Why you need an HRM -with pics

neverstray

I have a Polar FT4 too. However, I have a high metabolism and mitral valve prolapse. MFP and exercise machines UNDERestimate my calories burned every time. It's just individual. And a HRM is really the most accurate.

<sigh>

Lol. You can lead them to water, but you can't make them drink it.

gertudejekyl

Just tell me which one to buy :indifferent:

piratesaregrand

For me my hrm was way higher than the machines and mfp. Now I just use whatever number is in the mIddle of the three

heybales

Just tell me which one to buy :indifferent:

The one that has an adjustable VO2max stat.

heybales

And it hasn't been mentioned, but there is also the issue of "cardiovascular drift". During longer workouts (for me >30 min), heart rate will start to increase without any increase in workload (or oxygen uptake). For me, if I start running on a treadmill @ 6 mph, my heart rate for the first 5 min might average 115, but by the end of 45 min, I'll be pushing 140. With no change in workload. My VO2 (and thus calories burned) hasn't changed, but my heart rate has. Sometimes there is a 30% increase in my HRM calories burned over a 45 min workout comparing the first half to the second half with no increase in workload. In the real world, that should not happen, but it does.

Well ahhbeee. I know about it, but never thought to look since normally my pace is according to HR zone and never steady enough.

I just looked at 2hr run this last Sun, I had decided on pace that I held to rather than normal HR range. Since on treadmill that is much easier to see compared to variability outdoors.

Took a water refill at 1hr.
Last 5 min avg before that was 66% HRR.
First 5 min avg back again was 61%.
And then you can see the nice progression up to the last 5 min was 68%.

I didn't do laps on the Garmin so I can't see the individual calorie burns from beginning to end. But I have the Garmin tweaked to be using my measured VO2max since it has no setting for it.
But the Garmin always has my warmup walk at 90 bpm about 230-260 cal/hr, compared to cooldown at exact same speed and higher 105 bpm at about 130-150 cal/hr.
Since it's measuring bpm during the breathing to see how many breaths you take, I always figured it could tell I was warmed up and breathing easier at the end.
But if that is indeed the reason why, then why would the HR go up as the running part continued on, wouldn't the same warmup be there. And indeed, I can tell when the breathing has gotten easier after warmup.

Uh.

KenSmith108

Just tell me which one to buy :indifferent:

The one that has an adjustable VO2max stat.

I like my Polar FS1. It has a very large font that I can read with my glasses off. It does zone, duration and HR average.
I also have a Polar F6 that needs to be updated all the time, keeps better records and guesses at calories burned.

Lately I just wear my new Polar soft strap and Wearlink sender on the machines at the gym, they all have HR displays.
I try to keep my HR over 115 and under 125. I pay attention to my food diary and don't log exercise calories.
The method to my madness seams to be working.

Dauntlessness

Dauntless, quick question.... Do you know if your normal heart rate is higher or lower than 'average'... Mine is high, and I often wonder if that changes my calorie burn..... I keep debating getting a HRM

I'm not sure how that works honestly. Mine is much lower since I have lost weight. I'm guessing I have a resting HR of low 70's. Im pretty sure it was higher when I first began but Im not sure what it was. When I first started working out I burned sooo many more calories than I do now too. Some days it feels like twice the work to get the same numbers...sigh hehe

Dauntlessness

Ever since I started using the HRM I found out I''ve been burning way more than what mfp calculates for me...I've never reached a 300+ calorie burn in an hour with mfp logging in but with my HRM it shows around a 500 for my one hour of workouts!....l'm glad that it worked the opposite way for me :drinker:

See! Thats what I'm talking about! Good for you girly! It can go either way and its so important to not short change yourself too!

Dauntlessness

I did not think this post would get so many replies. haha! I really do value everyone's opinions because the more facts you have, the better we all are.

I personally still stand that HRM's are probably the best bet for most of us verses machines or mfp estimates. Mostly because they do track your heart rate, hence, effort. Two people could be the same weight, height and body type, going at the same speed and still have different numbers because one works out 7 days a week and one doesn't. I'm not saying that this is a "set in stone" calculation because like with anything, nothing is perfect and has its flaws. I just think its the best option we have available to us right now.

Again, Thank you for your replies. It did make me view HRMs a little differently.

Azdak

And it hasn't been mentioned, but there is also the issue of "cardiovascular drift". During longer workouts (for me >30 min), heart rate will start to increase without any increase in workload (or oxygen uptake). For me, if I start running on a treadmill @ 6 mph, my heart rate for the first 5 min might average 115, but by the end of 45 min, I'll be pushing 140. With no change in workload. My VO2 (and thus calories burned) hasn't changed, but my heart rate has. Sometimes there is a 30% increase in my HRM calories burned over a 45 min workout comparing the first half to the second half with no increase in workload. In the real world, that should not happen, but it does.

