Heart Rate Monitors for intervals & weight lifting

There is really nothing to discuss. A HRM monitor uses algorithms to determine calorie burn estimations. The algorithms are designed to track steady state cardio.

Not sure what debate you are looking for as it's a fact and can't really be debated. 2+2 always equals 4 despite someone's opinion.

Also a good one
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

bingfit221 wrote: »

Chrisparadise579 wrote: »

I have the under armor monitor but I have heard great things about the RC3! Heart rate monitors are still very accurate for weight lifting I use one when I lift, but I use it to make sure I keep my heart rate up, not for the calorie burn. Typically weight lifters use the TDEE method for tracking because the calorie burn caused by weightlifting can last up to 48 hours afterword.

I just like how people claim that they aren't accurate for intervals & weight lifting.

It is like saying, "oh my speedometer in my car only works when I am going to steady 35 mph but not when I accelerate and decelerate."

No, it's more akin to cars with mpg displays. It'll always display something, but the accuracy may vary.

I don't *really know* anything about this, but I've read a bit and here's what I believe based on some common sense, some critical thinking, and some trusted sources/authors.

The problems with HRMs (or most any mass produced item) is that they are wonderful tools when the conditions they are used under most closely match the conditions there were programmed/built/designed for. A couple of examples. RVs are great for driving across country, but not so great for running to the grocery store. Ipods are great for personal music, but not so good for background music in a large room/group setting.

Calorie burns are based on increased O2 exchange at the cellular level. But you can't really measure that, at least not with a convenient, affordable consumer device. So many people use increased HR to assume increased 02 exchange. This is a safe assumption with most types of cardio exercise, but far less so with strength training (strength training produces a different response... I'll see if I can find the exact explanation in a bit). So HRMs are fundamentally poor devices for strength training.

Now, back to cardio... The problem here is that an HRMs use a fixed calculation for calorie burns regardless of the activity or the intensity. Try wearing your HRM all day and see what you get for a total daily calorie burn. In most cases, it'll be way off. Also, at similar HRs, you'll get the same calorie burn for swimming as you would for cycling. That's because the calculations made by the HRM make a lot of assumptions. If you're workout lines up well with those assumptions, then your estimate will be reasonably accurate. If not, who knows... it's a total crap shoot.


At least that's the way I think about it.

Ah, yes... I'm not sure anyone arguing against HRMs is arguing against their HR monitoring ability. It's usually about their accuracy for burning calories.

If and how you train based on HR is a whole nuther conversation.

I'm sure *someone* out there will argue it... but I'm fairly certain that's not the typical argument against HRMs.

I definitely thought the OP was talking calorie burn estimations based on the simple fact that most people on these boards seem to think that is what HRMs are designed to do. My misunderstanding.

JoRocka wrote: »

3dogsrunning wrote: »

I don't believe anyone says heart rate monitors are inaccurate for strength training. Heart rate monitor measure heart rate. That is what they are designed to do. I assume most major brands, especially with chest strap, would be accurate.

It is the calorie estimation that is the issue. They are not meant to measure calories burned but can be used to give an estimation under certain conditions. The algorithms for calories estimation that HRMs use is based in steady state cardio activity. Outside of that they are less accurate or totally inaccurate.

Here is a good post.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1044313/this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories/p1

they are inaccurate for strength training in terms of using the heart rate to calculate calorie burns.

Assuming it's properly calibrated- yes- it will continue to accurate track/log the heart rate regardless of the activity.

doesn't mean the calorie assumption is correct.

Not sure if you are agreeing with me or if I was unclear (I'm sick so that is entirely possible) but that was what I was trying to say.

OP - I haven't seen that argument before.
As others have said, the argument is usually about calorie estimation.

bingfit221 wrote: »

Heart rate monitors are only accurate if you're doing a "steady-state" cardio, meaning running, walking, biking - that sort of thing. If you're doing hefty cardio like Zumba, a fitness DVD, HIIT training, anything like that, your burn is not accurate because the HRM cannot properly track the rapid rising and falling (varying) heart rate, whereas when you're doing a steady state cardio, it generally remains in the same ball park if your pace is the same.

I'd question the source, and the degree of the inaccuracy he/she is suggesting. 2% is irrelevant. 25% is significant. I wonder what they are thinking.