What kind of HRM do you have?

heybales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polar FT4, I've had it about 2 years. It's awesome! Got it for about $50 off Amazon.

mcpjan

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

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.

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.

SarahSmiles2004

I just bought a Polar FT4 for $59, from bodytronics.com, use POPO to get the same price (takes 5% off your Polar order). My BF has the same one and he loves it, calculates calories, percentage and so much more. Check it out at the polar site and see if that's what you want.

Roboartist

I have a Timex one, very comfortable and under $100. It seems to be fairly accurate with my heart rate. I got it to monitor my heart because I have a family history of heart disease, I have extremely elevated cholesterol and I am trying to keep my heart working out in a safe zone for me set to my actual heart rate range and not just a generic default range from chart.

I can manually enter my resting heart rate and manually set my heart zones so that it is set for me and my heart. You find this out by doing various tests like step tests and chair sit tests. I do not pay any attention to calories burned because I just don't think it's that accurate for me.

I have had a Polar brand in the past which I liked as well and they have so many models at a wide price range-including horse ones lol. If you think you would like a monitor that you can chart on a computer you might want to save your pennies and invest in one with all the features you are looking for. There are some pretty sweet ones out there.

heybales

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.

Even better. Almost the same number of calories of fat are burned, but because you also burn more calories overall, a smaller percentage happens to be fat.

That's why if you have 20-40 min, or every other day up to 60 min, all out is best.

if every day, then you can start getting into problems with replenishing those carbs if not careful.

DavPul

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.

Excellent question. And I appreciate you posting a reference. But your article that has factual information, yet *misleading* information. This is why people get the Mythical Fat Burning Zone thing wrong all the time. The way that article is worded makes it very easy to make that mistake. I'm going to break this down in two parts.

Part 1. If burning more fat is your desire, exercise at a Higher pace, not a lower pace. The article is correct, a greater *percentage* of fat will be burned at the lower pace. But at a higher pace, a greater *total amount of fat will be burned*. If you want to burn fat, don't you want to burn as much fat as you possibly can. Using numbers I'm pulling out of my behind, let's say you exercise in the "zone" for 40 mins and burn 400 calories. Perhaps 70-80% of what you burned came from fat. So you burned 280-320 cals from fat. If you train at a higher intensity that the so called fat burning zone, in that same 40 mins you burn 700 calories. Now it's a 50/50 split fat to carbs. But you've burned 350 calories worth of fat. 350>320.

Part 2. Hope you followed me on part 1. Because part 2 is going to take part 1 and throw it out the window. The entire concept of burning mostly fat is flawed. Because your body will burn off fat as needed if you are in a calorie deficit. It doesn't matter if you burned 400 calories of fat or 400 calories of carbs, at the end of the day if you have a 400 calorie deficit each day for a week, you're going to lose almost a full pound. Your training regimen will determine if that 1lb loss is primarily fat or muscle, not the super slow speed you performed you cardio. So lift something heavy, and you will lose primarily fat. Do primarily cardio, and it's probably closer to 60/40 or so (made up number again) depending on other factors.

So let's sum it up. If you want to "burn fat", exercising at a higher intensity will Burn More Total Fat. And if you want to lose fat, exercising at a higher intensity will Burn More Calories For A Greater Deficit So You Lose More Weight In A Faster Time Period. Basically, a workout that burns 700 calories will promote greater weight and fat loss than a workout that burns 400 calories. Makes sense, no?

Every time I pass someone checking their HRM watch and SLOWING DOWN I pull my hair out. See that this has done to me?

kdub67

Polar FT4 and I love it. Just ordered it from Amazon this week ($60). I use Fitbit also, but it doesn't give an accurate calorie burn read on the type of workout I do, so I use both and just adjust my workout calories manually.

vegas711

Polar FT7 love it.

totallydevious

I just got my Polar FT7 yesterday, and tried it out today as yesterday was a rest day from the hike I did the day before. Like others have said, do you really need it? No, you don't but if you are like me and want to see if what you are currently doing is working then I would say, yes, get it. I got the Polar FT7 for 74 bucks and I believe it is worth every penny! I also have the FitBit Ultra, which I believe is a great tool, especially for walkers and people that are trying to challenge themselves to get more active. Like I said, you don't need it but hell, everyone has a lot of things they don't really need, right? If you want it, I say, get it! I researched for a little over two weeks before deciding on the Polar FT7 in the black and silver, yes, it is the unisex / men's depending on who you talk to but I don't like girly things. The Polar line is very good, and I recommend it to pretty much anyone! Good luck with what you decide!

