Heart rate monitor / chest strap recommendations
smudger_24
Posts: 107 Member
Hi! I want and need a new heart rate monitor but don’t know which ones are reccomended. I currently have the polar FT7 and chest strap which I love but it is pretty dated. Can anyone recommend the newest one to this or one that is most similar...? Should I be looking at Garmin? Tell me what you think and what you currently use!! Thank you x
0
Replies
-
What are you planning on using it for?1
-
-
None of them are going to do all of that well, and most of them will do very little of that well. As such, I don't think it matters much which one you go with. If you want a lot of data, go with a Garmin product. Otherwise, decide on the features you want (GPS? Waterproof? etc) and go with whichever one fits your budget and you like the fit/feel/look of the best.3
-
None of them are going to do all of that well, and most of them will do very little of that well. As such, I don't think it matters much which one you go with. If you want a lot of data, go with a Garmin product. Otherwise, decide on the features you want (GPS? Waterproof? etc) and go with whichever one fits your budget and you like the fit/feel/look of the best.
I think for me I want one that tracks calories burnt most accurately GPS is a nice feature but most of my work outs in the gym so I guess it’s just accuracy on calorie burns... I’m not sure out of newer models which polar ones are best and I know nothing about Garmins so just interested to see what a lot of people on here have....😬
0 -
HRM calorie estimate accuracy is mainly down to two things:
1/ How close your HR is to the mythical average person who shares your stats. I've seen two similar sized fit cyclists producing the same power output/calorie burn with HR 50% different.
2/ The choice of exercise. With a basic HRM the closer to steady state cardio the better. Kettlebells, circuit training and weights are not appropriate to try and guess your calorie burn from HR and there's no real benefit in knowing your HR during those exercises either.
I changed from a Polar FT7 to a FT60 and much preferred the FT60. Didn't find either very reliable or long lasting though. I did manage to calibrate the FT60 to fairly closely match true calorie burns for indoor cycling for steady state training. For interval training it would exaggerate quite significantly.3 -
Thanks for the reply I guess because it’s a mixture of cardio then the weights and kettlebells I just like to have an overall idea of what I’ve burned, I’ve used my ft7 for 7 years and had no problems but I just wanted a newer similar version so will take a look at the ft60. Are any of the V or M new polar models any good or has anyone tried them?HRM calorie estimate accuracy is mainly down to two things:
1/ How close your HR is to the mythical average person who shares your stats. I've seen two similar sized fit cyclists producing the same power output/calorie burn with HR 50% different.
2/ The choice of exercise. With a basic HRM the closer to steady state cardio the better. Kettlebells, circuit training and weights are not appropriate to try and guess your calorie burn from HR and there's no real benefit in knowing your HR during those exercises either.
I changed from a Polar FT7 to a FT60 and much preferred the FT60. Didn't find either very reliable or long lasting though. I did manage to calibrate the FT60 to fairly closely match true calorie burns for indoor cycling for steady state training. For interval training it would exaggerate quite significantly.
0 -
smudger_24 wrote: »
Thanks for the reply I guess because it’s a mixture of cardio then the weights and kettlebells I just like to have an overall idea of what I’ve burned, I’ve used my ft7 for 7 years and had no problems but I just wanted a newer similar version so will take a look at the ft60. Are any of the V or M new polar models any good or has anyone tried them?HRM calorie estimate accuracy is mainly down to two things:
1/ How close your HR is to the mythical average person who shares your stats. I've seen two similar sized fit cyclists producing the same power output/calorie burn with HR 50% different.
2/ The choice of exercise. With a basic HRM the closer to steady state cardio the better. Kettlebells, circuit training and weights are not appropriate to try and guess your calorie burn from HR and there's no real benefit in knowing your HR during those exercises either.
I changed from a Polar FT7 to a FT60 and much preferred the FT60. Didn't find either very reliable or long lasting though. I did manage to calibrate the FT60 to fairly closely match true calorie burns for indoor cycling for steady state training. For interval training it would exaggerate quite significantly.
Your FT7 isn't getting a meaningful number beyond a harder workout will give you a bigger number but the numbers themselves are pretty meaningless and more than likely far too high as your pulse isn't just being driven by oxygen demand (which is how it's trying to interpret heartbeats to calories).
I believe there is some more sophisticated software around ("Firstbeat"?) that when you tell the device what kind of exercise you are doing tries to use an appropriate algorithm but I've not used one myself. My Garmin is bike specific and wouldn't be useful to you.
Worth a look at the DCRainmaker site for product reviews perhaps?
4 -
smudger_24 wrote: »
Thanks for the reply I guess because it’s a mixture of cardio then the weights and kettlebells I just like to have an overall idea of what I’ve burned, I’ve used my ft7 for 7 years and had no problems but I just wanted a newer similar version so will take a look at the ft60. Are any of the V or M new polar models any good or has anyone tried them?HRM calorie estimate accuracy is mainly down to two things:
1/ How close your HR is to the mythical average person who shares your stats. I've seen two similar sized fit cyclists producing the same power output/calorie burn with HR 50% different.
2/ The choice of exercise. With a basic HRM the closer to steady state cardio the better. Kettlebells, circuit training and weights are not appropriate to try and guess your calorie burn from HR and there's no real benefit in knowing your HR during those exercises either.
I changed from a Polar FT7 to a FT60 and much preferred the FT60. Didn't find either very reliable or long lasting though. I did manage to calibrate the FT60 to fairly closely match true calorie burns for indoor cycling for steady state training. For interval training it would exaggerate quite significantly.
Your FT7 isn't getting a meaningful number beyond a harder workout will give you a bigger number but the numbers themselves are pretty meaningless and more than likely far too high as your pulse isn't just being driven by oxygen demand (which is how it's trying to interpret heartbeats to calories).
I believe there is some more sophisticated software around ("Firstbeat"?) that when you tell the device what kind of exercise you are doing tries to use an appropriate algorithm but I've not used one myself. My Garmin is bike specific and wouldn't be useful to you.
Worth a look at the DCRainmaker site for product reviews perhaps?
Ok thank you I will definitely take a look , thanks for replying 👌🏻2 -
Agree 100% with @sijomial - HR can be a useful tool for endurance training. It is pretty much meaningless for calorie burn.
If you are looking to track progress or train for endurance using some sort of HR program, then I like Garmin. It will give you information overload (especially when combined with one of their HR straps).2 -
Agree 100% with @sijomial - HR can be a useful tool for endurance training. It is pretty much meaningless for calorie burn.
If you are looking to track progress or train for endurance using some sort of HR program, then I like Garmin. It will give you information overload (especially when combined with one of their HR straps).
Thank you! What Garmin do you use or can you recc a model?0 -
I agree that HRM will give inaccurate estimates for calorie burn for the activities you mention.
Unlike like the others, though, I'd argue that if you tend to do about the same workouts most of the time, consistent calorie estimates are more important than precisely accurate ones. You track your food, you estimate your workouts, you monitor your weight loss rate, then you adjust your calorie intake to meet your goals (gain, lose or maintain weight). Any consistent way of estimating relatively consistently-performed exercise is likely to be close enough.
Outside the little world of MFP, many people succeed with weight loss by using TDEE calculators, which have a person estimate their exercise in very vague and imprecise ways, and eat the same number of calories every day (because those calories account for their average amount of exercise). That's even less accurate than a HRM, but as long as they observe results and adjust, it works fine.
It's a little counterintuitive to look at the world of NEAT calorie estimating - where you estimate calories separately - in that same way . . . but you can come close enough.
It's important to understand the limitations of your estimating methods, but what's really important is whether you're achieving your goals.
