Heart Rate Monitors

I've been using the Garmion vivoactive HR since it was released, still very happy with it.
It is quite a large device though (relatively.)

I use the Garmin 3, as I only have small wrists. It doesn't have a heartrate tracker, but according to Which? it was the most accurate for calorie burn (unless you wanted to spend megabucks), fitbits routinely over-estimate by 40% or more. I mainly use it to measure walks so I can accurately add onto MFP eg 20 mins at 3.5mph.

I also got a nice pack of different coloured (plain) straps from Amazon for about £15 so I can change it according to my outfit! I use the plain black strap it came with for exercise.

BootyEvolve wrote: »

yirara wrote: »

What for? They are only useful for steady state cardio, and only if you know your maxHR. Remember: heart rate does not equate to calorie burn.

Heart rate does equate to calorie burn because it tells you how intense you are pushing yourself. The higher zone your in the more calories you burn. A person walking does not burn the same as a person running because their heart rate levels are dramatically different.

Regardless, I wanted to use a heart rate monitor (preferably one on the wrist) to track exercise and activity level but mainly for exercise.

No it doesn't. If you sit on the sofa and hear an icevan outside and run outside your heartrate goes up. If you're fit it does so for a shorter time and less extrem than when you're unfit. Yet you burnthe same amount of calories at the same weight.

if it's hot and you run outside you're heartrate is bound to be higher, yet you don't burn more calories. Even where you are in the female cycle has some small influence on heartrate. You're tired? You're hr is bound to be higher at the same effort.

So basically, there i sno correlation between hr and calorie burn.

For activity tracker, any of the Garmin or Misfit models are great.

For HRM, Any of the Wahoo chest strap models.

If you can't use a chest strap, Scosche makes a line of forearm based HRMs that are almost as good as a chest strap.

As has already been pointed out. HR is not equal to calorie burn, but it is a useful metric.

I use a Polar A370. I needed a monitor that I can use in the water. I started with a less expensive Polar and used the H10 for HR until I changed the battery and must have flooded the watch.

The A370 has the HR in the watch and seems to be reasonable accurate. I use their calorie count...but over the 4 yrs I've been using Polar products I can confirm that whatever algorithm they use has little touch with reality for an active 66 yr old female who exercises 4 days a week. But then, so are mfp caloric suggestions for losing 2lbs/ week. I have a scale that measures body fat%, skeletal% and base metabolism. There's not much relation to reality on the % measurements - but I do use them as a trend. Over time, with experience, I've decided that base metabolism seems realistic.

To lose weight, I cut Polar exercise calorie count in half, working out in the yard for an afternoon, I cut by 75%. My scale gives me about 1350 base metabolism. To lose weight I use 1000 calories (I eat out frequently and I'm sure I underestimate those calories) and divide by 2 the calories that come over from my A370 and get rid of the extra exercise calories mfp adds.

In 2 weeks, I've lost 2 pounds, decreased body fat% and increased skeletal%. Three years ago I lost 30 lbs over about 6 months. This time its only 10 lbs, but it will certainly take more than 5 weeks to get there.

I’ve had a polar ft2 belt and watch in the past which was suitable for the job if you’re just focusing on HR zones there and then. Recently got given a myzone belt from work which is good, it has an app to track the exercise you do and also works at the local gym I use.