What's the latest on HRM?

only useful for steady state cardio due to the heartbeat to oxygen uptake conversion giving calorie burn estimates

But they are so ubiquitous now ...and so many 24 hr wearables that seem pointless on the face of it

So has this been revised / updated? Anybody seen anything that isn't marketing spiel that updates the basic useless device apart from specific circumstances?

Replies

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    One of my more knowledgable MFP fiends (I'm totally leaving that) mentioned that some of the newer tech might be useful for more than just steady state. I encouraged him to break it down in simpler terms for someone like me. He hasn't yet but he's always busy.
    I'm hoping someone will answer. I've been wondering too.
  • erinc5
    erinc5 Posts: 329 Member
    I saw a post on reddit where a husband was asking about his wife's wrist HRM acting up and being way too high (20 bpm more than it normally was) for a week or two in a row. He was asking if anyone else was having problems with their device suddenly reading high numbers. One user asked the guy if there was any way she was pregnant, and it turns out she was and her HR going up was the first sign they noticed. Haha. So, it could be useful for that.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    That's quite cool :)
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,879 Member
    edited February 2016
    A HRM is still great for monitoring your HR for training purposes...they're still not accurate for calories outside of steady state cardio (and even then, they're still just a decent estimate), though there seems to be some more pricey devices that may use different algorithms that may take into account other activities...but I'd still be pretty wary of the calories...a HRM is still optimally designed to track your HR...which only has a very loose correlation to calories burned.

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Yeah it's the different algorithms and which models I'm interested in

    On a theoretical level only ...I have no need or interest in one ...I just noticed I've been posting the same stuff about steady state for years and thought it must be outdated surely
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    only useful for steady state cardio due to the heartbeat to oxygen uptake conversion giving calorie burn estimates

    But they are so ubiquitous now ...and so many 24 hr wearables that seem pointless on the face of it

    So has this been revised / updated? Anybody seen anything that isn't marketing spiel that updates the basic useless device apart from specific circumstances?

    Got called in.

    Firstbeat Technology claims analytic capability in non-steady state. Other companies are able to graph power curves from cycling vs instantaneous HR change. So in reality the old "only for SS cardio" no longer holds for the leaders - Garmin, Suunto, Polar, etc.

    However - HR to nonSS cardio without lab calibration has an error level of about 7-10%. So if your nonSS reading says 200 cals burned it may be 180 to 220. Not too bad.

    Firstbeat does a good job publishing their science:
    https://www.firstbeat.com/science-and-physiology/

    In terms of their utility, you can also use it to estimate things like return to resting, acute exercise stress, etc...
    Definitely useful for the athlete - particularly when trying to figure out long term training response.

    Tools used along with a HRM include TrainingPeaks or GoldCheetah or other analytics tools.

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    only useful for steady state cardio due to the heartbeat to oxygen uptake conversion giving calorie burn estimates

    But they are so ubiquitous now ...and so many 24 hr wearables that seem pointless on the face of it

    So has this been revised / updated? Anybody seen anything that isn't marketing spiel that updates the basic useless device apart from specific circumstances?

    Got called in.

    Firstbeat Technology claims analytic capability in non-steady state. Other companies are able to graph power curves from cycling vs instantaneous HR change. So in reality the old "only for SS cardio" no longer holds for the leaders - Garmin, Suunto, Polar, etc.

    However - HR to nonSS cardio without lab calibration has an error level of about 7-10%. So if your nonSS reading says 200 cals burned it may be 180 to 220. Not too bad.

    Firstbeat does a good job publishing their science:
    https://www.firstbeat.com/science-and-physiology/

    In terms of their utility, you can also use it to estimate things like return to resting, acute exercise stress, etc...
    Definitely useful for the athlete - particularly when trying to figure out long term training response.

    Tools used along with a HRM include TrainingPeaks or GoldCheetah or other analytics tools.

    Oh, hai!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,879 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Yeah it's the different algorithms and which models I'm interested in

    On a theoretical level only ...I have no need or interest in one ...I just noticed I've been posting the same stuff about steady state for years and thought it must be outdated surely

    I'd say it's probably still pretty valid advice...I don't know how many typical MFP users are really using the high end stuff...my guess is that most people who are getting into a HRM here are probably getting in on the lower end unless they have some specific training needs.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    only useful for steady state cardio due to the heartbeat to oxygen uptake conversion giving calorie burn estimates

    But they are so ubiquitous now ...and so many 24 hr wearables that seem pointless on the face of it

    So has this been revised / updated? Anybody seen anything that isn't marketing spiel that updates the basic useless device apart from specific circumstances?

    Got called in.

    Firstbeat Technology claims analytic capability in non-steady state. Other companies are able to graph power curves from cycling vs instantaneous HR change. So in reality the old "only for SS cardio" no longer holds for the leaders - Garmin, Suunto, Polar, etc.

    However - HR to nonSS cardio without lab calibration has an error level of about 7-10%. So if your nonSS reading says 200 cals burned it may be 180 to 220. Not too bad.

    Firstbeat does a good job publishing their science:
    https://www.firstbeat.com/science-and-physiology/

    In terms of their utility, you can also use it to estimate things like return to resting, acute exercise stress, etc...
    Definitely useful for the athlete - particularly when trying to figure out long term training response.

    Tools used along with a HRM include TrainingPeaks or GoldCheetah or other analytics tools.

    Oh, hai!

    Hai! ;)

    And here is part of the discussion we had about this in another thread.
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    I don't think it would work, and the number would be meaningless anyway. HRMs are for tracking heart rate and are only relatively accurate when the activity is steady state cardio. Netball would have too many peaks and valleys which would completely exaggerate the calorie burn number you would see anyway.

    Firstbeat technology is reported in the lit to actually address this. HR to burn curves appear more accurate for non SS than prior systems, certainly in the acceptable 95%. But still the low cost HRM straps generally don't store data.

    The straps that store and forward data are either the TRI or SWIM straps from Garmin. I imagine others exist. Why not wear the watch as a clip on, on the bra strap.

    Firstbeat claims accuracy errors from 7-10%. Better than previous? Of course...still quite a bit of error.

    Hmmm, ok, I saw 5% on athletes in one paper. 7-10% is about what we see with wrist worn units (for SS) so yeah, quite a bit.

    36xa5a71xcsf.png

    From here...
    https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf

    Just glanced at it though so could be reading wrong.

    So FB method appears to be more accurate for non-SS than SS conventional.

    However - a few caveats. Anaerobic curves change even in SS depending what level of effort one is putting out. If a match is not properly calibrated to a specific sport any kind of burn will not match properly on the Aerobic/anaerobic curves - this means that it is very possible to do SS work and miss or overshoot 10-20% of the the total burn. Particularly true for long runs near anaerobic threshold were we burn about 15-18% of anaerobic energy but can registers as about 10% if the HR is set too high.

    Use cals burned as an estimator - if you are exercising to cut 80% max of burn seems safe. If you are eating to fuel your activity it might make sense to hit 100% to even 120% and then watch the scale closely. At high activity it is easier to create a small cut. Weight loss vs perf need different strategies.


  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    edited February 2016
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Yeah it's the different algorithms and which models I'm interested in

    On a theoretical level only ...I have no need or interest in one ...I just noticed I've been posting the same stuff about steady state for years and thought it must be outdated surely

    I'd say it's probably still pretty valid advice...I don't know how many typical MFP users are really using the high end stuff...my guess is that most people who are getting into a HRM here are probably getting in on the lower end unless they have some specific training needs.

    The idea that you shouldn't fully trust exercise cals off of HRM to build a deficit is definitely valid. Long term observation on the scale, accurate diary management are more important. Especially since it is very easy to kill the effect of small and intermediate burns with a donut or a bowl of ice cream.
  • ElizabethOakes2
    ElizabethOakes2 Posts: 1,038 Member

    Got called in.

    Firstbeat Technology claims analytic capability in non-steady state. Other companies are able to graph power curves from cycling vs instantaneous HR change. So in reality the old "only for SS cardio" no longer holds for the leaders - Garmin, Suunto, Polar, etc.