Given your goals, the higher end trackers may be be overkill, but they're kinda fun. I have a Garmin Vivoactive 3 (sort of medium-high end), like it just fine, trust it for some training purposes (pace/speed, distance, heart rate), and use its calorie estimates for cardio-like things because experience suggests it's close enough. Its calorie estimates aren't dramatically different from my old Polar watch/chest belt. (I don't remember which Polar model I had, but it was fairly low end.)4 -
smudger_24 wrote: »None of them are going to do all of that well, and most of them will do very little of that well. As such, I don't think it matters much which one you go with. If you want a lot of data, go with a Garmin product. Otherwise, decide on the features you want (GPS? Waterproof? etc) and go with whichever one fits your budget and you like the fit/feel/look of the best.
I think for me I want one that tracks calories burnt most accurately GPS is a nice feature but most of my work outs in the gym so I guess it’s just accuracy on calorie burns... I’m not sure out of newer models which polar ones are best and I know nothing about Garmins so just interested to see what a lot of people on here have....😬
You need a metabolic chamber.
Any of these activity trackers can be off by 1,000 % for calories and it's within spec.
I like the HRM-Run strap because the "stride length" metric it captures is actually useful for Nordic skiing.2 -
I agree that HRM will give inaccurate estimates for calorie burn for the activities you mention.
Unlike like the others, though, I'd argue that if you tend to do about the same workouts most of the time, consistent calorie estimates are more important than precisely accurate ones. You track your food, you estimate your workouts, you monitor your weight loss rate, then you adjust your calorie intake to meet your goals (gain, lose or maintain weight). Any consistent way of estimating relatively consistently-performed exercise is likely to be close enough.
Outside the little world of MFP, many people succeed with weight loss by using TDEE calculators, which have a person estimate their exercise in very vague and imprecise ways, and eat the same number of calories every day (because those calories account for their average amount of exercise). That's even less accurate than a HRM, but as long as they observe results and adjust, it works fine.
It's a little counterintuitive to look at the world of NEAT calorie estimating - where you estimate calories separately - in that same way . . . but you can come close enough.
It's important to understand the limitations of your estimating methods, but what's really important is whether you're achieving your goals.
Given your goals, the higher end trackers may be be overkill, but they're kinda fun. I have a Garmin Vivoactive 3 (sort of medium-high end), like it just fine, trust it for some training purposes (pace/speed, distance, heart rate), and use its calorie estimates for cardio-like things because experience suggests it's close enough. Its calorie estimates aren't dramatically different from my old Polar watch/chest belt. (I don't remember which Polar model I had, but it was fairly low end.)
All this. While the numbers you’ve been using all along aren’t lab-accurate, they are obviously providing you with a consistent measurement that is giving you the results you’re looking for. I think that’s the best anyone could possibly ask for as any estimate for calorie burn will always be an estimate. If you’ve found something that’s estimating well for you-keep on keeping on.
But do understand that your heart rate is only a relatively acceptable way to provide an estimate for calories burned for steady state cardio. But that particular aspect has been covered in depth already so I’ll just go back to saying that everything is an estimate and something that is consistently estimating well for you is as good as any other estimate.
If you’ve had good luck with the Polar, you may like the H7 or H10 (both of which may even pair with your existing watch as they broadcast in Bluetooth and Polar’s own proprietary frequency-which is also picked up by some gym equipment).
I have a Polar M400 and then got an M430. I don’t seem to mesh well with the Polar chest straps and every model I have had has never worked well for me. I’m assuming there is something about my skin or my heart or my something that just doesn’t jive.
However, I otherwise like both of the Polar watches-particularly the M430 (which is pretty much the same but better syncing and it has a wrist HR-which has been reasonably accurate for me - Accurate as in heart beats per minute). They are kind of ugly though.
I personally use a Wahoo tickr x which is connected to runkeeper (which talks to me) and my Garmin watch at the same time. I use it for beats per minute and assorted performance metrics that my Garmin calculates based on HR, pace and the variability of my HR.
While I am not terribly worried about precision calorie burn estimates-the Garmin and Polar do produce reasonably similar numbers.
