Is an HRM a necessity?

Options
13»

Replies

  • edack72
    edack72 Posts: 173 Member
    Options
    Necessity!!! I never exercise without one it is an important training tool and an indicator of if your slacking or not when I look down and only working at 80% my target heart rate I know I have to bump it up it also especially for me is an indicator for me to back off at times . I don't have an expensive one its kinda ugly but its a huge motivating exercise tool for me !!!!!!
  • cathilc
    cathilc Posts: 8
    Options
    I use mine only when I am doing interval work. This helps me in my training. As we have all heard intervals is the best way to blast the most calories in less time. So I love mine for that reason.
  • crlyxx
    crlyxx Posts: 186 Member
    Options
    I thought it was...but it seems like since I got one, the calorie burn has been pretty much the same as MFP estimates. Kind of makes it a little useless in that regard, but I still use it to take my heart rate, since I donate plasma sometimes and it helps me know I'm in the acceptable range. xD
  • dewsmom78
    dewsmom78 Posts: 498 Member
    Options
    I agree for training purposes it is a necessity. It is the best $70 I ever spent. I monitor my HR while running. But I also love seeing my calories burned during my workouts. I use it 6 days a week. So worth it.
  • aagaag
    aagaag Posts: 89 Member
    Options
    an HRM only estimates based off the oxygen intake between heart beats ...

    Nope, that's not how it works. The HRM estimates caloric expenditure as a function of heart beat - which is relatively
    precise (for one and the same individual) but not necessarily accurate (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Accuracy_vs_Precision). Oxygen intake between heart beats has nothing to do with that.

    I actually found that it was giving me a burn 300-500 MORE than I was actually burning.

    I wonder how you found that out. Because that's not a trivial thing to pull off. The only way I can think of doing that is (1) to go to a sports lab, (2) jump onto a calibrated treadmill, (3) hook yourself up to a breathalyzer, measure your oxygen intake and carbon dioxide output along with your heart rate at various levels of exercise load, (4) construct a calibration curve of your caloric expenditure as a function of your heart rate, and (5) compare it to what your HRM says. As I said, it's not like it cannot be done - but it is anything but trivial.
  • jennifershoo
    jennifershoo Posts: 3,198 Member
    Options
    The rates on here are WAY WAY WAY out. Ever since I got my 1st HRM I went better. I wont workout without it now.

    There is no way on earth I burn the amount here gives me.

    The rate your HRM is giving you is more than likely WAY WAY WAY out as well... an HRM only estimates based off the oxygen intake between heart beats ... I actually found that it was giving me a burn 300-500 MORE than I was actually burning.

    Most likely, you were eating 300-500 cals more than you thought.
  • Rocknut53
    Rocknut53 Posts: 1,794 Member
    Options
    Back in the good ol' days before these things existed we did just fine without them. We got our heart rates up, exercised 60-80 percent of max, checked our recovery heart rate and did just fine. That being said, modern technology is great. I haven't bought one yet, but might in the future because I like gadgets.
  • sassafrascas
    sassafrascas Posts: 191 Member
    Options
    So I usually go by the calories burned on the machine I am on. I always input my weight and age so I feel like it gives me a more accurate reading than mfp since it knows how hard I worked. It is always way lower. People with HRMs how do you feel it compares to the calories burned number a treadmill or elliptical would give you? Higher? lower? way off base? Close enough?
  • Deipneus
    Deipneus Posts: 1,862 Member
    Options
    Hi!

    I am wondering if I should invest in an HRM?

    I have trained so far without it, just going to how I felt and counted the calories just using the standards on here.

    Do you people feel an HRM is a must have?

    Thanks for opinions :)

    K
    If they're a "must have" then I'm screwed because I've never used one.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    So I usually go by the calories burned on the machine I am on. I always input my weight and age so I feel like it gives me a more accurate reading than mfp since it knows how hard I worked. It is always way lower. People with HRMs how do you feel it compares to the calories burned number a treadmill or elliptical would give you? Higher? lower? way off base? Close enough?

    machines know what activity you're doing, and factor that into the calculations. assuming you can enter your weight, they should be as accurate as anything else... villain fortunately there's no way to know how accurate that actually is.

    there are pros and cons to all the mathods of estimating... but ultimately none is guaranteed to be any more accurate than the other.
  • craigmandu
    craigmandu Posts: 976 Member
    Options
    I've never had one. I always research the exercise I'm doing on multiple different sites and take the "lowest" calorie burn as "probably" the closest to what I actually burn. I figure if nothing is 100% accurate, might as well estimate on the low side.
  • shinkalork
    shinkalork Posts: 815 Member
    Options
    For cardio..I would say yes... But get one with chest strap..if not it's pointless. The accuracy will be super with a chest strap.

    For weight lifting...Not at all. Your cardio doesn't work the same with weights.... So it's not accurate.
  • Dunkirk
    Dunkirk Posts: 465 Member
    Options
    I have a mio. It is accurate, without a chest strap. I don't use it to calculate calories, just to see how my heart is doing. Was really useful when I was sick recently. I wasn't aware of how ill I was, until I compared my heart rate and recovery times to me when well.
  • aagaag
    aagaag Posts: 89 Member
    Options
    the only issue with that is HRM does not work for anything but cardio. when strength training, your heart rate has 0 bearing on calories burned.

    This statement was definitely shown to be wrong, and should be demystified. There is a linear relationship between intensity of strength training and HR, and this can be used to predict vO2 (and therefore kcal consumption). However, any given heart-rate increase in strength training produces only half as much kcal consumption as the same heart-rate increase during endurance (cardio) training.

    See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2072844 for all details if you are interested.
  • jdlegallusa
    jdlegallusa Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    I have one only to alert me of "dangerous rhythms". My cardiologist has a list of activities I'm not allowed to do. Anything high cardio. I have a second degree atrioventricular heart block (Wenckebach). The last time I had a dangerous rhythm, my potassium was low. I use MFP mainly for nutrition.

    I was assigned a Nutritionist for high cholesterol. It's down to 177 from 285. I didn't know how many calories I was burning in relation to the 1500 calorie diet the Nutritionist suggested. The calorie counter says I burn around 3000 to 4000 calories a day. 6,000 to 10,000 if I'm very active. I bought a chest strap HRM to see if the pulse one was accurate. It said the same thing. Not sure if it is the heart block, since I have episodes of sinus tachycardia if I overdo or perform a high cardio activities/exercise. I used the jump rope for four 15 minute intervals on the day I burned 10,000 calories. Spent the night watching my heart rate go from 59 to 180 with dropped beats for a few.

    Not sure if those are truly calories burned.

Categories