which heart rate monitor???

I'm not sure what you consider lots of money, but you can get a decent HRM for $100 or less. I have a Polar FT4, and I love it. It was a little less than $100.

Search online and read reviews on various types. You are sure to find one that will work for you.

Hope this helps!

You haven't said what kind of activity you plan to use it for.
e.g. If swimming it would be a good idea to get a waterproof one!

If using in a gym on cardio machines I would stick to a mainstream brand like Polar so they are more likely to sync with the various machines.

If running or walking I wouldn't bother using one at all unless you plan to use it as a training aid rather than a calorie estimator.

They all just provide a rough estimate but wouldn't recommend getting one without a chest strap.

@MeanderingMammal, would you elaborate a bit on when to use or not use HRMs?

I am just starting a fitness journey, like I'm starting from absolute zero. I am a gadget geek so I am susceptible to shiny toys.

If I do want to monitor my heart rate and work to a certain %, do you think it's not worth it? Only if you're training or something?

alliums wrote: »

@MeanderingMammal, would you elaborate a bit on when to use or not use HRMs?

For calorie consumption they're designed to operate in a situation that broadly replicates how they were designed, so for broadly consistent HR in the aerobic range. Traning where transitions in heart rate are steep, or go into the anaerobic range, mean that their calorie estimates become wildly inaccurate.

If I do want to monitor my heart rate and work to a certain %, do you think it's not worth it? Only if you're training or something?

Zone training has a place, but for the vast majority of people you get more training effect from working in one of three modes; Long duration steady state, tempo (so around the lactate threshold) and anaerobic intervals. It's useful to have an HRM that's tied into GPS to analyse those, so a Garmin with HRM or something, or a Polar H7 with Runkeeper or Endomondo on the phone, but only really once you're experienced enough to be able to come to a conclusion from the data.

Personally I work on pace, rather than HR. Long steady state might be 120 minutes at 10 minute mile, tempo would be 40 minutes at 8:30/ mile and intervals would be 5* 400 metre with 1 min recovery or similar.

They each have a different effect. Zone training is beneficial if you've been into a lab and had your maximum oxygen uptake and lactate threshold monitored.

@alliums - I'm by no means an expert. I've got a Polar FT4 and I use it to calculate calories burned rather than to maintain a certain heart rate. I wear it when I use the treadmill, elliptical, stationary bike, zumba etc. I figure if it takes into account my actual heart rate, height, weight and that I'm a female it would be more accurate than using MFP exercises. Of course that being said I try not to eat back all my exercise calories 'just in case' it's over estimating. I think if it will motivate you to exercise more than go for it. If you find you're not losing with the food tracking/exercise deficit then you can tweak your goals until you start losing.

Hmm I'm not sure what to do.

@keepingsecret - thanks for that tip. Does it seem to have settings for those other activities? Mine seems to ask if you're starting a workout, and then it tries to set pace/lap, etc. even for the treadmill option.

I ended up getting a chest one since I don't fancy watches much. And it also stores the info without needing to be near a device w bluetooth: Tickr X. I can't tell if it's that much different from what Polar's options offer.

@MeanderingMammal - I should take you shopping with me, you'd save me loads of money!

Seems like overall if I were to be using it to compensate for calories that would be a problem. I will rethink that. I calculated my BMR and TDEE with what I hope was an accurate tool. (It used a lot of measurements so smelled more thorough!) The MFP number was very low in comparison to that. So I was thinking about eating back 50% as you said.

It sounds like it's also not accurate enough to build a fitness plan around either. So my other idea of working to a certain % of heart rate is also pointless.

Anyway it's early days for me and starting from absolute zero with fitness. I sense the HRM is over the top for my needs. Now to decide if I keep it or toss it.

Logic is telling me toss it… but I also hear a loud squeal: NEW TOY which is rather irrational.

alliums wrote: »

I calculated my BMR and TDEE with what I hope was an accurate tool. (It used a lot of measurements so smelled more thorough!) The MFP number was very low in comparison to that. So I was thinking about eating back 50% as you said.

As far as TDEE is concerned, as long as your exertion level is relatively consistent then I wouldn't worry about measuring expenditure on every session. TDEE is a longer term strategy that involves tweaking as you progress.

For me, it doesn't actually work, as my training expenditure ramps up quite quickly and I end up underfuelled.

It sounds like it's also not accurate enough to build a fitness plan around either. So my other idea of working to a certain % of heart rate is also pointless.

Where it becomes useful, to me as a runner and cyclist, is being able to compare my HR performance with my session. I can see whether HR is responding as expected to changing intensities, monitor my recovery rates, identify any inconsistencies. In some sessions I'll also use it to limit myself, to avoid going out too hard. I can do that because I know what HR will give me what pace in standard conditions. It's a long term tool that helps you udnerstand your performance. But to be most useful you need to tie it into GPS tracking and mapping, and ideally a power meter on the bike as well, but that's a very big investment and only valuable if you do a lot of road riding.

FatJockSing wrote: »

Not sure where the 'Wildly Innacurate" claims come from.

That would be the degrees in control engineering and communications systems, and 25 years of experience in using instrumentation professionally, so understanding the strengths and weaknesses.

And being Scots...

It's a question of understanding what they're designed for, so going out for a 13 mile training run or a 50 mile cycle, pretty reliable. Going out for an hour of interval running, moderately reliable, going out for 20 minutes of 400 metre sprint intervals, not reliable at all.

FatJockSing wrote: »

So all the systems used by Pro Sports teams (more interval type exercise playing football and rugby) have totally unreliable information being downloaded and analysed week after week??

They're not using it for calorie expenditure, which was the question.

If you bother to read my previous posts upthread then you'll note that I talk about HR being a useful tool for training management, just not for calorie expenditure. They're also having their VO2Max and Lactate Threshold measured, which is where zone training becomes useful, as highlighted upthread.