HRM Accuracy...?

salyha01
salyha01 Posts: 36 Member
edited September 20 in Fitness and Exercise
Hi, so I've been using my HRM (Sportline- no chest strap) for a few months now. The last 3 weeks I've been training quite hard, but I am doubting the accuracy of my HRM. During my workouts I'm checking my HR at 5 minute intervals to see if I am going hard enough so that I don't slip into being too comfortable. However, what I've noticed, when running is that it is calculating me at around 90-97% and I don't feel like I'm working even nearly that hard. When I began really training on the treadmill it seemed like 91% was really really difficult. I am increasing both speed and distance and I don't feel like I'm working as hard- even though according to my HRM I am.

I understand that my body will adjust and that the running will become easier etc., hence my increasing speed and distance consistently. That said I still think that perhaps something just isn't right with the HRM. Has anyone else had a similar experience? What is the life expectancy of the HRMs?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Replies

  • smae1980
    smae1980 Posts: 794 Member
    If anyone answering her question wants to throw in advice for a brand and price range on one of these...Thanks
  • WrenLynn
    WrenLynn Posts: 213
    All I can say is I started with a $30 watch -no chest strap style and it overestimated my calories burned by alot. I couldn't stand it so I went and bought a $110 Polar F6 watch and chest strap combo. I feel the accuracy is way better on the calories so probably the same on the other things it can do also. When I run my heartrate goes way up there so maybe yours does too. Good luck!
  • SkyeBows
    SkyeBows Posts: 80
    i am guessing it is because you are not using a chest strap I have been told by several it is the most accurate way. also as for price and type I will be getting a polar RS300 after a lot of research and it is $150... I will be using it for losing weight and I do not run but again after all research it seems the best but check your craigslist first.. I am sorta stalking craigslist hoping one will pop up
  • ccaruso219
    ccaruso219 Posts: 92
    All I can say is I started with a $30 watch -no chest strap style and it overestimated my calories burned by alot. I couldn't stand it so I went and bought a $110 Polar F6 watch and chest strap combo. I feel the accuracy is way better on the calories so probably the same on the other things it can do also. When I run my heartrate goes way up there so maybe yours does too. Good luck!

    I agree. I did the same thing. I started with a Sportline from Walmart, used it for 2 months and I would get different readings everytime. I would do 30 day shred one day and burn 150 calories and then the next day doing the same exercise I would burn 400 calories. I invested in the F6 also and have been getting more accurate readings.

    From what I understand the battery life on the Sportline is supposed to be at least a year. Polar is about 2 years.
  • ccaruso219
    ccaruso219 Posts: 92
    i am guessing it is because you are not using a chest strap I have been told by several it is the most accurate way. also as for price and type I will be getting a polar RS300 after a lot of research and it is $150... I will be using it for losing weight and I do not run but again after all research it seems the best but check your craigslist first.. I am sorta stalking craigslist hoping one will pop up

    The only thing with buying it on Craigslist or Ebay is that Polar won't honor the warranty if something is wrong.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories