Question about heart rate monitors !

Does anyone have one they bought that was under 100 dollars ?? I'm on a budget. Don't need one that's fancy just one that works correctly . And if so what store. Don't want one from online. Rather buy one today at a store.

What are you wanting to use it for?

show previous quotes

Does anyone have one they bought that was under 100 dollars ?? I'm on a budget. Don't need one that's fancy just one that works correctly . And if so what store. Don't want one from online. Rather buy one today at a store.

What are you wanting to use it for?

Track calories burned

Wouldn't bother then, thay're no more or less accurate than what MFP will estimate for many activities. Certainly not enough to warrant rushing out to buy one Today...

I disagree. I find MFP quotes to be all over the board. I also have a Polar FT4. I've had it for over a year and love it.

I disagree. I find MFP quotes to be all over the board. I also have a Polar FT4. I've had it for over a year and love it.

I have an FT60, and I've tested it against MFP, Runkeeper, Endomondo, Strava and Runtastic. These are based on distance runs and road cycling, so really the sweet spot for HRM calorie approximation algorithms; long duration steady state energy expenditure in the middle of the aerobic training range. No anaerobic, and no low intensity periods. These are expenditures from 800-2000 calories per session

I've generally found Endomondo to give the highest estimation, but it's worth noting that it include BMR in it's displayed expenditure. Around 8-10% above mean.

Strava generally forecasts a bit behind Endomondo, so given the BMR inclusion of Endomondo they're actually similar. About 5-8% above mean

HRM, MFP are generally pretty close and sit below Endomondo and Strava. Between 5% below and 5% above mean

Runkeeper and Runtastic - Generally the most conservative estimates at arboun 5-8% below mean

Given that calorie expenditure is an approximation anyway that range above and below mean is pretty much margin of error territory anyway.

Really, save the money, it's just not worth it. I now just use Runkeeper approximations as they're more conservative anyway. That's particularly pertinent if one is talking about exercise DVDs and classes like Zumba, the variation of HR during those sessions renders the calorie approximation in an HRM particularly vulnerable. As it uses HR as a proxy for calorie extimation where HR varies significantly, or goes into the anaerobic range the algorithms break down and the HRM is going to over-estimate actual expenditure.