WATCH HEART RATE MONITORS??

But for running... they are excellent.

The heart rate information is more useful for using in your training program. *That* is a good reason to purchase a running watch with HRM capability, not to somehow improve on calorie burn tracking.

I purchased an HRM when I started working out properly a few years ago - I was attending 5 Zumba classes a week, cycled a lot (well for me, 30+ miles per week) and wanted to know what I was burning...the calorie indicators on MFP for exercise burn are in no way accurate (erring on the very generous side of caution). I love mine, it's nice to watch the heart rate trip upwards while working out seriously. This week I joined a gym and the instructor I had my induction with was impressed that I had one with me. I think that if you are going to be running or doing some high cardio workouts then it's really useful. Walks, weights, don't waste the money.

It is good to let you know what your place is in your target heart range.

If you want to reach a target range in your workouts, they are great.

I use mine as a cardio training guide not calorie management. It does fine.

I wear it when lifting. If I want to kick up my heart rate I do jumping jacks for a minute.

It is just another tool to give you some info.

Mine is pretty accurate for walking generally giving me about 78 cal per mile which is right around the predicted value.

This content has been removed.

The wider HRM debate wasn't the question, personally I would use my HRM figure over the MFP one every time for cardio activities. Note I put cardio there, HRM's are no good for strength training.

In terms of your question I guess the first question is whether you are planning on using a HRM strap? there are plenty of devices that do but I only know of the Apple watch and Garmin Forerunner 225 that use a device-based HRM. My devices use a strap.

Next is budget? that'll narrow your options down a lot, so work out what you want to spend and then the range of products that are available. There are a few offers on at the moments so you may be able to get either a good deal or a higher end model.

After that it's personal preference I'm afraid! DCrainmaker has excellent reviews on most fitness watches which really helps.

Me? both my devices are Garmins - a Forerunner 220 and Edge 810. I could easily recommend the 220 to you but as you're a more casual user then the Forerunner 10 or 15 would probably suit you fine (15's newer so you may get the 10 cheaper).

Polar FT 4 watch then get the polar 7 with the Bluetooth that way you have the watch and your polar phone app. I track mine and it is the most accurate but you have to wear the chest band. They are comfortable I hardly know it is there. It pushes me to keep going so I get to my goal calories burned. It is good for walking and weights.

simply_bubbz wrote: »

I have been considering purchasing a watch heart rate monitor 2 track burned calories and my heart rate when going for walks and runs and strength training..Are they pretty accurate?? Anyone prefer a certain kind? More answers the better!

If you are using it to calculate calorie burn I wouldn't really bother. You can get similar approximations of calorie burn using standard calculations like 100 cals per mile of running, 70 cals per mile of walking or 30 cals per mile of cycling etc.

If you are trying to improve your athletic performance they can be useful.

brianpperkins wrote: »

ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

ScubaSteve1962 wrote: »

They are as accurate as you believe them to be. I go by mine 100% if I'm not going to believe it, why would I believe MFP, and all the other sites out there! I looked at sever calorie calculators and 90% of them gave a higher calorie burn than my HRM. When it comes to walking, it's according to what kind of walking you do. Are you casually walking, are you walking fast enough to elevate your heart rate?

I do a vigorous cardio 5 days a week, for 60 mins, (561 calories yesterday), had 19000 steps for the day (671calories) BMR (1871 calories) total 3049 cals for the day.(only the 561 transfers to MFP) but I guess I should only count 75% of that which makes my daily calorie intake more than what it should be. Or should I raise that by 75%.

I only use my HRM function when I'm exercising. I prefer polar over all the rest. They have 4 for activity, The Loop, A300 (swimming), M400 (gps) V800 (triathlete). I have the V800. They are all waterproof, so essentially you only have to take them off to charge.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/490909-the-accuracy-of-calories-burned-in-polar-heart-rate-monitors/

You keep linking that blog by a "holistic nutrition coach" ... notice she doesn't link or cite a single source. She does concede "Regardless of the type of movement involved, heart rate monitors may overestimate energy expenditure by as much as around 12 percent."

The confirmation bias around here is astounding. With you is is a very clear you have a Polar bias ... with others on the forum it is a definitive Fitbit bias. Owning one, or several, of a company's products does not magically make the devices somehow operate outside of their inherent limitations.

HRMs have a narrow range of uses ... accurate calorie counting is not one of them. The estimates produced from the same data file vary wildly from one app to another. My morning run today produced caloric estimates that varied +/- 13% from the median value ... all from the same HR and GPS data. To put that in perspective, it's a wide enough variance to make the difference between an A or F on a test.

Polar is what I use, it's very clear you don't like any of them and that's your right also. Nothing is accurate, no one ever said they were, but even MFP isn't accurate, but if you're going to go by percentages, don't do it for one and not the other. Use it for your calories, burn and intake, your scale, and anything else that your using.

If you bothered to read my post, I use a HRM. They are useful tools for tracking heart rate. They are not accurate for caloric estimates ... a point you conceded.

golfgirl15 wrote: »

Polar FT 4 watch then get the polar 7 with the Bluetooth that way you have the watch and your polar phone app. I track mine and it is the most accurate but you have to wear the chest band. They are comfortable I hardly know it is there. It pushes me to keep going so I get to my goal calories burned. It is good for walking and weights.

