Heart rate monitor advice

Options
kelseyjsnyder
kelseyjsnyder Posts: 219 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I am wanting to get a heart rate monitor so i can more accurately track my calories. Here is my delimma....I dont have internet. So I need one that doesnt require internet usage. I do have a computer so i can download software from a cd or something. And from not having internet I have not been able to research heart rate monitors at all.
p.s. im sure i will get a response "obviously you have internet you are posting here" This website is not blocked at my work. however almost all websites are including any search engines like google or bing.

all advice is appriciated
«1

Replies

  • FP4HSharon
    FP4HSharon Posts: 664 Member
    Options
    A recent news article said that most companies that make them are planning on gradually getting out of the business, because all of them are notoriously inaccurate. My husband has tried one, and I know others as well. Have yet to run into someone who really liked them, someone who didn't have issues with them, and someone who thought they were all that accurate. Save your money, use MFP's food/exercise log...which is probably much more accurate.

    But if you really want to waste your money, Consumer Reports like the Polar brand.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    A recent news article said that most companies that make them are planning on gradually getting out of the business, because all of them are notoriously inaccurate. My husband has tried one, and I know others as well. Have yet to run into someone who really liked them, someone who didn't have issues with them, and someone who thought they were all that accurate. Save your money, use MFP's food/exercise log...which is probably much more accurate.

    But if you really want to waste your money, Consumer Reports like the Polar brand.

    Link to that article?

    Your assessment that MFP's database is more accurate is contrary to pretty much every thread and post here on the subject.
  • dpandori
    dpandori Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    I have a Polar H7 that is bluetooth enabled. It connects to the Polar Fitness app on my phone and that's how I track my heart rate. It also stores history so you can go back and look at progress.

    You can buy it at Amazon for much less than from Polar.
  • FP4HSharon
    FP4HSharon Posts: 664 Member
    Options
    A recent news article said that most companies that make them are planning on gradually getting out of the business, because all of them are notoriously inaccurate. My husband has tried one, and I know others as well. Have yet to run into someone who really liked them, someone who didn't have issues with them, and someone who thought they were all that accurate. Save your money, use MFP's food/exercise log...which is probably much more accurate.

    But if you really want to waste your money, Consumer Reports like the Polar brand.

    Link to that article?

    Your assessment that MFP's database is more accurate is contrary to pretty much every thread and post here on the subject.

    Here's the link to the article. No, MFP's database isn't perfect, but it's free. That's what I meant when I said she should just save her money and use the free app.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fitness-bands-slick-marketing-suspect-150047229.html
  • bmqbonnie
    bmqbonnie Posts: 836 Member
    Options
    I have a pretty basic model Polar. It doesn't have any fancy features that require internet, doesn't have bluetooth or syncing or anything like that. I just wear it and then enter the calories burnt into mfp, minus about 100 cals/hour (because I figure I burn around that much doing normal non workout stuff). I got it on amazon for about $60.
  • kellyk1111
    kellyk1111 Posts: 7
    Options
    That article isn't about heart rate monitors, it's about fitbit type activity trackers. Apples and oranges.

    I have a Polar heart rate monitor, I think it's a FT4,, a very basic one. It is the chest band type with a watch where you read your data. No bluetooth or any other connection to a PC or smart phone, but it does connect somehow to some of the equipment at my gym, so I can do the cardio programs and it uses the heart rate from my monitor rather than from the handles. At the end of your workout, you can use the buttons on the watch to scroll through and see your average heart rate, calories burned and duration of workout.

    I think some of the more sophisticated ones that Polar has use a different method for calculating calories that is supposed to be more accurate to your individual fitness. I am pretty confident what it's telling me is pretty close, so I am OK with this one for now.

    When I first got it, I logged the info onto their website fitness tracker, but I decided to just use MFP instead and skip that step I use the calories that it tells me rather than what MFP calculates, you can just override it when entering it.
  • george7527
    george7527 Posts: 267 Member
    Options
    I totally rely on my HRT as long as you use the same one and I put your own data in eg weight height ECT then you have a more accurate number calories used .
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    A recent news article said that most companies that make them are planning on gradually getting out of the business, because all of them are notoriously inaccurate. My husband has tried one, and I know others as well. Have yet to run into someone who really liked them, someone who didn't have issues with them, and someone who thought they were all that accurate. Save your money, use MFP's food/exercise log...which is probably much more accurate.

    But if you really want to waste your money, Consumer Reports like the Polar brand.

    Link to that article?

    Your assessment that MFP's database is more accurate is contrary to pretty much every thread and post here on the subject.

    Here's the link to the article. No, MFP's database isn't perfect, but it's free. That's what I meant when I said she should just save her money and use the free app.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fitness-bands-slick-marketing-suspect-150047229.html

    That article isn't about heart rate monitors....

    Did you post the wrong link?
  • jerber160
    jerber160 Posts: 2,606 Member
    Options
    A recent news article said that most companies that make them are planning on gradually getting out of the business, because all of them are notoriously inaccurate. My husband has tried one, and I know others as well. Have yet to run into someone who really liked them, someone who didn't have issues with them, and someone who thought they were all that accurate. Save your money, use MFP's food/exercise log...which is probably much more accurate.

    But if you really want to waste your money, Consumer Reports like the Polar brand.

    PERSONALLY, i'D IGNORE THIS... I LOVE MY POLAR FT4. It matches fairly well with machines at gym... and lets me count things like grass cutting with more accuracy
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    A recent news article said that most companies that make them are planning on gradually getting out of the business, because all of them are notoriously inaccurate. My husband has tried one, and I know others as well. Have yet to run into someone who really liked them, someone who didn't have issues with them, and someone who thought they were all that accurate. Save your money, use MFP's food/exercise log...which is probably much more accurate.

