Heart Rate Monitors

widgitwoo
widgitwoo Posts: 19
edited September 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
Hi,
I have decided that I am going to get one but I am a little baffled by the differences.
I know how they work and the basics, and I have had a look through past posts and a lot of people seem to recommend the polar 40 which looks good, but I want to know why that one is better than the others,
I know a little bit about Suuntos but no one on here seems to talk about them.

This is what I want it for:
I go to the gym most days and I want to accurately log the machines just to make sure and I do some floor work which I would like to know what thats doing!
I am doing the 30 day shred and I want to know how many calories I am burning

I just want to make sure I am burning calories/fat properly and that I'm within the right ranges...
I have a maximum of £100 to spend...
What can you recommend and why?

Thanks

Replies

  • mamaturner
    mamaturner Posts: 2,447 Member
    I personally use the Polar F6- it has a chest strap and you program you age, sex, height and weight. It cost right around $100. (sorry unsure of the conversion) I loooove it! It came in really handy for zumba and other classes like that.

    Basically you just want to make sure you have a chest strap for best accuracy but I also think having to put in all the other info really helps it as well. Good luck!
  • Flyntiggr
    Flyntiggr Posts: 898 Member
    I just got my Suunto T3d and really like it thus far. I had a Garmin 405cx for a year, and it was good, until I ran the software update. Then it went all goofy on me and wouldn't hold a charge, so I took it back to REI for a refund...

    Back to the Suunto...

    Has a chest strap. I've used it for running and cross training so far. Calorie burn 'seems' accurate, and my trainer agrees with it. You can set workouts in it, and intervals too. Tracks calories, HR, HR zones, etc. It has a lot of features I haven't tried yet...
  • Flyntiggr
    Flyntiggr Posts: 898 Member
    Crap... Double post...
  • Countrymade
    Countrymade Posts: 183 Member
    I use the Polar F6 also. I love it. One of the features I like is that it tells you the fat % you burned.
    I have had mine for a while and I paid around $90 online. I had to replace the battery once I have had it so long.
    My husband changed it for me. I didn't need to send it away like they said to and it works fine again.
    Good Luck..
  • trishlambert
    trishlambert Posts: 213 Member
    I'm not a fan of chest straps, mainly because of my style of working out. I work from home on the computer, and I just jump up a couple of times a day, turn on the Wii and have at it. My ePulse2 is like a wristwatch, only worn on the inside of my arm just under the elbow. It reads a whole range of things, though I focus mainly on calories burned. I just slip it on as I'm warming up the Wii, no muss no fuss.

    The pulse readings are in line with readings taken by other means, and the calorie readings are pretty conservative...so I'm happy with its accuracy. It's a big improvement over depending on MFP data. The chest strap versions may be a tad more accurate, but it's worth it to not have to use a chest strap every time I want to work out--the more I can take away exercise obstacles, the better!
  • EmmaShorter
    EmmaShorter Posts: 298
    I have the polar ft4. I really like it. It has a chest strap and it measures the calories burned in each workout you do. It also stores a record of it if you were doing multiple workouts before logging it. I do like the idea of telling the percentage of fat burned that the lady above mentioned on the ft7 though. Mine was just under £55 on amazon. Hth
  • widgitwoo
    widgitwoo Posts: 19
    thanks for the responses they are really helpfull...one other question that may be a little silly but I really want to know...can you use them with swimming? Does it work for that?
  • johnnywalker24
    johnnywalker24 Posts: 3
    There are a lot of nice heart rate monitors out there. Truthfully, I only use a Sportsline watch for my heart rate. It doesn't require a chest strap and the readings are dead on. They are also fairly cheap and only cost 40-80 dollars. It has the other stuff on it like calorie count and what not.

    I personally don't use any of the other stuff besides the heart rate just to make sure I'm in my target zone. I don't like to use the other stuff. I feel it's an unnecessary hassle. For my purposes it's an excellent and cheap way to go if you're not going to use everything (or not sure if you will use everything) on the watch. Might be a good starter and then maybe upgrade if you want to use more features.
  • johnnywalker24
    johnnywalker24 Posts: 3
    Oh and the watch is waterproof for swimming
  • Flyntiggr
    Flyntiggr Posts: 898 Member
    thanks for the responses they are really helpfull...one other question that may be a little silly but I really want to know...can you use them with swimming? Does it work for that?

    I'm a swimmer too, and you'll be hard pressed to find one that REALLY works in water. Most of them say they are waterproof, but when you read the fine print, they say the HRM part won't work. It uses radio waves to pass the readings from the chest strap to the watch, and they don't travel through water. For swimming, I just use the MFP counts, but reduce it a bit because I think MFP overestimates....
  • widgitwoo
    widgitwoo Posts: 19
    thanks for the responses they are really helpfull...one other question that may be a little silly but I really want to know...can you use them with swimming? Does it work for that?

    I'm a swimmer too, and you'll be hard pressed to find one that REALLY works in water. Most of them say they are waterproof, but when you read the fine print, they say the HRM part won't work. It uses radio waves to pass the readings from the chest strap to the watch, and they don't travel through water. For swimming, I just use the MFP counts, but reduce it a bit because I think MFP overestimates....

    Yeah i was a little surprised when mfp said that I burn over 800kcal for one hours swimming...I do swim about a mile and quarter in that time but still I feel its a little exsesive and thought that I may be able to get something to be more acurate - someone who goes to the pool when I do seems to have a watch that will log it as he turns it one just before he gets in the pool, I would ask him but hes a complete jerk!!

    Thanks for all the replies its really helped :)
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    You can use pretty much any Polar in the water.. I think they are waterproof up to like 30,000 feet or something. The only thing is you can't use the watch underwater.. so you'd have to change the screens above water.

    That being said, i have a Polar FT7 and I absolutely love it! It seriously is one of the best investments, I ever made!
  • anna_b1
    anna_b1 Posts: 588 Member
    Just want to chime in and recomment the ePulse 2 monitor as someone else did before me. No strap and definitely not as popular as the Polar FT HRMs but I can safe with authority that my weight loss has been amped up since I got it. It's definitely more accurate than what I got on here or online at other sites.

    And, of course, not having the strap makes it really easy. I just use it for the calories burned and heart rate feature, but it's great and it's worked for me.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories