Which Heart Rate Monitor and how useful is it really?

I use the FitBit and it is very motivating. The new ones update without a cradle, but even so it provides feedback and challenges. It is positive motivation...and has a sleep monitor setting. Although it is a bit pricey, it is cheaper than high blood pressure medicine every month--so I consider it money well spent. (You can even have friendly competitions with others.) I use it to add steps to my day, so I can add years to my life.

As an FYI - there is no difference between the Men's and Women's models except the men's is less ugly. Exact same product, different colors.

Re: the FT7 I just bought one of these for myself and one for my wife

The women's band is narrower and somewhat shorter - but the watch itself is the same size as the men's. A woman can easily use a man's though because the band is constructed with continuous holes.

ETA: context

I have an old RS200 that I've had for forever and I love it. I've had metabolic testing done so I know *exactly* where my heart rate zones are and it's programmed into the watch. I like it because I get accurate calorie counts, and since I know what heart rate zone I'm in I can make my workout more effective for my time spent.

I use an FT7 and find that it gives me all the features I need. While it is true that it will not really help you lose more weight, I nonetheless found it very enlightening to see a more accurate presentation of how many calories I was really burning versus how many calories whatever machine I was using estimated. Generally, the machine estimated about 1/3 to 1/2 more calories than the HRM. The consequence of that was that it motivated me to work longer and harder at my exercise to improve my burns. So, in that respect, it has helped me lose weight.

A HRM won't help you lose weight. It will tell you how hard you work when you exercise and how many calories you burn but there's no magic about it for weight loss. The more expensive models are usually GPS enabled for mapping out running or cycling and giving you your pace and cadence numbers.

For just basic use a Polar FT4 or FT7 will do the job just fine. Just don't go cheaper and get one without a chest strap. Also HRM's are only meant to be worn for exercise that gets your HR up. They aren't accurate to wear all the time like a FitBit or BodyBugg.

My husband has had the Polar FT7 for over a year and is very pleased with it. I just bought the FT4 and used it yesterday for the first time. Figured out that the number that MFP gave me for how many calories I burn in an hour on the bike is is TWICE as much as I am actually burning. That explains a lot.

The Fitbit seems to be good for those who walk, but doesn't give an accurate burn for cycling or other activities. It also doesn't measure your heart rate, so I'm not sure HOW it gives you an accurate calorie burn just based on the number of steps you take.

If you are going to use a HRM, be sure you get one with a chest strap for an accurate HR and calorie burn. You can find the Polar ones on Ebay for around $50, which is half what you would pay in the stores.

BTW, the features on my husband's FT7 and my FT4 look exactly the same. The FT4 was a little less on Ebay, so I went with that one. The ladies watch has a slimmer band. Everything else is the same.

I have a Mio watch. It calculates your burn based on your weight and heart rate. You can input your target calories for the day and you can add what you eat (value only). You set the timer to start when you exercise and do heart rate sometime in middle of it. Calculates how many calories burn and keeps a running total. It retails for $59.99 (CAN) but I bought my for $25. I'm sure other ones are good. For me i like this one because I just put it on and go.

Polar is the most accurate from what I'v read/heard....Bodybug also has a good reputation but are considerably more expensive than the basic Polar models. I also have the Polar FT7- very user friendly and accurate. Follow the instrucions about rinsing it after each use. Also- I've found it works better with electrode gel as opposed to water. (u can get the gel cheap frm amazon/ebay)

The HR monitor is a useful tool for tracking you calorie burn during exercise. Most of these sites over-estimate the calories burned with activity...which can really tank weight loss if yo want to eat back some of those calories. It also helped me see which dvd's, machines and routines give me more calorie burn for my time!

Good Luck!!

I've just started training for a 130mile cycleride which involves a training schedule that slowly increases my distance. I'm also trying to get back upto swimming 3km. I also need to do some hill training. However my main goal at the moment is losing weight, so I want something that can tell me when I'm exercising effectively for weight loss. I'm not sure what my budget is... but I suppose definately less than £200 and hopefully less than £100 but willing to go higher if its actually going to help. I had a HR monitor 8 years ago that only told me HR and cals and wonderig if spending the extra money is worth it for the GPS models and the other extra features.

Based on your goals, I would say stick with a Polar product because their products seem to be the best when it comes to HR training and multi-sport activities. I narrowed down watches that might be good for you and it seems like the RS300x might be a good choice for your budget, but you would also need to purchase the GPS add on for it. The only polar product currently that has built in GPS is the RC3 GPS but it would not be good for swimming. You could of course just not get one with GPS and use a smart phone app but it will be less accurate. Polar's website has a great product finder. I would start there and then read some reviews on Amazon, etc. to make your final decision.

A HRM won't help you lose weight. It will tell you how hard you work when you exercise and how many calories you burn but there's no magic about it for weight loss.

This answer came in early, and I'm quoting it because it's the most relevant, sensible statement you're ever going to hear about weight loss and HRMs.

You are training for a long distance race, so you already have a training program that will help you get fit. That, eating in a calorie deficit is all that you need. HRMs do not lose weight for you, they don't speed up weight loss, they don't make your exercise routine more efficient. They don't do anything. Yet so many people, people that I respect, ;people on my FL that I know work out hard, list their exercises as "Running with HRM" as if that's different from, you know, "Running".

Save your money, eat properly, and train hard for your race. Honestly, I've seen HRMs slow weight loss more than speed it up (fat burning zone, anyone?)

I'm trying to work out if I should get a HR monitor and if so which one I should get. They seem to range from £30 upto £300. Do the more expensive ones actually help you loose more weight and get fitter?

The higher end HMRs are really geared towards people that are fairly fit and working on specific fitness goals. They often let you split workouts in to different segments, give you GPS readings showing elevation, heart rate, and pace at the same time. You probably just need a Polar FT4/FT7.

A HRM won't help you lose weight. It will tell you how hard you work when you exercise and how many calories you burn but there's no magic about it for weight loss.

This answer came in early, and I'm quoting it because it's the most relevant, sensible statement you're ever going to hear about weight loss and HRMs.

You are training for a long distance race, so you already have a training program that will help you get fit. That, eating in a calorie deficit is all that you need. HRMs do not lose weight for you, they don't speed up weight loss, they don't make your exercise routine more efficient. They don't do anything. Yet so many people, people that I respect, ;people on my FL that I know work out hard, list their exercises as "Running with HRM" as if that's different from, you know, "Running".

Save your money, eat properly, and train hard for your race. Honestly, I've seen HRMs slow weight loss more than speed it up (fat burning zone, anyone?)

I really have to disagree with your idea that HRM's don't do anything. They do exactly what's advertised; read your HR and give you that information. It's just one more piece of information that may or may not be of use to you. Do you need that info? No, but some people might find it useful.

If you wanted to give a more accurate warning about training with a HRM, it would be more like the following.

1) HRM's at best will only give you an estimate of calories burned. Expect a healthy margin of error, especially if you don't know your true max HR.
2) There is no "perfect" zone to train in. Learning to understand the effort you must train at is more important than anything else.

I think I understand what you're trying to say but I've seen so many runner's telling people to throw away their HRM's and I just think a little sound advice is needed. I thoroughly enjoy being able to fully analyze my runs afterwards, whether that makes me more effecient or not.

I agree, HRMs do work perfectly well for reading heart rate. But the OP specifically asked if they would help her get fitter and lose weight, not help read her heart rate. So for her needs, the answer is a clear and emphatic NO.

Question for you, and I'm not trying to be a smart *kitten*. You say you analyze you runs by looking at your HRM results post run. What information are you looking at and how does it help your running progression?

I still think they can be helpful to lose weight if you are utilizing a sight like this to count calories. The estimated caloric burn might come with a margin of error, but it is still one of your best options to try to budget your calories. I'm not saying it has to be done this way, but it clearly works for a lot of people.

To answer your question, the HRM I use reads pace, elevation, HR, and maps my route for me post run. I would say that the HR data for me helps more to back up my feeling about my improvement (or lack thereof). I like to examine the basic HR to pace comparitive curve for similar runs. I don't think it really improves my progression as much as just adds another piece of information for me to verify that I am improving (think short and long term trends). I try not to pay too much attention to my HR while I'm actually running unless I am doing a Tempo run and aiming for a specific new faster pace. And that's mostly just to make sure I'm not overdoing it just to reach that pace. On top of all that, I'm just a bit of a stats/data geek and it gives me more to look at in between runs.

I own a Polar FT7, Garmin Forerunner, and a Polar RC3 GPS (just picked this one up a few weeks ago). For running and biking I am loving the RC3 but I have heard that it doesn't work for swimming and the watch is only mildy waterproof. I still use the FT7 when I'm lifting weights but it's just to make sure my heart rate has fallen sufficiently between sets.