heart rate monitors?

1FearlessFighter
1FearlessFighter Posts: 114 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
over the year i have use fitness dvds (mostly jillian Michaels) as part of my daily exercise. i have never really counted calories in and out as i was just interested in being healthy. however for the past few months i wanted to get more serious and so i really bring the intensity up in my workouts and eat very clean all the time. i manage to record the calories in but not out so i was thinking in getting a heart rate monitor.

are they just a waste of time or do they really work?
if so, does anyone have any recommendations under £150
thanks :wink:

Replies

  • loubidy
    loubidy Posts: 440 Member
    Absolutely LOOOOOVE My polar FT7!!! I've had it since February and it's really helped me, one for knowing how many calories I've burned and two for running. I am very new to running and now use my heart rate to run further (I know I can run 2.3 miles if I keep my HR around 160ish on the flat)

    I got mine for just under £70 from Amazon but I have seen them in Intersport though for closer to £100
  • mellenorris
    mellenorris Posts: 99 Member
    The Polar recommendation is a good one. I got my FT4 back in 2012, and it is still like new! I use it almost daily, and it does everything I want it to. I've only had to replace the batteries once. FT7 has more bells and whistles, but if you want to save your money... you won't be going wrong with the FT4 :)
  • _Waffle_
    _Waffle_ Posts: 13,049 Member
    are they just a waste of time or do they really work?

    They tell you what your heart rate is so in that light yes they work. I wear one to let me know what my heart rate is during exercise to help my better judge effort since your mood or the right song can affect how you feel.

    The estimates here on MFP for activities are pretty close to what you'll get out of a HRM. I typically just use the default they calculate and it's not too far off what I get off my device. If you feel it will help make you more motivated then get one. There's nothing wrong with having one. A HRM is probably a bit more accurate but not enough to warrant spending tons on one just to have one.

    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/heart-rate-monitors.htm
  • linsdog
    linsdog Posts: 94 Member
    typically find for steady state cardio MFP vastly overestimates the calories burned as opposed to a good HRM.

    HRM is good for tracking effort and getting closer to the actual calories burned.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    They are intended to track heart rate and they do a great job at that.

    As a calorie counting mechanism, they use a formula just like anything else so it is an estimation. IF you are using it during steady state cardio, such as running, elliptical...etc, the results should be pretty accurate. They are not designed for anything else though so using them during weight lifting, circuit training, most likely fitness DVDs is probably pointless.
  • fitfor40tx
    fitfor40tx Posts: 30
    LOVE my Polar FT4!!! Just make sure you follow the instructions on care (washing, etc..). It works awesome!!!
  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member
    They work by telling your heart rate. Although a heart rate doesn't always equate to actual calories burned, but they are more accurate than many other things.

    You have to be careful with some of them as they will tell you your gross calories burned and not net calories. I believe polar f4 is one of these. You will want to subtract the calories you burned from normal daily functions.

    Also they are less accurate in extreme temperatures if you are in region that experiences harsh weather.
  • 1FearlessFighter
    1FearlessFighter Posts: 114 Member
    i just checked and the polar ft7 is only £60 on amazon, is it not that accurate then since i thought i would have to spend something close to at least £100
  • _Waffle_
    _Waffle_ Posts: 13,049 Member
    i just checked and the polar ft7 is only £60 on amazon, is it not that accurate then since i thought i would have to spend something close to at least £100

    That's one of the two that I have. It's not as fancy as my other one but it's always dependable and the batteries last a good while in it too. That and the FT4 are both great. I only got the FT7 because I liked the color of it better. The FT4 would work just as well I think.
  • loubidy
    loubidy Posts: 440 Member
    i just checked and the polar ft7 is only £60 on amazon, is it not that accurate then since i thought i would have to spend something close to at least £100

    Spend more money if you want. From polar the more expensive really just means more gimmicks so its about what you want from your HRM. Polar are a well known, well spoken brand, I don't really see how your heart rate can be more accurate thats going to help you?
  • tziol
    tziol Posts: 206 Member
    I use polar H7 chest strap . If you consider buying this one too then check also compatibility with mobile apps running on Android OS (if you want to use it with android os) on the Polar's website.
  • 1FearlessFighter
    1FearlessFighter Posts: 114 Member
    does it just measure your heart rate or does it show calories burnt as well
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    does it just measure your heart rate or does it show calories burnt as well

    Most HRMs show calories burned as well. The problem is that it is just an approximation and is ONLY designed to track steady state cardio. That's where a lot of people get confused I think. Just like when you type into the cardio section of the MFP database, and it spits out an approximation using whatever formula MFP uses in the background, an HRM does the same thing. There is just a formula in the watch that calculates an estimation of your calories burned. The bonus is that it has one more data point to input into said formula...your heart rate. The problem with that is that HR does not necessarily equal calories burned. That is why it isn't accurate for things like weight lifting, circuit training, gardening...etc.

Categories