Opinions on HR Monitors please!

A HR monitor is useless for strength training. They're only for workouts with an elevated heart rate. I bought one when I was a beginner and thought I needed all the cool gadgets. I haven't used it in years. I am not a cardio bunny and I don't feel they're very useful for anything other than knowing your heart rate. If you do decide its for you however - the polar brand is very good.

What kind of phone do you have? I'm assuming a smart phone.. then I would suggest a Polar H7. It's a chest strap, so it's more accurate (imho) than a wrist device, and it works with both exercise equipment and bluetooth on phones. Pair it with their app or any other app that supports bluetooth HR monitors and you're good to go. However, the above responses are right, it really does no good for weight training unless you're doing something like cross fit, or doing very little rest between sets. Even then unless you get your HR above 100 and keep it there the HR monitor is somewhat useless for that sort of burn. However, I use mine for walking/jogging/cross training/etc. paired with my favorite apps that also sync with MFP. Works quite well.

I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of wrist-mounted HR devices such as fitbit, or even some of the trackers they have out now that look like a smart watch. I've tried blood pressure and HR monitors over the years that were wrist mounted and found them all to be inaccurate, and were highly susceptible to the position of your arm. My iPhone and a H7 have been the best combo I could ask for over the last 1.5 years.

Yes, I'm in the club of buying one as a noob to running. It's good for training, but unnecessary for calories if you have a smartphone(runtastic app) or can do simple math with the equation for calorie burn.. Both will give you the same read out and cost nothing.

That being said polar is decent though I know many people have compained of odd readings after changing the battery out.

SoxyKitten wrote: »

What's the difference between Vivoactive & Vivoactive HR?

I had the non HR one for about a week. Besides not being a fan of how it looked or felt. The non HR I had to wear the chest strap. The HR model is on the wrist although you can wear the strap as an option. I would check out the reviews on http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/05/garmin-vivoactivehr-review.html and compare. I'm still familiarizing myself with the features. There's about $100 price difference also.

SoxyKitten wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. I did suspect that weight training would be hard to record. So primarily it would be for running & cycling. Garmin is the one I've heard spoken about the most.

If you want multi-sport functionality you can probably find some great deals on the 910XT as it's been discontinued

NorthCascades wrote: »

I find

BrianSharpe wrote: »

If you ant to be able to measure distances etc you're looking at a GPS watch. I've been a big fan of the Garmin Forerunner series (they make models in a very wide range of prices) for years. (most have built in HRM so you can get distances, pace, heart rate, calories expended and if you're a real data junkie you can get a foot pod for cadence etc)

I find a Garmin Fenix 3 GPS watch. Love it. Knowing my HR is useful when I run, it's a better way for me to pace myself than knowing my actual pace. .

A Fenix may be in my future when my 910 eventually dies.......

I use the polar m400 watch with the h7 chest strap paired for heart rate. I use it to calculate heart rate during lifting. Its not perfect but its a better guess at energy expended than a paper formula. for running its great.

I have a polar and I love it

BrianSharpe wrote: »

A Fenix may be in my future when my 910 eventually dies.......

If you like the multisport features of the 910, look at the 735 too. If you just want to run or bike or swim but not all together, or want a bigger battery, the Fenix is a good idea

Spliner1969 wrote: »

What kind of phone do you have? I'm assuming a smart phone.. then I would suggest a Polar H7. It's a chest strap, so it's more accurate (imho) than a wrist device, and it works with both exercise equipment and bluetooth on phones. Pair it with their app or any other app that supports bluetooth HR monitors and you're good to go. However, the above responses are right, it really does no good for weight training unless you're doing something like cross fit, or doing very little rest between sets. Even then unless you get your HR above 100 and keep it there the HR monitor is somewhat useless for that sort of burn. However, I use mine for walking/jogging/cross training/etc. paired with my favorite apps that also sync with MFP. Works quite well.

I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of wrist-mounted HR devices such as fitbit, or even some of the trackers they have out now that look like a smart watch. I've tried blood pressure and HR monitors over the years that were wrist mounted and found them all to be inaccurate, and were highly susceptible to the position of your arm. My iPhone and a H7 have been the best combo I could ask for over the last 1.5 years.

the only thing about the polar is it only measures heart rate. it doesnt measure distance and what not. the app might though.an HR monitor is only good for steady state cardio such as swimming,running,biking,etc cross fit I dont know if thats considered steady state cardio or not

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

the only thing about the polar is it only measures heart rate. it doesnt measure distance and what not. the app might though.an HR monitor is only good for steady state cardio such as swimming,running,biking,etc cross fit I dont know if thats considered steady state cardio or not

The Polar is indeed just a HR monitor. I carry my phone with me all the time, usually in my pocket, so it does a great job of counting steps, GPS, as well as using the Polar to monitor HR during workouts with my favorite apps. I have not worn a watch since grade school, and probably won't start now, especially when I have one of the latest smart phones in my pocket already. The only thing it lacked was a HR monitor so the Polar fit the bill. It was also $50ish on Amazon, where a smartwatch/fitness watch started around $150 for a good one and went up from there.

leggup wrote: »

I bought a $15-20 Jarv chest-strap heart rate monitor on Groupon. I have it paired to RunKeeper on my phone. My phone GPS tracks how far I've gone and receives my heart rate data to determine exercise intensity (and I believe it also factors in elevation changes).