HRMs are not good for weights. There is not a relationship between HR and calories from lifting.

If that's what you read then I conceded, For me it's accurate enough for an ESTIMATE, and that's all I'm saying, not that what it says is written in stone (100% accurate). Just like when it comes to the step counter, on the arm they are less accurate than a pedometer that goes on your waist. But depending on how active you are, they are accurate enough for an ESTIMATE. But you have to know how active you are.

When it comes to activity, these are the minimum guidelines I use. with 300 vigorous activity minutes a week.

http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/adults.html

I use a waist pedometer that measures active minutes at 135 steps per minute.

I'm waiting for the Forerunner 225 to be available in the UK next month. Sick of chest strap HRMs, I feel like I breathe better without them, which may be in my head but I'd still prefer to rid of it. and the 225 is going to use the Mio HRM which gets good reviews for accuracy. I have a vivofit but don't really use it aside to put it on for runs and sync my HRM for it because I'm actually not worried about steps/sleep, I just like activity tracking. So, rather than run with my phone for GPS and pacing cues, interval beeper for interval training, vivofit just to support HRM tracking, going to pack it all in for the 225 once it's out.

mikeyrs wrote: »

If you're not eating back your burned calories, but rather focused upon reducing your resting heart rate, monitoring your maximum heart rate, or doing heart rate zone or HIIT trainng, an HRM will be useful. If you're tryng to increase the number of calories you can consume through eating back exercise calories, that's a very slippery slope for those seeking to lose weight. Most avid cyclists and runners I know, do not pay much attention to the number of calories burned. With burn calculations showing burns often exceeding 1000 calories and even approaching 3000 calories, one should immediately realize these athletes would wither away to nothing and eventually collapse in a relatively short period of time. Don't purposely eat back your burned calories. You will become quite disappointed and frustrated if you do.

You realize that you are basically saying not to do what MFP is designed to do, don't you?

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

mwyvr wrote: »

But for running... they are excellent.

Possibly. For casual runners, it's of no more value than a watch, or a mobile phone app that'll track distance and speed.

I *might* agree with that if we could agree on what defines a casual runner.

I don't think one needs to be a runner in pursuit of anything remotely resembling aggressive personal best improvement to justify use of a decent running watch with heart rate capture.

One problem many new runners have is establishing and maintaining the right pace for their current state and exertion level to build their cardiovascular system efficiently. Any old model dirt cheap running watch that offers pace (via GPS or foot pod) plus HR capture will be of immediate use to such a person and can be had fairly inexpensively.

I wouldn't recommend making that expense if someone's only goal is to pursue C25K once and once only, but if the individual has any inkling that running is something they want to pursue, an investment in such a tool will benefit them throughout their running journey.

For people looking for performance improvement, then an HRM can be a useful tool.

In my view that could include virtually every runner. After all, what new runner isn't looking for performance improvement? HR information can help the runner interested in running for the long term regardless of their ability or objectives.

Where we'd likely agree is there are some folks who are not going to take to running in a way where they'll get full benefit from an investment in such a tool.

For people after a calorie counter, an app that'll track distance is good enough, or at least unlikely to be any more inaccurate than an HRM.

Agreed. I'm not suggesting here nor anywhere else that purchasing a running watch with HR capture makes sense if what they are after is calorie expenditure counting.

mwyvr wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

mwyvr wrote: »

But for running... they are excellent.

Possibly. For casual runners, it's of no more value than a watch, or a mobile phone app that'll track distance and speed.

I *might* agree with that if we could agree on what defines a casual runner.

I don't think one needs to be a runner in pursuit of anything remotely resembling aggressive personal best improvement to justify use of a decent running watch with heart rate capture.

The observation I'd make is that the originator asked about an HRM to count calories, not a running GPS tracker. That suggests someone that doesn't need to invest £150 in something when the need can be met with a free smartphone app; Runkeeper, Endomondo, Strava

One problem many new runners have is establishing and maintaining the right pace for their current state and exertion level to build their cardiovascular system efficiently. Any old model dirt cheap running watch that offers pace (via GPS or foot pod) plus HR capture will be of immediate use to such a person and can be had fairly inexpensively.

And again, in terms of proportionality, can get as much value from an app. I'm argue that HR is of less value until consistency in pace has been mastered as there are so many variables that affect it.

There is little point in spending £250 on the lab tests to establish VO2Max, MaxHR and Lactate Threshold to allow one to accurately plot the training zones, until there is consistency.

Essentially I generally wouldn't recommend using one until one is consistently running at least 10Km sessions. It's not something to recommend uncritically

GuitarJerry wrote: »

Example, when you run in the heat, your heart will beat faster and therefore the HRM will gives you more calories, but you didn't do any more effort than you did when you ran in the cold, so, the calories burn will be higher than it should be. This is one of the problems with HRM's.

I disagree with this. I always worked harder when I ran in the heat because I hate working out in the heat. I always had an easier time when it was much cooler out. More stamina, easier breathing.