Heart Rate Monitors/Activity Bands

I use the Polar H7 combined with the Polar Loop and it works really well for me. The Loop doesn't hold a charge well at all when you combine it with the HRM - I have to charge it every couple of days - but it does have the sleep tracking you're looking for. I don't mind having to charge it more often because it's waterproof and works with the HRM to get accurate calories burned during workouts.

I have an iPhone so I can't tell you what the Polar Flow Android app is like, but I know they have one so it should work with your phone.

lapislazuli8 wrote: »

I use Fitnessblender programs, which are a mix of HIIT and strength training.

So neither an HRM nor a step counter will give you meaningful calorie approximations for those activity types.

I have a Polar FT4 that I use strictly of workouts. I'm not looking for ways to eat more and sabotage the program. I do not do steady state cardio. Since I always wake with a resting heart rate below 50 BPM there's nothing to see in dreamland. MFP already adds carbs for everyday activities, why add them twice?

It works fine for what I do:
23 min kettlebell session burned 40 min of brisk walking calories with a peak HR @ 94% and average @ 80% of my calculated max. That's about what I expected.
36 min suspension training burned 55 min of brisk walking calories with peak HR # 82% and average @ 76%.

Interval training is more efficient than steady state cardio and your HR monitor will measure it just fine since the calorie burn is based upon average HR for the workout. If you have long rests between sets your average HR will be lower. This doesn't mean that the monitor doesn't work, it means you aren't doing metcon.

As for apps, I can type in the calories that I measure after training into MyFitnesPal just fine. I don't need any other apps since MFP keeps me honest on how much I eat and that's all I really need. Well, I do use my own spread sheets.

Just a personality thing, but I've become a meticulous record keeper and here's what I've found pertaining to using MFP to loose weight.

With my age, height and weight it calculates my Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR). 2151 calories at this time.
It gives me 449 for my stated normal daily activity for 2151 + 449 = 2600 calories to stay at my weight.
I told it that I want to loose 2 pounds/week so it subtracts 500/lb/week (1000) for a goal of 1600 calories/day.
Over the last 10.5 weeks I've lost 21 LBS so I am meeting my goals.

I'm averaging 65 calories/day under my target goal. I suspect that I need to eat a bit less on paper is because I don't weigh my food and I'm probably guessing less than reality, but not much less. I'll add that my numbers for calorie burn for exercise must be pretty close too or it would be skewing my results.

I don't do steady state cardio, I do primarily kettlebells and suspension training with occasional sandbags or dumbbells. Strength training with kettlebells can be quite a cardio hit as I mentioned above with a 94% peak and 80% average PR for a squat, Turkish get-up and swing session it is a pretty decent cardio that does more for my whole body than a cardio workout.

I've lost weight and put it back a number of times. I think the reason that I didn't sustain it was because after I met my goals I did the "That worked so well I'll quit doing it" thing that so many people do and went back to eating like a pig. Enter MFP. When I reach my goal this time I'll continue monitoring what I eat for weight maintenance while focusing more on strength.

If you are not weighing your food or you are just using some number for your exercise burn, if it's right you'll be meeting your goals. If you are not meeting your goals you are BSing yourself about calories in or out. It's really that simple. Are you meeting your goals? If you are then you don't need to monitor heart rate or weigh your food to meet the fat loss goal.

I'm 65 and family history suggests that monitoring my heart rate isn't a bad idea. As someone mentioned above, you might have other valid reasons for it. Since it tracks peak and average, there is no reason to think it isn't useful for lifting weights.

I said that I'm not looking for ways to eat more, but also said that I average 65 calories a day under the goal which does include exercise carbs. The point is that I am in fact losing at the predicted rate. If my exercise carbs were incorrect I wouldn't be. I don't know why you think that heart rate only matters for energy expenditure for steady state cardio. Evidence says you are mistaken.

dlm7507 wrote: »

As for the FT4 not being sophisticated, peak and average heart rate are what I'm interested in. It's math for energy used is the standard formula for net consumption. Not sure what sophistication you think you need.

FT4 (and FT7) are both very, very basic. They will only give a rough approximation of calories burned for steady state cardio (not intervals, certainly not strength training). And that approximation is only close if you happen to be an individual with an average HR during exercise.

If you are unfit or very fit those numbers will be way off. Using a HRM to estimate calorie burn for interval training is a triumph of enthusiasm over accuracy! The numbers will be greatly exaggerated.

dlm7507 wrote: »

I said that I'm not looking for ways to eat more, but also said that I average 65 calories a day under the goal which does include exercise carbs. The point is that I am in fact losing at the predicted rate.

So you're intentionally eating below goal, which accounts for your measurement error.

It's fairly straightforward control engineering that we're talking about.

The 65 calories is just an observation in my training log. Food consumption + exercise within 4% of goal on paper is a close enough model to reality to meet my goals since as you mentioned, there will also be error in food monitoring and my lifestyle is variable while MFP uses an estimated average.

I have the math for all of it in a spread sheet and assess not just how much, but what I ate, what my activities were, how much and what kind of exercise I did. Results are the reality based feedback for a closed loop system so yes, there may be some subconscious heuristics there. "fairly straightforward control engineering that we're talking about"

A model of a thing is not the thing itself, but it can be useful. I'm not claiming that HR is perfect for this purpose, but it's certainly no worse than the average guesses in the MFP pull-downs. It's a tool that is providing a useful model for me. You can argue that it is or isn't this or that and be quite correct. The question that matters is does it work for you?

I was a loyal Polar user for about 14 years, but had such a bad product and customer service experience I switched to Garmin. Never been happier.

dlm7507 wrote: »

I'm not claiming that HR is perfect for this purpose, but it's certainly no worse than the average guesses in the MFP pull-downs.

It's the equivalent of soldering a joint using a claw hammer...