What kind of HRM do you have?

pinkraynedropjacki

Polar FT4 is under $100 easy. WOrks great, not a huge bells & whistles kinda one...but did the job for me till I upgraded to a FT60

paulaann67

My husband & I both have the Epulse2 HRM & love it ! It's the first strapless HRM & so easy to use! We tried the Fitbit but for us it didn' t sync well w MFP so we returned it.check out Epulse2 web site.

PaulBSussex

The post by Heybales is what I am trying to achieve. At the moment I want to loose weight as my primary goal, once I'm in the normal BMI range then I want to switch to fitness. My wife and I go to the gym 2 or 3 times a week and I use this for a high intensity workout, the other days I use as recovery and go for long walks with the dog. I purchased a Suunto M5 HRM mainly because it is dual output (analogue for gym equipment and digital for the watch), it also allows for pods to be added to measure pace, gps and / or bike speed.

In the past I've overdone things too early and I now recognise light headed-ness and feeling sick as symptons of pushing too hard and my heart rate getting close to maximum. Easing off a little means instantly feeling better and I can keep going for longer. The HRM shows this instantly so that I can excercise consistently at higher intensity without going into the danger zone. On the other hand at the other end of the scale I've determined that normal walking is probably doing very little, but a brisk walking speed raises my heart into the fat-burning or active recovery zone.

But I am still learning and this thread has made for some interesting reading. It suggests a HRM is not critical but can help and assist people to stay motivated. Advice about various zones can be misleading if not taken in context so read around. Over the last week I've learnt I need a wightlifting element in my workout rather than just cardio.

Paul

Ant_the_old_keith_lemon

i have used budget hrm equipment and providing you dont want BMW quality for FORD money you`ll find them fine - they are however disposable as the seals generally go in the shest starps and sweat contaminates the insides - then the signal starts becoming intermittant.

having gone through three budget sets in 18 months, not too bad considering they are the price three Big mac meals each i decided to go to the BMW level, i always wanted an M3 tbh.

so ive just bought a polar bluetooth chest strap and am using it in conjunction with my iphone (only work with 4s and 5), it wasnt overly expensive but you get nice charts and graphs similar to below. the strap also sends the standard radio waves so it works on all the polar coded cardio machines and watches/cycle computers etc etc..

to be fair it is the best fitness related toy i have ever bought, it tells you time in zone, cal burn, % cal burn fat v`s carb.

the trace below was from a spinning class, if you study the stats you can see that perticualr class was a very large interval session...

i think its pretty funky i could even run SPC on it hahaha - jokes

DavPul

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.

These are two reasonable, well written posts that contain facts that I agree with. Too bad they are making a complete straw argument.

-No one is advocating working at an all out, breakneck intensity every day. Not me, not anyone. My own weekly regimen rotates heavy lifting, fast rope skipping, and long walks. (Also have 10 mile run coming up so I have steady state running in there right now, but that's abnormal for me). HeyBales makes an excellent case for varying training and as you can see I subscribe to that myself. I don't believe I need and HRM to regulate a walk or slow run I can see where someone might want to use one.

-SJCon is not making the case for varying intensity and perhaps incorporating intervals. That's good stuff. But the post he made before only advocated working at a very low intensity because "you burn more fat at low intensity (between 60-70% max HR)". That's the statement that's incorrect. That's the statement that leads people to very poor results.

-Here's the main gripe. So while I, HeyBales, and now SJ all agree with modulating levels of intensity thru the week, we all know that's NOT why they are being pumped relentlessly in the forums. There are 35 HRM threads on the first 4 pages of F&E right now, and not a single one of them is about modulating intensity so you don't burn out. Every Single One of them is about using a HRM to count calories burned during exercise. 98% of the responses in the thread are about how accurate they are and how you should eat back the exact amount of calories burned as record by the omniscient HRM. That is wrong. HeyBales has posted many links to studies showing how the *estimates* of cals burned are off by 20%.

Why is everyone on the forums browbeating people to spend $100 when they are on a tight budget to get a device that will be off by 20%? Especially when no one needs to know thier exact cals burned to be able to lose wieght. If you are doing a precise training regimen like HeyBales, okay, perhaps it will help in maintaining certain intensity levels. But what I am seeing is a whole lot of people running 15 min miles 5 days a week being told they have to get the best HRM money can buy to lose weight.

That's just not the case.