    But if you really want to waste your money, Consumer Reports like the Polar brand.

    PERSONALLY, i'D IGNORE THIS... I LOVE MY POLAR FT4. It matches fairly well with machines at gym... and lets me count things like grass cutting with more accuracy

    HRMs are not designed to track calorie burns on things like grass cutting. They are for steady state cardio only.
  • bmqbonnie
    bmqbonnie Posts: 836 Member
    Options
    A recent news article said that most companies that make them are planning on gradually getting out of the business, because all of them are notoriously inaccurate. My husband has tried one, and I know others as well. Have yet to run into someone who really liked them, someone who didn't have issues with them, and someone who thought they were all that accurate. Save your money, use MFP's food/exercise log...which is probably much more accurate.

    But if you really want to waste your money, Consumer Reports like the Polar brand.

    PERSONALLY, i'D IGNORE THIS... I LOVE MY POLAR FT4. It matches fairly well with machines at gym... and lets me count things like grass cutting with more accuracy

    HRMs are not designed to track calorie burns on things like grass cutting. They are for steady state cardio only.

    Elaborate? I don't use it for normal activities like household chores, but I do use it for weight lifting, intervals, etc.
  • tmj4477
    tmj4477 Posts: 145 Member
    Options
    I love my HRT it might not be 100% accurate with my activity but it is close. MPF tends to give more calories than I actually burn. Also as you gain or lose weight you have to update your HRM to get a more accurate estimate of calories burned. I have one at work and one for home I love them. If money is a issue see if you can get a used one on Amazon or Ebay.
  • mrsfurby14
    mrsfurby14 Posts: 181 Member
    Options
    I have the polar f4 and LOVE it!
    I would be really lost without it, its the best investment I ever did.
  • Sjarkey15
    Sjarkey15 Posts: 57 Member
    Options
    Polar FT4 and FT40 are great and don't need to conecting to a computer or the internet! HRMs are the most accurate way to track calories burned. Just make sure you get one with a chest strap and not the ones that track through the wrist. They aren't nearly as accurate and aren't constant.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,122 Member
    Options
    A recent news article said that most companies that make them are planning on gradually getting out of the business, because all of them are notoriously inaccurate. My husband has tried one, and I know others as well. Have yet to run into someone who really liked them, someone who didn't have issues with them, and someone who thought they were all that accurate. Save your money, use MFP's food/exercise log...which is probably much more accurate.

    But if you really want to waste your money, Consumer Reports like the Polar brand.

    PERSONALLY, i'D IGNORE THIS... I LOVE MY POLAR FT4. It matches fairly well with machines at gym... and lets me count things like grass cutting with more accuracy

    HRMs are not designed to track calorie burns on things like grass cutting. They are for steady state cardio only.

    Elaborate? I don't use it for normal activities like household chores, but I do use it for weight lifting, intervals, etc.

    HRMs use calculations that only work for steady state cardio. That is because the energy pathways that are used for say weight lifting or intervals which tend to be anaerobic rather than aerobic, are different. That means the calculations to estimate calories from HR would return an incorrect number. HRMs are great for what they are designed for, steady state cardio (aerobic) activity. For other stuff, not so much.

    To the OP, for calorie estimation you must have a HRM with a chest strap. The ones that require you to take readings by touching the face of the watch can in no way give accurate results. Further, make sure at the very least you can enter you age, sex, height, and weight. Better yet, one that also includes being able to enter your VO2 Max.
  • vms4evr
    vms4evr Posts: 105 Member
    Options
    I used and FT1 and moved to an FT7. It does good for cardio and I use it for strength training anyway. It is a point of reference, not the ultimate solution, but much better than MFP guessing what I personally do. All the MFP numbers are approximations of some or many people. I'll stick with the HRM method and at least I'm consistent. MFP is great for tracking calories of foods, that's about it.
  • kelseyjsnyder
    kelseyjsnyder Posts: 219 Member
    Options
    Thanks everyone i will check those all out soon!
  • hensue11
    hensue11 Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    I just recently had a HRM and it really opened my eyes of how much i was not burning!....i thought i was burning quite a bit more than what it tells me;)
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    Options
    As above.
    Your article is in regerds to fitness bands.
    These are basically a pedometer that you can buy for $2.50, sold for $100+ with extra monthly subscriptions and so on.
    If the companies can sell a $2.50 device with a $2 wifi connector for $100 with a $10 monthly fee, do you really think they'll be stopping?

    Regardless, fitness bands are specifically designed to track 'daily' stuff and don't take account of heart rate and so on.
    Heart rate monitors are specifically intended for steady state cardio and don't work well for daily stuff.

    I like the motoactv which can work as both.
    For basic calorie counting it will give you a figure at the end of the day which includes steps and workouts recorded with heart rate and other information (say GPS tracking and bike cadence.)
    From what I can tell, the footsteps recorded are pretty accurate.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Options
    A recent news article said that most companies that make them are planning on gradually getting out of the business, because all of them are notoriously inaccurate. My husband has tried one, and I know others as well. Have yet to run into someone who really liked them, someone who didn't have issues with them, and someone who thought they were all that accurate. Save your money, use MFP's food/exercise log...which is probably much more accurate.

    But if you really want to waste your money, Consumer Reports like the Polar brand.
    I loved my HRM (unfortunately lost the strap and never replaced it) and I know several others who love their's. The MFP database has always been pretty darned close to my HRM, though, so if it's accurate then so is my HRM.

    The problem with the database is that much of my cardio exercise is walking or jogging and there are a lot of hills. If I put "walking 4 mph" into the database, it assume a flat surface and therefore records fewer calories due to the hill. My HRM would account for the hill.

Categories