Need advice on HRM

inkydnk3
inkydnk3 Posts: 62 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hello folks! I'm looking into investing in a HRM for better tracking. I want one that also tracks calories burned. Somthing easy to use (I don't want to stop working out to "fiddle" with the buttons on the HRM). There are so many to choose from all ranging in price. Which one do you use? Do you like it? Why or why not? If you don't mind sharing the cost and where you purchased it, that would be helpful to me as well. Thank you in advance for your help and replies.

Replies

  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,487 Member
    I have the Polar Ft4 - got it at Amazon around $65 . It is really easy to use. I love it.
  • GrammaBonnie
    GrammaBonnie Posts: 232 Member
    Hi! I've written on this subject several times. Finally I just put in on my blog: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/GrammaBonnie/view/polar-ft80-heart-rate-monitor-review-406807
    I hope this helps!
  • wbgolden
    wbgolden Posts: 2,066 Member
    I have the Polar Ft4 - got it at Amazon around $65 . It is really easy to use. I love it.
    That's a very good, basic HRM. I have one and the calorie burn it displays at the end of the workout is the most accurate of any other I've used. I'm pretty sure I got mine from Amazon for less than $40. But looking at their current prices, I was probably just lucky!

    It will never replace my Garmin 305 though :)
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Hello folks! I'm looking into investing in a HRM for better tracking. I want one that also tracks calories burned. Somthing easy to use (I don't want to stop working out to "fiddle" with the buttons on the HRM). There are so many to choose from all ranging in price. Which one do you use? Do you like it? Why or why not? If you don't mind sharing the cost and where you purchased it, that would be helpful to me as well. Thank you in advance for your help and replies.

    If it's totally for calorie burn, then the cheapest Polar or Suunto you can find.

    Won't have many other features except a general indication of fat-burning or fitness zone, and an upper zone alarm if desired.
  • katheern
    katheern Posts: 213 Member
    Polar FT4 :)
  • jdruiz89
    jdruiz89 Posts: 42 Member
    I have the Polar FT7. Nifty little gadget. The simplicity and cost of the product is definitely worth the cost if you are serious about workouts and such. I use mine for the gym/tennis. And it does hold up pretty well. I am a pretty big guy and the straps fit and don't really come loose. Unless it is a 105 degrees out.
  • 388gigi
    388gigi Posts: 485 Member
    Purple PolarFT4, around $100 new off ebay. (in Australia)

    Its on the cheaper side, it accurately tracks calories without having to stop and its comfortable.

    Love it, the best fitness related purchase I've ever made :-)
  • AngelTwin27
    AngelTwin27 Posts: 33 Member
    Another vote for Polar FT4 over here!! *waves* :-) My husband has the FT7 and also rates it, but the FT4 does the trick for me.
  • bnfs2012
    bnfs2012 Posts: 29
    I have a Bowflex with chest strap. I love it..counts calories burned, up and lower levels for HR, stop watch ...I paid 40.00 dollars for it 2 years ago..but I just looked it up and it is now going for 20.00...I love it...
  • queendeej
    queendeej Posts: 214 Member
    I only just got the Polar FT7 last week but so far so good. From http://www.bodytronics.com/ for about $75
    I have the Polar FT7. Nifty little gadget. The simplicity and cost of the product is definitely worth the cost if you are serious about workouts and such. I use mine for the gym/tennis. And it does hold up pretty well. I am a pretty big guy and the straps fit and don't really come loose. Unless it is a 105 degrees out.
  • chriskrycho
    chriskrycho Posts: 5
    It really depends on what exactly your goals are and how heavily you're going to use it. I used a Timex Ironman heart-rate monitor for about the first year and some change I used a HRM, and it probably would have been fine for a basic exercise regimen. I pushed it pretty hard, though: lots of long workouts in the heat (I used it for heart-rate training for half-marathons, rather than just basic calorie tracking). In that time, I killed two bands – they just flat quit working.

    I'm now using a Polar RS300X. It's a little pricier than the FT4 or FT7 models – I know my parents between them have and particularly like both of those – but it's fantastic for more serious training like I'm doing. My experience so far says: Go with a Polar. I can't speak for the lower end models from experience, but the RS300X is head and shoulders and hips and knees and toes above the Timex I was using in every metric: HR accuracy, band comfort, band adjustability, band materials, you name it. I suspect the same is true of the lower end models.

