one...how much?
  • dane11235813
    dane11235813 Posts: 682 Member
    like Dav said. you really don't need one. the 'calorie burn' you get off those is basically an estimate.
  • angielovesherfamily
    angielovesherfamily Posts: 44
    I'm looking for one as well
  • dearprudence78
    dearprudence78 Posts: 27
    Not sure if I should post this question as a new topic, but how can you tell if you're HRM is accurate?
  • MB_Positif
    MB_Positif Posts: 8,897 Member
    I've lost all 51 of my pounds based on estimates and eating as much food as possible...I even usually eat ALL of my exercise calories even though MFP and cardio machines allegedly grossly overestimate them. If you really feel like you have to have one, go for it, but is absolutely not necessary!
  • MB_Positif
    MB_Positif Posts: 8,897 Member
    Not sure if I should post this question as a new topic, but how can you tell if you're HRM is accurate?

    You can't. Even though it is more accurate than machines, etc. it is still ultimately an estimate
  • tikafly
    tikafly Posts: 184 Member
    another vote for Polar FT4 (from Amazon).

    The naysayers are right; you don't "need" one. However, I like using one.

    I was concerned about the chest strap, and I didn't believe others when they said that they couldn't feel it. They're right, however. I can't feel the chest strap.
  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    like Dav said. you really don't need one. the 'calorie burn' you get off those is basically an estimate.

    But a better and more personal estimate than you get from other sources. It is all estimates Calories in, out, BMI, BMR, etc.

    My wife loves watching her zone on her FT7 polar I love seeing what percent of fat I burned on my FT60 polar as well as its training programs. They are not really necessary but they can be informative and fun and if you feel like rewarding yourself go ahead.

    They do have limitations, they won't tell you Kcals burned by muscle use eg. weight lifting but the aerobic part better than nothing IMO.

    The FT60 and FT 80 will give you a Gage of your fitness level so that is fun to see progress in. Polar USA will help you select and see features but the more bells and whistles the more cost. Pick one based on your goals and type of exercise.
  • hauer01
    hauer01 Posts: 516 Member
    I have a Polar FT4 from Amazon and love it. It was around $60.00

    Do you need one? Probablly not.

    I got once because I have a family history of heart issues and I wanted to be able to monitor my heart while I am working out so that I am aware of where my heart rate is at and can adjust accordingly. For this, the $60 is well worth it to me. It gives me piece of mind. I already know that I have this heart condition, so I better stay on top of it.
  • justlistening
    justlistening Posts: 249 Member
    I have a polar FT7. Like others said it is not necessary. I wanted to see how much I was burning during lifting mostly. If possible borrow one if only for a few workouts to gadge whether MFP estimates are decent for the way you are exercising. It is nice to see the numbers you are burning since we see so many numbers with food going in.
  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    a lot of people are not aware that you burn more fat at low intensity (between 60-70% max HR) so they can help you better focus and work on your goals. Runners pace distance etc., Weightlifters can determine minimum resting between sets etc.

    And if you are working and depriving yourself of so many things like short ribs who doesn't need a little fun?
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    If you *do* decide to get one, my advice is to shell out $100ish for a decent Polar (or some other reputable brand) model and not a bargain cheaper one.

    Not necessarily because the more expensive one will be better or more accurate, but because you paid so much for it, you'll be more likely to want to use it to justify the expense. And when you're using a HRM, you're (presumably) actually doing something, and that's a good thing.

    (But seriously, I plan to pick up one of the popular Polar models to satisfy my own curiosity.)
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    a lot of people are not aware that you burn more fat at low intensity (between 60-70% max HR) so they can help you better focus and work on your goals.

    ^^^^^^THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T GET A HRM^^^^^^^^^^^
  • StarIsMoving
    StarIsMoving Posts: 437
    Don't listen to that negative guy. If I had not bought a HRM I never would have found out how many calories I burn while driving to the gym in my car
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Side note....anyone want to buy a hardly used Polar HRM?

    Well im obviously looking for one...how much?

    :laugh: :laugh:
  • rudegyal_b
    rudegyal_b Posts: 593 Member
    dont bother, save up and get a fitbit
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Not sure if I should post this question as a new topic, but how can you tell if you're HRM is accurate?

    The calculators for walking level 2-4 mph have been found to be more accurate than HRM for calorie burn. Study shows just how accurate, which is better than the 10-35% off the nicer Polar's can be.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150

    Because for walking and common efficiency (unless you have a club foot or such), it just takes so much energy to move so much mass at so much speed. Your high or low HR at that point just means you are either burning mainly carbs or fat, depending on how fit you are.

    Go do a test warmup on treadmill before your next workout and see. On that site the HRM would be reporting the same as Gross calories burned. For purpose of eatback of course, NET would be correct amount.
    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    If a huge difference, it's likely your HRM has wrong HRmax stat entered in.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I have a polar FT7. Like others said it is not necessary. I wanted to see how much I was burning during lifting mostly. If possible borrow one if only for a few workouts to gadge whether MFP estimates are decent for the way you are exercising. It is nice to see the numbers you are burning since we see so many numbers with food going in.

    That's a bummer, not even valid for anaerobic activities like lifting or HIIT, or below like daily activity.

    Only valid estimates is steady-state aerobic, about 90-160 bpm.
    Polar funded study link on this site.
    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    MFP is actually decently accurate for the strength training estimate. I have a HRM that is valid for anaerobic, and MFP has always been with 25 cals when I cared to measure a new routine or such.
  • Runs4Wine
    Runs4Wine Posts: 416 Member
    I have a Polar FT4 - and I upgraded from a Sportline HRM w/o a chest strap. My Sportline was wildly inaccurate. I like having it for measuring cals burned during boot camp especially as well as my running.