Well ahhbeee. I know about it, but never thought to look since normally my pace is according to HR zone and never steady enough.

I just looked at 2hr run this last Sun, I had decided on pace that I held to rather than normal HR range. Since on treadmill that is much easier to see compared to variability outdoors.

Took a water refill at 1hr.
Last 5 min avg before that was 66% HRR.
First 5 min avg back again was 61%.
And then you can see the nice progression up to the last 5 min was 68%.

I didn't do laps on the Garmin so I can't see the individual calorie burns from beginning to end. But I have the Garmin tweaked to be using my measured VO2max since it has no setting for it.
But the Garmin always has my warmup walk at 90 bpm about 230-260 cal/hr, compared to cooldown at exact same speed and higher 105 bpm at about 130-150 cal/hr.
Since it's measuring bpm during the breathing to see how many breaths you take, I always figured it could tell I was warmed up and breathing easier at the end.
But if that is indeed the reason why, then why would the HR go up as the running part continued on, wouldn't the same warmup be there. And indeed, I can tell when the breathing has gotten easier after warmup.

Uh.

I admit, I don't have any hands on experience with Garmins and they use some different technology. If the HRM is capable of R-R beat by beat analysis, then it can take breathing into account and (according to the people at First Beat) cardiovascular drift as well, but when you move into that level, things work differently.

Azdak

Just tell me which one to buy :indifferent:

The one that has an adjustable VO2max stat.

I like my Polar FS1. It has a very large font that I can read with my glasses off. It does zone, duration and HR average.
I also have a Polar F6 that needs to be updated all the time, keeps better records and guesses at calories burned.

Lately I just wear my new Polar soft strap and Wearlink sender on the machines at the gym, they all have HR displays.
I try to keep my HR over 115 and under 125. I pay attention to my food diary and don't log exercise calories.
The method to my madness seams to be working.

And that's fine too. We get into debates and details on some of these issues--some of it is just for fun, some of it is to correct misinformation. Those who are interested can follow along, or add to the discussion. If some people find the extra info helpful, that's great, but the ol' trial and error method can work for people as well.

neverstray

For all the huffing and puffing that goes on, the HRM is probably the best option. The reason is that it is the only measurement that is actually measuring something. Everything else, a machine, MFP, it has measured nothing, it is just using a general database to give you an answer. But, the HRM is measuring your heartbeat, and using an algorithm that provides an estimated calorie burn. So, dollar for dollar, the HRM is probably more accurate than anything else other than spending the money and time to have it all accurately tested everytime. Which, of course would be ridicuous and impractical.

So, then, the real question becomes, which HRM is the most accurate, i.e., has the most accurate algorithm that most accurately calculates an estimated calorie burn. I bet it's out there. But, is it worth it? Isn't a general estiamtion good enough. If you use the same measuement device every single time you work out, does it matter if it's off by even 250 calories? If your bathroom scale was off by 25 lbs, and you didn't know it. But, it was off consisitently, so gains or losses were accurate, would it matter at all? It wouldn't matter to me much at all. First, I wouldn't know. But, secondly, it is not really total weight I am after, but just more of a downward trend in waist size, body fat, and overall weight. If weight isn't moving, but my waist is shrinking and my body fat is reducing, that's cool with me.

Ta2dchic20

I know we all have different body types, heart rates, types of machines...etc etc but I really wanted to post these HRM/Machine numbers to show you how inaccurate they can be. We care so much about counting every last calorie we put in our mouths, shouldn't we do the same with how many calories we burn? Your best bet is an HRM.

I know there may be a difference of 10-20 seconds on some of the photos. I did stop exercising at the 10/60 minute marks but I kept forgetting to stop it. haha

Edit: I did program my weight in on every machine.

Cross Trainer Machine: 822 Calories / 1 Hour
HRM 602 Calories / Hour

A difference of 220 calories an Hour



Treadmill Machine: 112 cals for approx 10 minutes= 672 / 1 Hour
HRM: 88 cals for approx 10 minutes= 528 / 1 Hour

A difference of: 144 Calories an Hour



Elliptical Machine: 130 for approx 10 minutes=780 / 1 Hour
HRM: 95 for approx 10 minutes = 570 /1 Hour

A difference of 210 an Hour.

I have a HRM, I don't use it for that exact reason. It's demotivating for me. I know in the back of my mind, that I'm not burning as much as I think I am, but I try very hard NOT to eat back all of my exercise calories.