    A word of caution: if you're going to use the calorie burn estimates provided by a HRM, you need to normalize it against what you'd burn doing very little (e.g. sitting at a desk or on the couch) in the same time. Otherwise, especially for longer workouts, it will overestimate for tracking it on a site like MFP. It will give you a pretty good read on the actual calories you've burned – but without baselining that against the calories you would have burned even without doing anything, you can get some pretty over-the-top numbers if you start coming up over 45 minutes of activity. The easiest way to handle that is just to strap on the band and watch while you're watching TV or something along those lines and see what it measures in an hour.

    Good luck! :)
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    – but without baselining that against the calories you would have burned even without doing anything, you can get some pretty over-the-top numbers if you start coming up over 45 minutes of activity. The easiest way to handle that is just to strap on the band and watch while you're watching TV or something along those lines and see what it measures in an hour.

    Sadly that method doesn't work for the cheaper models.
    That nice one and maybe 1 other Polar, several Suunto and Garmins that use Firstbeat algorithms, are the only ones semi-valid for wearing outside of steady-state aerobic range and hoping for decent calorie counts.

    Polar's study linked here.
    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    But as you mention, for loss sites like MFP, there is an even easier way.

    Your HRM is telling you in total what you burned. Including what you would have burned not exercising.

    But what is MFP assuming and counting on you burning during that same time already?

    MFP - Goals page - Calories Burned From Normal Daily Activity / 1440 * minutes of exercise.

    So that is more than RMR that the more expensive HRM's could give you a decent figure of.
  • chriskrycho
    chriskrycho Posts: 5
    Sadly that method doesn't work for the cheaper models.
    That nice one and maybe 1 other Polar, several Suunto and Garmins that use Firstbeat algorithms, are the only ones semi-valid for wearing outside of steady-state aerobic range and hoping for decent calorie counts.

    Polar's study linked here.
    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm
    Interesting, and good to know. I'll stick that in my information base – appreciate it!
  • GrammaBonnie
    GrammaBonnie Posts: 232 Member
    – but without baselining that against the calories you would have burned even without doing anything, you can get some pretty over-the-top numbers if you start coming up over 45 minutes of activity. The easiest way to handle that is just to strap on the band and watch while you're watching TV or something along those lines and see what it measures in an hour.

    Sadly that method doesn't work for the cheaper models.
    That nice one and maybe 1 other Polar, several Suunto and Garmins that use Firstbeat algorithms, are the only ones semi-valid for wearing outside of steady-state aerobic range and hoping for decent calorie counts.

    Polar's study linked here.
    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    But as you mention, for loss sites like MFP, there is an even easier way.

    Your HRM is telling you in total what you burned. Including what you would have burned not exercising.

    But what is MFP assuming and counting on you burning during that same time already?

    MFP - Goals page - Calories Burned From Normal Daily Activity / 1440 * minutes of exercise.

    So that is more than RMR that the more expensive HRM's could give you a decent figure of.

    An interesting report. However, I do note that it was based on an article published in March 2005. When you consider how much computers have changed in the last 7.4 years, I think it is reasonable to presume that HRM's, which are computers for a very specific process, have adapted as well.

    The Polar Guy, who serves New England, says that the HRM's are now 99.9% accurate. They are not medical devices, but data from them can be used by Doc's as a good starting point.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    An interesting report. However, I do note that it was based on an article published in March 2005. When you consider how much computers have changed in the last 7.4 years, I think it is reasonable to presume that HRM's, which are computers for a very specific process, have adapted as well.

    The Polar Guy, who serves New England, says that the HRM's are now 99.9% accurate. They are not medical devices, but data from them can be used by Doc's as a good starting point.

    HRM's for their purpose - reading your HR - are very accurate, as accurate as EKG machines almost.
    That's what he's talking about.

    Calorie burn estimates based on HR are a whole other story.

    The relationship between HR and how much you are burning is closely correlated, and the reasons studies actually are still ongoing to find the best relationship that could be used in algorithms.
    But during steady state aerobic level HR.

    Has nothing to do with what the computers can make of the data (though that has helped), but the expense of making the watch do that.

    That is why there are very few specific models that are valid outside the aerobic range, and they are more expensive, because they are doing more.

    Polar's own FAQ's mention this.

Categories