Heart rate monitor

keepmovinstrong
keepmovinstrong Posts: 101 Member
edited November 9 in Fitness and Exercise
Anyone out there use the sportsline heart rate monitor? Like , dislike, recommend any better one. I purchased this one because I wanted to track my heart rate and The monitor I really want is too expensive the HEALBE. IT'S $300.00. A little out of my price range for now.

Replies

  • 47Jacqueline
    47Jacqueline Posts: 6,993 Member
    Wow! I've never heard of it. Does it cook or clean as well? ;-) I have a Polar F7, which is way too much monitor for me as I only use it to log the calories I burn during a workout. It does a bunch of other stuff too, but god knows what. I don't remember what it cost, but I know it wasn't anywhere near $300.
  • ABertolini915
    ABertolini915 Posts: 3 Member
    Do not bother with Fitbit Charge HR
  • CA_Underdog
    CA_Underdog Posts: 733 Member
    edited January 2015
    The Polar FT1 is $40 and should be a great HRM. It might help if you explained what other features you're looking for that run so much. $300 would be a rip-off for a basic HRM.

    I had a Polar HRM that ran about $60, is fairly accurate, and talks to Gym equipment. The battery replacement was too expensive after many years of service, so I now exclusively use my Garmin Forerunner GPS watch, which also happens to be quite accurate as a HRM.
  • deup
    deup Posts: 129 Member
    Polar H7 is great to have any only used during the gym or cardio sessions. A bit more accurate then your wrist hrm. And will run about 80.00. Uses a app on a ISO phone.
  • Gadgetman74
    Gadgetman74 Posts: 27 Member
    bertolinibella wrote: »
    Do not bother with Fitbit Charge HR
    What's wrong with Fitbit charge Hr. I was looking at one the other day.


  • CA_Underdog
    CA_Underdog Posts: 733 Member
    edited January 2015
    Gadgetman74 wrote: »
    bertolinibella wrote: »
    Do not bother with Fitbit Charge HR
    What's wrong with Fitbit charge Hr. I was looking at one the other day.
    Fitbits are poor at measuring your heart rate, like most units that lack a chest strap. That may or may not be an issue for you, depending on your particular needs. The OP was asking specifically for HRMs, so that inability presumably would matter to them.
  • WhatMeRunning
    WhatMeRunning Posts: 3,538 Member
    Aren't the optical sensor ones that strap to your arms supposed to be really accurate?
  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    Gadgetman74 wrote: »
    bertolinibella wrote: »
    Do not bother with Fitbit Charge HR
    What's wrong with Fitbit charge Hr. I was looking at one the other day.


    Look at the reviews on them. Very poor as far as the HR monitoring is concerned.
  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    deup wrote: »
    Polar H7 is great to have any only used during the gym or cardio sessions. A bit more accurate then your wrist hrm. And will run about 80.00. Uses a app on a ISO phone.

    I got my Polar FT 7 at BestBuy a few weeks ago when they had it on sale for $60. Every once in a while I see them on sale.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    grimmeanor wrote: »
    Aren't the optical sensor ones that strap to your arms supposed to be really accurate?

    Some are, some aren't.

    dcrainmaker.com
  • larosa217
    larosa217 Posts: 41 Member
    I currently own a Polar H7 (use for swimming) and use the Scosche RHYTHM+ (optical HRM) for my daily workouts.

    I picked up the RHYTHM+ on the recommendation of DCRainmaker.com & it's been just as accurate as my H7.
  • retrofred
    retrofred Posts: 2 Member
    The Fitbit Charge HR is a nice unit when it works. I had mine two days and it dyed. No reason at all, was pairing with my phone and it blank and now won't charge or turn on. Glad I bought at Walmart and they have a pretty hassle free return policy. Maybe it's more gimmick then useful. You live and learn
  • dawnna76
    dawnna76 Posts: 987 Member
    I have a polar FT4 and I have had it for 4 years. works great! I can change the batteries out myself too which is a must for me in the heart rate monitor, i couldnt imagin having to replace or send in to get them replaced.
  • diegops1
    diegops1 Posts: 154 Member
    I ran ambulance for many years. A reliable heart rate monitor has 12 leads, or a least 3. I quit the ambulance 7 years ago, so technology may have improved some in that time, but most of these things were and are expensive toys. I have a first degree heart block, no a serious impediment, but it scares you when you first discover it. An experienced EMT or Paramedic can find it with a wrist pulse. Can one of these "toys" show that? That being said, I use a HRM when I am using the elliptical just to keep track of how things are going, but I take the readout with a grain of salt and just use it to compare with my subjective impression of my effort and my respiratory rate.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    diegops1 wrote: »
    I ran ambulance for many years. A reliable heart rate monitor has 12 leads, or a least 3. I quit the ambulance 7 years ago, so technology may have improved some in that time, but most of these things were and are expensive toys. I have a first degree heart block, no a serious impediment, but it scares you when you first discover it. An experienced EMT or Paramedic can find it with a wrist pulse. Can one of these "toys" show that? That being said, I use a HRM when I am using the elliptical just to keep track of how things are going, but I take the readout with a grain of salt and just use it to compare with my subjective impression of my effort and my respiratory rate.

    There is a major difference between an EKG and a HRM. Accurately monitoring heart rate didn't require 12 leads when I went through EMT school 23 years ago. Now a AED can assess heart rhythm and administer shocks if necessary with only two leads.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    grimmeanor wrote: »
    Aren't the optical sensor ones that strap to your arms supposed to be really accurate?

    A properly worn wrist fit can give an accurate read, comparable with a chest strap. They're more vulnerable to being worn inappropriately so misreading.

    Regardless of that, it's subject to whether the activity leads to the concurrent or retrospective use of HR data actually providing meaningful information.
  • kcjchang
    kcjchang Posts: 709 Member
    Wrist based HR has the inherent problem that it can't deal with noise very well as it uses the combination of a LED and photodiode to measure the pulse rate (based on Lambert-Beer Law and more of them does not necessary mean better measurements). Think noise as how a CD player deal with bump while playing, you hear a skip in the music. In order to track while you are active, with motion & sweet, it need to eliminate that noise. Motion sensors are normally employed along with an algorithm to deal with the noise. This where they haven't got it right yet and probably will never get it as accurate as a chest band.

    Personally I go by requirement of the receiver; I use my phone - HTC One w/s-off. The apps available out strip what a simple watch can do but it's power hungry. I'm also fully committed to Ant+. Don't see much difference in functions between bands other than some nice to haves (costing more than I want to pay).

    This is a nice blog on choosing for beginners 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
This discussion has been closed.

Categories