RunKeeper pairs with many fitness apps, including MyFitnessPal. I go on a walk, the app sends my calorie burn information directly to MyFitnesspal.

This was my point, there's no need to spend hundreds of dollars on a smart watch/tracker if you have a smartphone made in the last few years that has gps and step tracking capabilities (most do) unless of course you have money to burn and feel like having the latest and greatest doohickey on your wrist. A strap will always be more accurate than a wrist mounted device. But, if that's the way you decide to go, you can always adjust to it over time just like you can with different apps. Some over estimate, some under estimate, even with HR straps. So accuracy aside, it's just a matter of personal preference, and how much you want to spend.

Some exceptions though.. my wife for instance. Has a phablet (iPhone 6s Plus). It's too damn large for her to keep in her pocket, so unless she wants to wear an arm strap with that huge thing then it's not suitable for her to use as a step tracker. For this reason she'd prefer a wearable. My phone is almost never not in my pocket so it's the best device for me paired with a strap.

You should use running shoes instead...

Spliner1969 wrote: »

leggup wrote: »

I bought a $15-20 Jarv chest-strap heart rate monitor on Groupon. I have it paired to RunKeeper on my phone. My phone GPS tracks how far I've gone and receives my heart rate data to determine exercise intensity (and I believe it also factors in elevation changes).

RunKeeper pairs with many fitness apps, including MyFitnessPal. I go on a walk, the app sends my calorie burn information directly to MyFitnesspal.

This was my point, there's no need to spend hundreds of dollars on a smart watch/tracker if you have a smartphone made in the last few years that has gps and step tracking capabilities (most do) unless of course you have money to burn and feel like having the latest and greatest doohickey on your wrist. A strap will always be more accurate than a wrist mounted device. But, if that's the way you decide to go, you can always adjust to it over time just like you can with different apps. Some over estimate, some under estimate, even with HR straps. So accuracy aside, it's just a matter of personal preference, and how much you want to spend.

Some exceptions though.. my wife for instance. Has a phablet (iPhone 6s Plus). It's too damn large for her to keep in her pocket, so unless she wants to wear an arm strap with that huge thing then it's not suitable for her to use as a step tracker. For this reason she'd prefer a wearable. My phone is almost never not in my pocket so it's the best device for me paired with a strap.

Yeah, here's the thing...

1.) most of the fitness trackers recommended ALSO come with a heart rate strap
2.) it's also convenient for some activities to have an optical heart rate sensor
3.) Unlike a phone, if you're wearing something it's on you all the time
4.) like your wife I cant keep my phone on me all the time, and it's huge so it goes in the bag
5.) i can't bring my phone with me when i workout either for this reason
6.) some of these watches also track other data and trends over time (like sleep tracking for example), or offer smart features (like text/call notifications, alarms, etc.) so if i'm in class or at the gym i can reply/call someone back, change my music, etc.


I guess what i'm saying is... it's not totally useless especially if you're someone who likes to wear a watch. it's a much more convenient form factor that trying to use your phone for everything. Not to mention the fact that i already feel like my iPhone has the worst battery life ever, i can't imagine using it to track all that data and enabling gps on it!

If you don't want or need an activity tracker that's totally fine, but for some people they are more than just the "latest, greatest, doohickeys".

rainbowbow wrote: »

If you don't want or need an activity tracker that's totally fine, but for some people they are more than just the "latest, greatest, doohickeys".

I use my watch when I swim. It tracks my heart rate, gives me a map of where I swam, and other useful stuff. I also use my watch to not get lost sometimes. I wouldn't do this with my phone because, well, my phone's not waterproof:



My girlfriend has a waterproof phone case, because she lost a phone to the lake once while she was taking pictures with it, but when it's in the case, you can't actually use the phone. So if you want to pan the map or take a picture or whatever, the phone has to come out of the case for that.

A broken or lost phone + a replacement phone + a special case + bluetooth sensors + apps to make the phone do what you want = $$$. I decided I'd rather have a watch that does what I want without needing special care or draining my phone battery.