    However - HR to nonSS cardio without lab calibration has an error level of about 7-10%. So if your nonSS reading says 200 cals burned it may be 180 to 220. Not too bad.

    Firstbeat does a good job publishing their science:
    https://www.firstbeat.com/science-and-physiology/

    In terms of their utility, you can also use it to estimate things like return to resting, acute exercise stress, etc...
    Definitely useful for the athlete - particularly when trying to figure out long term training response.

    Tools used along with a HRM include TrainingPeaks or GoldCheetah or other analytics tools.

    THANK YOU!
    Someone on here scolded me the other day for suggesting a walker use a heart-rate monitor because it's 'only useful for runners and cycling', but I've used ours (Garmin HRM Tri) for baseline calorie burn on both my walks and my swims, and for walking it came out pretty close to the one my doctor used when he treadmill tested my fitness level. I left the thread, because I didn't feel like arguing. I also think the scolder didn't understand that I don't 'stroll' on my walks; I power-walk.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    edited February 2016
    I have a Garmin Vivoactive which allows you to download apps. I have the GymTimer app which I can only assume uses different algorithms than if I were using the running, cycling or swimming apps that come as standard. On a heavier workout day with more cardio, I get burns of up to the high 400s for an hour or so (although more typically 350-450). For more strength based days that drops to about 200, again for an hour. This was an upgrade from the basic Viviofit and the burns are completely different. I'm inclined to mostly trust them to within a small margin of error.

    I use mine with a chest strap. I see no value in the wrist read HR devices as they just haven't proven themselves to be accurate enough for me.

    And aside from calorie data, I enjoy checking my heart rate and seeing how much harder I have to push to max out, it's nice I'm so much more comfortable and capable. And how much faster my heart rate recovers.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    edited February 2016

    Got called in.

    Firstbeat Technology claims analytic capability in non-steady state. Other companies are able to graph power curves from cycling vs instantaneous HR change. So in reality the old "only for SS cardio" no longer holds for the leaders - Garmin, Suunto, Polar, etc.

    However - HR to nonSS cardio without lab calibration has an error level of about 7-10%. So if your nonSS reading says 200 cals burned it may be 180 to 220. Not too bad.

    Firstbeat does a good job publishing their science:
    https://www.firstbeat.com/science-and-physiology/

    In terms of their utility, you can also use it to estimate things like return to resting, acute exercise stress, etc...
    Definitely useful for the athlete - particularly when trying to figure out long term training response.

    Tools used along with a HRM include TrainingPeaks or GoldCheetah or other analytics tools.

    THANK YOU!
    Someone on here scolded me the other day for suggesting a walker use a heart-rate monitor because it's 'only useful for runners and cycling', but I've used ours (Garmin HRM Tri) for baseline calorie burn on both my walks and my swims, and for walking it came out pretty close to the one my doctor used when he treadmill tested my fitness level. I left the thread, because I didn't feel like arguing. I also think the scolder didn't understand that I don't 'stroll' on my walks; I power-walk.

    Other research also shows that these types of monitors are also more accurate when you also sometimes use them at higher intensity activity. To get an accurate reading at lower HR workouts they need higher intensity data every once in a while. This higher intensity data is used to estimate anaerobic threshold and VO2Max.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25245124



  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    I have a Garmin Vivoactive which allows you to download apps. I have the GymTimer app which I can only assume uses different algorithms than if I were using the running, cycling or swimming apps that come as standard. On a heavier workout day with more cardio, I get burns of up to the high 400s for an hour or so (although more typically 350-450). For more strength based days that drops to about 200, again for an hour. This was an upgrade from the basic Viviofit and the burns are completely different. I'm inclined to mostly trust them to within a small margin of error.

    I use mine with a chest strap. I see no value in the wrist read HR devices as they just haven't proven themselves to be accurate enough for me.

    And aside from calorie data, I enjoy checking my heart rate and seeing how much harder I have to push to max out, it's nice I'm so much more comfortable and capable. And how much faster my heart rate recovers.

    I feel like you

    But only have a humble polar FT4 which I'm fine with because I monitor me and trust my calorie burns on workouts as my weight over time remains stable and my recovery improves