Help choosing between two HRMs

ashleyoh33

So I've given up on trusting the calories burned readout on the gym machines and have decided to buy a HRM. I need help choosing between these two:

Polar FT4 for $60-70
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00418IH9S/ref=asc_df_B00418IH9S2413349?smid=A3H9V1EMGQSHX7&tag=dealtmp758504-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395105&creativeASIN=B00418IH9S

or Polar FT40F for $100-110
http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Ft40F-Womens-Heart-Monitor/dp/B004AH299O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1362251761&sr=8-3&keywords=polar+hrm

I will be using it to monitor calories burned during cardio at the gym and at home doing Insanity. I really don't want to spend the extra $40 for the FT40F but I might start swimming this summer so I was leaning toward the FT40F because it is water resistant. Does anyone know if it really is water resistant or if the MFP calories burned estimates for swimming are accurate enough? Just need some help making a final choice and if the extra $$ is worth it for the more expensive model.

Doberdawn

I don't have the FT40, but I have the Polar RSS100. I have worn it swimming many times, including just last night. It works fine. Hope that helps.

MeeshyBW

These are the two I am torn between!!!! I literally just posted.

Thing is I don't want to end up buying the FT40 just to find out that the information it gives you online is kinda pointless and just a bit of a gimmick to charge you extra. The more I look into it the more I am looking at the FT4 just because it's a lot cheaper, it's my first ever HRM and I really only want it to count calories.

Swimming burns calories only if you swim at a certain intensity. A lot of folk think if they just go to the gym and swim 25 lengths breast stroke they are going to burn 500 calories and it's just not the case. I would just get the FT4 and if you do swim say a day a week it wont be the end of the word if the calorie calculation is a bit out but average swimmers swimming for 30 will only burn 250-300 cals.

cmriverside

I thought the FT4 was water resistant too. I think all of the Polar ones are. I have an older Polar, the bottom of the line one. It works great in water if you can get the chest strap to maintain contact with your skin for the entire time. I wouldn't buy another one, I kinda think HR Monitors are a waste of money after having one for five years. The numbers online work fine.

Here's a helpful blog (it isn't anti-or-pro, just facts)

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

My vote would be get the least expensive one. Did you compare the features of the two on the Polar website? I know they have a "Compare" feature on the site.

ChrisLindsay9

The FT4 works for me. But I don't swim. So I'm not sure how much this helps.

JenBrown0210

I love my FT4. I have had it for two years. I mostly run and recently am doing Insanity. The battery died last year and Polar Replaced it for free. I've never used it swimming. The FT40 also has more computer options for training. I would say go with the FT4 if you don't need the extra computer options.

Mokey41

The FT4 will do everything you're looking for and is water resistant to 30 meters depth so unless you want to dive with it swimming should be fine.