Yet another HRM question...

HRMs are great at measuring your heart rate. Whether they are also great at estimating calories burned depends on how closely your activity matches their design parameters.

One study of the Polar F6 showed that, even calibrated with subjects' actual VO2max and HRmax, it overestimated energy expenditure by 27% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923). An earlier study showed that the Polar S410 overestimated energy expenditure in women by 12% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292754). Another study found that the Polar S810i overestimated expenditure when exercising lightly but not moderately (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n3/21/v9n3-21abst.php). The research seems to suggest that HRMs are less accurate for women than they are for men.

The study by Keytel et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15966347) that produced a widely-used formula found that it was reasonably accurate for groups when VO2max had been measured, but less accurate without measurement of VO2max - in the latter case, over 26% of the variance in energy expenditure was not explained by their equation, which uses heart rate, gender, age, and weight to estimate calories consumed.

And that is doing moderate to intense, steady-state cardio. The scenario you mention, walking with occasional running spurts, is not likely to produce accurate estimates from most HRMs, unless you're walking fast enough that it is hard for you to sing.

It's possible that HRMs using Firstbeat, Inc.'s proprietary algorithm would produce more accurate results. They're quite a bit more expensive than a typical HRM, though; Suunto and Garmin are the main manufacturers that license Firstbeat technology (though not for all their products).

For what it's worth, MFP's exercise database seems to be a lot more accurate for walking than it is for other activities.

I use a Garmin 410 with GPS because I run. Frankly, at this point I'm more interested in the GPS capabilities than the calories component because after several years of running I already know with near certainty how many calories I burn per mile. The Garmin uses a HRM chest strap with ANT+ (as opposed to bluetooth).

You can't like a HRM directly to MFP. You can, however, link it to an app that you'd use during your activity which then links to MFP. You'd want to look through the available apps to find one you like and then find from the app which type of HRM strap to purchase to work with the app.

Polar FT4 - works great, cheaper than a lot of the others and is sufficient for basics. I don't have a need for anything much fancier than that.

I have the Garmin vivofit and I like it. It does link to MFP. The Garmin gives more exercise calories than MFP but I usually go with it since I wear the HRM band. With that said I still leave 200-300 calories everyday to adjust for any calorie adjustments. I don't believe anything is perfect in science . It is all relative.

I use the Polar FT7. I wanted something to track during workouts only and this does the trick and is simple to setup and use. I'm very satisfied with it!

ParkerH47 wrote: »

Great info, thanks. Do you think an HRM would still be MORE accurate than a fitbit or even simply adding exercise into MFP?

I wouldn't get a HRM to estimate calories if my main exercise was walking with short jogs. If you're thinking of doing more intense cardio - at a speed where it's difficult to speak in full sentences, and impossible to sing - then a HRM might be worth it, along with a book on how to use them effectively.