    I did have to adjust the "stock" settings for my min/max HR based on my rest HR to it to work right. I think someone asked about this... I just googled to figure out the math for my settings. I didn't do the fitness test version.
  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    a lot of people are not aware that you burn more fat at low intensity (between 60-70% max HR) so they can help you better focus and work on your goals.

    ^^^^^^THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T GET A HRM^^^^^^^^^^^

    entitled to your opinion but ???? why do you say this?

    http://www.howtobefit.com/polar-owncal-feature.htm

    Fat consumption in M-series

    Reducing the amount of extra fat tissue in the body is an important target for those exercising for weight loss and weight management purposes. M-series heart rate monitors M21, M22, M51 and M52 calculate an estimation of fat consumption from total kilocalories expended during an exercise session. Fat consumption is expressed in percentages of the total energy expenditure with 5% accuracy. The fat consumption calculation is based on the physiological interaction between exercise intensity and utilization of the energy sources during exercise. In this interaction the use of fat as an energy source is optimal (highest possible percentage) at the exercise intensity of about 50% maximal aerobic power, VO2max , and decreases thereafter. This "optimal point" corresponds close to the heart rate variability (HRV) plateau during exercise, which is a base for the OwnZone (the lower limit of OwnZone basic or the lower limit of the "light zone" of OwnZone advanced). Figure 1. below illustrates fat consumption of total energy expenditure and exercise intensity.


    Figure 1. Energy sources during exercise

    In the Physical Activity and Health, a report of the Surgeon General (USA, 1996) it is stated that activity leading to an increase in the daily expenditure of approximately 150 kcal/day, equivalent to about 1000 kcal/week, is associated with substantial health benefits. It is also stated that the activity for health benefits needs not to be vigorous.

    For weight loss purposes the recommended energy expenditure can be set to 300 kcal/session. Conducted on most days of the week this will result 2000 kcal/week on a 70 kg person, approximately the kilocalorie content of a 1 kg (or 2 pounds) fat (7000 kcal) in a month. The higher the exercise intensity, the higher the heart rate, and the faster the calorie expenditure. However, at high exercise intensities the percentage of fat consumption of the total energy expenditure is less than at lower intensities.
  • BetterCrazyThanLazy
    BetterCrazyThanLazy Posts: 336
    I have two, both Garmin , FR70 and FR210

    ETA: never mind, you said you didn't care for $100 ones. These are over $100.
  • BetterCrazyThanLazy
    BetterCrazyThanLazy Posts: 336
    a lot of people are not aware that you burn more fat at low intensity (between 60-70% max HR) so they can help you better focus and work on your goals. Runners pace distance etc., Weightlifters can determine minimum resting between sets etc.

    And if you are working and depriving yourself of so many things like short ribs who doesn't need a little fun?

    True and I just learned that! BUT you still burn calories, only they are not derived from fat, they are from carbs.
  • contingencyplan
    contingencyplan Posts: 3,639 Member
    I recently ordered a Polar FT7. Amazon has them for about 70 bucks as long as you're not picky about color. I was torn between it and the Polar RS100, which is roughly the same price and looks more like a grownup's tool rather than a child's toy. I ended up deciding against it because everything I read about the RS100 said that the added features it had over the FT7 only benefited runners specifically (not me--not a runner) and that the additional runner-specific features only complicated the setup. A lot of people here advocate the Polar FT4 but the bottom line is that if you order from Amazon.com and aren't too picky about the color you can get the FT7 (next model up with tons more features) for about the same price.

    Regrettably I haven't had a chance to test my Polar FT7 yet as I am currently recovering from surgery and cannot do any form of exercise for another month.

    I hear the Timex Road Ironman HRM is comparable in features to the Polar FT7 and the reviews make it look comparable. I like the look of it better too as it looks more like a real watch. I went with Polar though due to compatibility with the cardio equipment at most gyms.
  • 05saleengirl
    05saleengirl Posts: 549
    Polar FT4, I've had it about 2 years. It's awesome! Got it for about $50 off Amazon.
  • mcpjan
    mcpjan Posts: 76 Member
    Polar FT4 is what I have. I use it while I workout and taking walks. I have a mild heart condition and my doctor says not to let my HR get over a number. I use mine to stay within the limits he suggests. I agree with the others that I like knowing what calories I really burning. I got mine new on ebay for 50.
  • natty_34
    natty_34 Posts: 20
    New Balance N4 - retails for $70, I got a brand new one on eBay for $26. Works great.

    I did my homework here and by reading reviews on Amazon. Narrowed my choices down to the New Balance or a Polar (Polar is the most popular here at MFP). Put auctions for both models on my watchlist and waited - the New Balance came up first. :smile:

    Use the search feature here and read through the old threads for user comments and reviews, and check Amazon too - I found both very helpful in figuring out what I wanted.


    I did something like this and wound up with a New Balance HRM as well (a Duo Sport). I loved it because the estimates on MFP and even the machines at the gym were off. Some more so than others. I love the one I have and I happen to find mine at a Costco liquidator, but I loved it so much I bought one on Amazon for a friend for around $45.

    I run and buying a HRM allowed me the freedom to watch my heart rate and pace myself more accurately, plus I didn't have to be stuck at the gym on the treadmill. :)

Categories