Heart rate monitor: worth the money?

Hmm...

I can't speak to all of the information below, but I've been researching various tools as well to help me track and improve (About to Start Tapout XT, just got here Wednesday!)

I can tell you that most folks I've found sharing information seem to feel that heart rate monitors are the way to go if you are looking for the best tool to track heart rate and calorie output when it comes to "burst" activities, such as exercise DVD's.

I can also tell you that it does not appear from all my digging that all devices that track heart rate also provide a calorie estimate (Based on age/gender/weight etc). $60-100 seems to be the sweet spot for most of the devices that will cover the heart rate and calorie burn, and most of them are a solution with a watch and a chest strap.

I'm not sure if you are looking, but the quality of information for high intensity "planned exercise" seems to be less than desirable with other technology tools, such as the Nike+ fuel band, fitbit, bodybugg, and a few others I've also personally been looking into. I guess they tend to be really good at tracking locomotion activities (walking, jogging, running, stairs), but they can't account well for things such as strain (bands, weights, other?).

Hopefully we can both get some more feedback.

I'll elaborate. It's called a heart rate monitor. It tracks your heart rate. NOT your calories. Sure, it will use an algorithm to try to correlate heart rate to calories burned, but it's more a parlor trick than something accurate. It's guessing, and the guesses tend to be more inaccurate for women than for men. Chris has already touched on some good points about HRMs.

I've said this dozens of times of this site: If they could actually track your calories, their legal dept. would let them be called Calories Burned Monitors. There's a reason they are called HRMs instead of CBMs. Check the packaging or download the instruction manual before you buy one, and you'll notice calorie counting is a feature that's barely mentioned, if at all.

I lost most of my weight AFTER, I purchased my Polar FT7 HRM. It has helped me keep better track of the calories I burn, because I am able to set my age, my weight, and my height, etc. I would recommend getting one.

I'll elaborate. It's called a heart rate monitor. It tracks your heart rate. NOT your calories. Sure, it will use an algorithm to try to correlate heart rate to calories burned, but it's more a parlor trick than something accurate. It's guessing, and the guesses tend to be more inaccurate for women than for men. Chris has already touched on some good points about HRMs.

I've said this dozens of times of this site: If they could actually track your calories, their legal dept. would let them be called Calories Burned Monitors. There's a reason they are called HRMs instead of CBMs. Check the packaging or download the instruction manual before you buy one, and you'll notice calorie counting is a feature that's barely mentioned, if at all.

this....i have one so i use it, but i think there are better things to spend your money on.

Steph, I just noticed this forum post of yours. We havea watch that shows our heart rate. I wouldn't focus so much on the calories as to keeping your heart at it's peak fat burning rate. Mine is 140 so I always make sure I'm putting forth enough exertion to keep it there. And sometimes that IS HARD! I have to work hard for it. Any higher and I'd be burning sugar and not fat. I want my body to take my fat and burn it as energy while I'm working out. Not my sugar. Usually, the calories burned will be great when you're at your target heart rate. That's why I like those heart rate monitors. Just to see how high or low my heart rate is. If your heart rate is below the fat burning level, well, then it's not burning as much fat as it could be! Just my two cents.

This is actually a great misconception with heart rate monitors. Sure, the percentage of calories burned is higher, but you are burning fewer calories per hour then at a higher heart rate.

Say you burned 400 calories in an hour with an average heart rate of 140 bpm. 50% of them were fat, you would have burned 200 calories of fat. However, if you bumped up 160-170 bpm, you could burn 800 or 1000 calories, with 30% being fat. You would burn 240-300 calories of fat. The other benefits are that you will build more muscle faster, your heart will get stronger, and you will then need to burn more fat over the next 24 hours for recovering the worn out muscles. Stronger muscles and a stronger heart will let you workout harder in the future, increasing your ability to burn more fat, faster. It's a win-win situation.

As for the calories burned as calcuated by a HRM - it may not be 100% accurate, but it's a heck of a lot closer than any simple online calculator or walking tool will be able to produce. It uses various data points about the user (age, weight, height, sometimes BF%, VO2 Max, Max Heart Rate, etc etc etc) and compares those to the lvel of exertion (your current heart rate) to come up with a number for how many calories you're burning at one time. The only other way to be more accurate is to hook you up to sensitive medical equipment designed specifically for measuring energy expenditure. I don't think that would be a feasible thing to do while riding a bike or going for a run...

Edit: I would like to add one MAJOR benefit of using an HRM: You know EXACTLY how hard you are pushing yourself at the exact instant you look at the watch. That is VITAL information when training for a marathon, or even when following any form of program for fitness. Anything more than the simple DVD programs will have set out levels of exertion for each activity. Yes, you can go by how you feel, but there is often a delay between level of exertion and breathing patterns. An HRM will let you know how you're doing NOW.