SJCon

-SJCon is not making the case for varying intensity and perhaps incorporating intervals. That's good stuff. But the post he made before only advocated working at a very low intensity because "you burn more fat at low intensity (between 60-70% max HR)". That's the statement that's incorrect. That's the statement that leads people to very poor results.

-Here's the main gripe. So while I, HeyBales, and now SJ all agree with modulating levels of intensity thru the week, we all know that's NOT why they are being pumped relentlessly in the forums. There are 35 HRM threads on the first 4 pages of F&E right now, and not a single one of them is about modulating intensity so you don't burn out. Every Single One of them is about using a HRM to count calories burned during exercise. 98% of the responses in the thread are about how accurate they are and how you should eat back the exact amount of calories burned as record by the omniscient HRM. That is wrong. HeyBales has posted many links to studies showing how the *estimates* of cals burned are off by 20%.

Why is everyone on the forums browbeating people to spend $100 when they are on a tight budget to get a device that will be off by 20%? Especially when no one needs to know thier exact cals burned to be able to lose wieght. If you are doing a precise training regimen like HeyBales, okay, perhaps it will help in maintaining certain intensity levels. But what I am seeing is a whole lot of people running 15 min miles 5 days a week being told they have to get the best HRM money can buy to lose weight.

Dav I solidly agree with you and I could also get worked up about it if I typed better. I hate typing and my grammar and punctuation is terrible.
I see a lot posting about how much high intensity work outs people do and it is often focused on burning calories to lose weight. I also see a lot of post where the calories burned seem to be grossly overestimated as well. This would make me believe that many would benefit from using a HRM for their own self protection if nothing else. As fitness level improves you may need a reminder as one poster said that a normal walk no longer does it. I am trying to develop a good workout routine myself and am sure it will be a long term project, I am sure I can learn a lot from people like you and Hay.

I DID not "advocate working at a very low intensity" I was mentioning that that was a choice and a HRM could help there. In fact the HRM is what opens up the whole idea that there is a choice to the intensity level. I do think that a lot could benefit from knowing that every work out does not have to be a daily P90X. I think the input from Hay and you both may have opened up some concepts for others that they may pursue to do it smarter not harder.

I can see that you may have been a little defensive about early comments regarding negative posters but I think that was because you were short and did not explain your point. You obviously know a lot about it and can help all of us. I don't think anyone is brow beating anyone and most of us stressed that it is an option, fun gadget, etc. I Love my HRM because of the ability to better focus my training but I also think like you that it is not necessary. I am sorry I did not read that into what you were saying when I asked Why you said what you did. You are also right that it will be a waste often because thy will go to Wally World buy a cheap one that is not very good and not understand or research how to really use it.

Now before I get writers cramp how do you effectively gauge calories burnt during resistance work?

See you are going bald and I am cramping up LOL

heybales

Now before I get writers cramp how do you effectively gauge calories burnt during resistance work?

Very difficult.

Some HRM's specifically mention they can be used for anaerobic so lifting, some Garmin's using Firstbeat algorithms for instance. That's what I have.
Tweaked so it's using my tested VO2max and HRmax.

I had previously used a Polar for some workouts, mainly to see where the HR went, what the avg ended up being, and curious about the calorie burn estimate which I knew would be off.

Well indeed, an hr lifting with a HR that avg an easy spin bike class was given the same calorie burn. Even though I know everyone of those high HR's that caused the higher avg, was anaerobic, not aerobic like the Polar thought.
So got calorie estimates of 600-700.

Now, using the Garmin, which I think just doesn't estimate calorie burn when anaerobic, and therefore the high HR's don't matter. It was 1/4 to 1/3 the calorie burn. And interestingly, always within 25 cal of MFP estimate when I've worn it.

I'll wear it when I change routine for the first time. Then that's enough to know what it'll be next time.

heybales

-No one is advocating working at an all out, breakneck intensity every day. Not me, not anyone.

Sadly, whether encouraged or not, this is what I see the majority doing that never investigate it. And there are actually many that took the articles on the "fat-burning zone myth" and applied it to mean every long workout should be done at full intensity. Even though most those articles I've seen do mention in some form, "in conclusion, if only working out 30 min ..." which would be more appropriate.

Many on stalls that I've helped through, that was their problem, well, besides nothing but cardio, was always full blast 60-90 minutes 6 times a week. The undereating never of course didn't help either.

DavPul

I think we're all in agreement on most of these points. If I didn't make it clear, my constant madman ranting at HRMs isn't against them per se, it's more about how they are primarily used on MFP (for calorie counting) and how much they are promoted (by everyone to be used for everything----only a slight exaggeration).

Part of that is that I do beleive there are many different ways to accomplish similar goals. So I never tell someone they have to lift, or have to run, or have to join a gym. I try to structure my advice based around what they like to do and what they hope to accomplish. But open up a HRM thread and the responses are basically you HAVE to get one or you're not serious about losing weight. When 30 people each in 30 different threads tell you that you have to count your calories with an HRM in order to be considered serious about losing weight, it sends me to an unhappy ranty place.

If they said you needed to modulate exercise intensities in order to keep from hitting plateaus, I would be fully on board.

Oh, to answer your question about how I measure the calories burned lifting: I don't. The number is irrelevant to me. When I'm on a deficit, I let MFP put in whatever it's number is (350 cal or so) and eat somewhere around that, generally a bit more. When I'm trying to gain mass, I eat a number that's triple that amount, even tho MFP calculates I could gain on a lot less (they are very wrong).

Happy hunting, gentlemen.

ndearing0501

I have the polar ft-7. It's awesome! Just what I need and simple. It's about 110 bucks, but I got mine on amazon for 80.

heybales

When I'm trying to gain mass, I eat a number that's triple that amount, even tho MFP calculates I could gain on a lot less (they are very wrong).

Wait a minute!

You mean to tell me that not only is MFP's goal not causing a true 2lb loss for the majority that receive 1200 daily goal, but the gain part of the equation isn't correct either?

LOL. That's just funny, sorry to say, I'm sure it's aggravating after 3-4 weeks of eating what it said originally would be a gain, and wondering why you weren't seeing the gains you should have.

DavPul

PFFFFT!! MFP's suggested intake of 1200 cals for women would be funny if it didn't happen at such a high rate. It's almost the default. Like, why should a woman input her stats because All Answers Are 1200. Kinda alarming, really. I wish they'd take a look at their protocols.

That said, I don't hold anything against them on the wieght gain side. MFP is set up to be a weight loss site so the equations are biased that way (and worked very, very well for me without much tweaking) and really, there's no way for them to come up with an equation for muscle growth. Workout intensity is such a wildcard I can't expect them to account for it and the different bodytypes vary so much from receptive to resistive for muscle growth.

If this was Bodybuilding.com's calculator it would probably have a Bizarro world default. Instead of all answers being 1200 all answers would be "Eat 1000 cals over maintenance" or something like that.

mariagabriella

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.

Even though I have a HRM (I mainly use it to keep an eye on my HR, not so much calories burned) I definitely agree. I lost over 30lbs before I started using one. They aren't necessary.

I have a polar ft7. You can get cheaper ones that do the same thing. I bought mine to use whilst swimming though.

delilah47

I was like you. I wanted something simple and not too expensive for my first HRM. I got a MIO wrist watch style. .. about $45 on amazon. It's a good way to get used to using one. I have a high-end stationary bike and it matches the calories and HR on my watch. So, they are probably both fairly accurate.. At this point, it's not that important to me to have everything scientific down to the gnat's *kitten*. I'm happy with my MIO.
Here's a link if you want to check it out.
http://www.amazon.com/Mio-Classic-Select-Heart-Monitor/dp/B00106ARH4

jofjltncb6

PFFFFT!! MFP's suggested intake of 1200 cals for women would be funny if it didn't happen at such a high rate. It's almost the default. Like, why should a woman input her stats because All Answers Are 1200. Kinda alarming, really. I wish they'd take a look at their protocols.

That said, I don't hold anything against them on the wieght gain side. MFP is set up to be a weight loss site so the equations are biased that way (and worked very, very well for me without much tweaking) and really, there's no way for them to come up with an equation for muscle growth. Workout intensity is such a wildcard I can't expect them to account for it and the different bodytypes vary so much from receptive to resistive for muscle growth.

If this was Bodybuilding.com's calculator it would probably have a Bizarro world default. Instead of all answers being 1200 all answers would be "Eat 1000 cals over maintenance" or something like that.

Probably the biggest cause of this is people putting the most ambitious goal into the "how much do you want to lose per week" selection. This makes the actual answer something less than 1200, but MFP caps the floor at 1200.