SJCon

Every time I pass someone checking their HRM watch and SLOWING DOWN I pull my hair out. See that this has done to me?

Don't doubt what you are saying at all but I can't exercise at those levels for awhile so it doesn't do me much good but I can do the low intensity, I hope others can benefit from your information. I think the guy from Shawnee Mission was saying the same thing.
I have to wonder about how it balances with training load, you can't just continuously build up at high intensity every day and if you have every day but limited time why not use the whole schedule?. A combination may be the optimum. So it seems there are several paths to a goal and although they may take different amounts of time each person has to find one that works best for their health, time and inclination. I think that the latest research indicates the the old idea of training as hard as you can is not as efficient as interval for developing fitness but again that may not be the goal. Perhaps it would be better to say these things rather than just "That is why you should not buy a HRM". Have you ever stopped one of those guys and asked them what they were doing, might have prevented your hair loss and helped them?

heybales

Don't doubt what you are saying at all but I can't exercise at those levels for awhile so it doesn't do me much good but I can do the low intensity, I hope others can benefit from your information. I think the guy from Shawnee Mission was saying the same thing.
I have to wonder about how it balances with training load, you can't just continuously build up at high intensity every day and if you have every day but limited time why not use the whole schedule?. A combination may be the optimum. So it seems there are several paths to a goal and although they may take different amounts of time each person has to find one that works best for their health, time and inclination. I think that the latest research indicates the the old idea of training as hard as you can is not as efficient as interval for developing fitness but again that may not be the goal. Perhaps it would be better to say these things rather than just "That is why you should not buy a HRM". Have you ever stopped one of those guys and asked them what they were doing, might have prevented your hair loss and helped them?

You are right on regarding the everyday aspect.

if you can workout everyday, for an hour, and you think doing nothing but super intense cardio is the weight loss solution, you will train your body to burn mainly carbs, the aerobic system will be deficient, and you can easily get into the issue of not replenishing your carb stores from day to day, and by day 5 or 6, can easily be dipping into muscle to provide amino acids to be converted to glucose for energy needs.

Seen too many do it.

In those cases, a varied routine will help see not only better performance gains and body improvement, but better energy burn. Of course, the solution is also to recognize lifting weights would be better than the cardio anyway.

If you try to go intense every single day, your intense level eventually ends up not improving nearly as much as the effort being put into it. Whereas if you treated one day as Active Recovery HR zone (better name for fat-burning zone), then that would allow you to push harder on the day you really want to do intervals say, for a better fat burn.

There are many paths, but some are prone to injury, undesired setbacks, exercise plateaus, ect.
Then there is the smart path, and depending on focus, there have been enough studies to give good advice on that one.

I'm one of those someone would have to stop me and ask because of slowing down. Most of my jogging is in "Fat-burning zone", rather, Recovery zone, not because of any benefit to fat burning, but because my jogging is mainly recovery from a hard bike ride or spin class or lifting weights. And anything more would be foolish and counterproductive.
On those days I watch my HR like a hawk, and the challenge is not speed or pace or high HR, it's can I keep it in the zone, and with combination of breathing patterns, food turnover, ect, I have my own challenge.

kienec

I love my HRM and now can't workout without it but I'm in a different place than a beginner. I agree with a PP that it is not necessary in the beginning. HOWEVER...if you are not achieving your goals and are not seeing the weight loss that you would like it is another tool that will let you know if you are working as hard as you think you are. I am a very fit person and after a failed pregnancy had about 12 pounds to lose and thought I was doing what was necessary to get the weight off. But it wasn't budging...I finally splurged and got my HRM and as it turned out what I thought was "killing myself" cardio wize...wasn't. It allowed me to really judge where I was and the weight came off.

You can get ones as cheap as $60 that will allow you to see what your HR is. Mine was $89 and it tells my my calorie count which is more accurate than the machines. It is not an absolute but it can make a difference. Try without first, if you reach your goals you will have your answer. If you don't you can decide at that point.