Heart rate monitors, are they worth it?

to me, SO WORTH ITTT! I love being held accountable. I love knowing exactly what I put in my body and exactly how much of it ive burned off. I just got a new one that seems to be extremely accurate and its so comfortable really I forget I have it on. I would say save your pennies get a nice one. I already feel an immense amount better with my body. it pushes me to challenge myself too bc the one I have keeps track of every step and it pushes u to do more than u did the time before. so I hope this helps! good luck with your journey )

Short answer - Yes!

Definitely get one. Good ones like Polar can be pricey, but I have found that they are worth the money spent. I have a Polar FT4 that I love. Having a heart rate monitor showed me that gym machines, MFP, and running aps don't accurately measure my calories burned. And how could it? Not everybody running on the treadmill is going to burn calories at the same rate.

Yes they are. I use it to keep my asthma in check. I make sure my HR does not get too high.

To me they are one of the most important tools for weight loss along with a food scale.

If you are overestimating your calories burned, and eating back those calories, you could be eating maintenance and wonder why you aren't losing.

definitely get one!

^^ This - I could not say it any better!

I feel the same way. Emphasis on the food scale.
I really depend on my Polar FT7.
I have been using it for a long while and I always "eat back my exercise calories." My weigh loss has been steady and consistent.
When I first joined the gym I had a free personal trainer session and I wore my HRM. He took my heart rate with his finger on my wrist....my HRM was only off by like 2 beats per minute from what the trainer told me my HR was.

I got the PolarFt4 and it was "only" $60 on Amazon ... I know pricepoints are different for people, but that wasn't much for me to spend for the feedback it provides. I actually am not a huge HRM lover, I don't wear it for every workout (just a bit of a pain to put on each time, as I do multiple workouts a day) but I would still recommend it.

Heart rate monitors have an even more important purpose than being a gauge for measuring calories burned. Most people get them for that purpose, which is good. BTW - they too, are an estimate. The only way to accurately measure calories burned is with metabolic testing. But it is a consistent read out of effort, so that is better than a formula.

The best usage is learning heart rate zones. The all out zone is actually not the best zone for burning fat. Runners can benefit increasing their endurance by training in the proper zone. Briefly, there are 5 zones, from resting to all out. My HRM does this, but some use colors and other names.

RESTING (60 - 114)
1. WARM UP (115 - 124)
2. FAT BURNING (125 - 135)
3. AEROBIC (136 - 146)
4. ANAEROBIC (147 - 168)
5. MAXIMUM (169 - 169)

All exercise burns calories, but intervals using zones 2, 3 and 4 can produce better results. For endurance runners, a long run of 2 hours is a fat burning zone by default.

I had a Polar with a watch, which was good, but I love my Waahoo which synches to my iPhone and Endomondo. But there are lots of apps it will work with.

Another SO WORTH IT vote! Everyone with the Polar recommendation is spot on. If money isn't tight for you, I definitely recommend one of their high end models. Money is tight for me, though! I bought my FT4 on bodytronics.com with a coupon code and had it shipped to me for under $60 - check out retailmenot before you buy online. You pretty much can't beat that. It does everything I need and more... bonus points for being compatible with pretty much any piece of cardio equipment I've ever hopped on at the gym!

THAT SAID, do a LOT of research if you decide to go for a low end, odd brand model for $20, $30. My folks have one that is just a watch piece, and you put your fingers on it to get your heart rate. I don't trust it! I've tried it out of curiosity with my Polar HRM on, and the two don't agree. If it doesn't strap across your chest, think twice and do some digging.

They are definitely worth it provided you get a good one.

There are really cheap ones out there but most are only a watch which won't be as accurate since it only takes your HR when you touch the button. If you get one with a chest strap and one that allows you to enter your height, sex, age and weight they are so worth it... up there with a food scale.

What kind did you get? Since you're satisfied with it, I just might want to put that on my Christmas list. Or I might just get it for myself.

Absolutely necessary for steady state cardio! Trying to estimate just doesn't cut it. Heart rate monitors are not 100% accurate but MFP estimations may be +-10% and that can add up to a huge number in one week. Unfortunately my HRM went back for warranty work = (. This morning MFP estimated my calorie burn right around 1000 for 55 minutes of running but I know that is 100-200 to high!

My own opinion is they are highly overrated. That isn't saying they arent useful tool, I just don't think they are a must have.

Heart rate zones for calorie burn/weight loss are irreverent and usually inaccurate anyway.
Yes, at a certain level you burn more fat calories, however, the intensity is low so you burn fewer calories. At higher levels you burn more calories so even though the percent of burned is lower, the results are still higher.

HRMs also have varying degrees of accuracy when it comes to estimating calories burned. The formulas are based on steady state cardio activity so other types of training, like intervals and strength training will affect the accuracy. Even under ideal circumstances they can be off 20-30%.

A couple of good blog posts on the topic
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories?hl=HRM


Now heart rate zones for training, not burning calories, they are useful.

Bump

This content has been removed.

The reality. It can be effective if one has all the right information and the HRM is good enough to use that information correctly.

HRMs measure heart rate nothing else. They "estimate" caloric expenditure during steady-state cardiovascular exercise using the relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake (or VO2) and various algorithims in their software.

One has to know two very inportant things. First one's max HR, difficult to determine but doable. Second, one's V02 max. Much more difficult to do and requires some various testing methods such as the "1-mile run" or "Cooper 12-min run".

The bottome line: the HRM's ability to "estimate" calorie counts are only accurate when there is a reliable and measurable relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake.

On top of that there are lots of reasons why HR can increase without a related increase in VO2 uptake . One of those is heavy lifting. Which causes the HR to go up only because of increased pressure.

As with anything else related to fitness it is more complicated than the manufacturers of HRMs lead you to believe. If one can't acurately figure out one's max HR and VO2 max and the monitor does not even use those figures, then you are better of just estimating your caloire burn using the various height/weight/sex/etc calculators on MFP and other web sites.