0 -
FWIW, here's a real-life experiment, OP, just as thought-fodder:
This morning, I did 2 x 2000m (medium steady state) on the rowing machine (hope to have time for another 2 later). This should be the type of exercise that a HRM is good at estimating calories for. In addition, my Garmin Vivoactive 3 "knows" I'm rowing, and knows my actual measured/tested max heart rate, I've done its "fitness test" thingie, and all that good stuff, so it has the best circumstances I can give it to produce sound calorie estimates.
My actual rowing time was 19 minutes, 44.3 seconds (per rowing machine). The Concept 2 rowing machine measures watts (I averaged 108 watts in this case), which is a better basis for estimating calories than heart rate, and the machine has a good reputation for accuracy in this regard.
My VA3 says I burned 138 calories. The machine (after I do the proper bodyweight adjustment) says I burned 199 calories - 44% more.
Pretty big percentage difference. Not very exciting absolute calories difference. (I'm sure I make 66 calories of unknown/unknowable food logging errors every day from food scale imprecision, one apple being sweeter than the next, and that sort of thing. If I get my second set of 2 x 2K in later, presumably the absolute value gap widens to around 130 calories. That's not going to break a weight loss process.
It's likely that HRM-based estimates are too high for some people, and too low for others. As someone who likes to think about algorithms and error sources (weird li'l ol' lady), but who has a general understanding of heart rate and exercise but no specialized insight into HRM algorithms, my guess would be that typically/generically they'd tend to underestimate calories for people who are fitter than average, and overestimate for people who are less fit than average, with "average" being defined as whatever was the mean in research they rely on. But that's absolutely a guess.
I'm logging the 138 calories, BTW - in maintenance, but trying to pull back a little right now.
2 -
I love my Garmin forerunner 35 paired with the schosche rhyrhm heart rate monitor that is an armband monitor. It was recommendation from this community! The chest strap would move around on my when doing circuits and such, so it would not measure consistently. With the armband, I get a consistent measurement, which I like.1
-
I used Polar for years. Recently, when I decided it was time again to get back being a heart rate monitor junky, it wad time for a new purchase. I bought a Garmin 35 and paid extra and bought a chest strap. Awesome device and powerful information. Syncs with MFP.
The combo is contributing great results in my current journey.
You won’t regret investing in a Garmin 35 or higher.1 -
smudger_24 wrote: »I currently have the polar FT7 and chest strap which I love but it is pretty dated.
Is there anything actually wrong with it?
Given the type of activities that you're talking about the scale of error from a different device is probably much the same as you're getting more anyway.4 -
FWIW, here's a real-life experiment, OP, just as thought-fodder:
This morning, I did 2 x 2000m (medium steady state) on the rowing machine (hope to have time for another 2 later). This should be the type of exercise that a HRM is good at estimating calories for. In addition, my Garmin Vivoactive 3 "knows" I'm rowing, and knows my actual measured/tested max heart rate, I've done its "fitness test" thingie, and all that good stuff, so it has the best circumstances I can give it to produce sound calorie estimates.
My actual rowing time was 19 minutes, 44.3 seconds (per rowing machine). The Concept 2 rowing machine measures watts (I averaged 108 watts in this case), which is a better basis for estimating calories than heart rate, and the machine has a good reputation for accuracy in this regard.
My VA3 says I burned 138 calories. The machine (after I do the proper bodyweight adjustment) says I burned 199 calories - 44% more.
Pretty big percentage difference. Not very exciting absolute calories difference. (I'm sure I make 66 calories of unknown/unknowable food logging errors every day from food scale imprecision, one apple being sweeter than the next, and that sort of thing. If I get my second set of 2 x 2K in later, presumably the absolute value gap widens to around 130 calories. That's not going to break a weight loss process.
It's likely that HRM-based estimates are too high for some people, and too low for others. As someone who likes to think about algorithms and error sources (weird li'l ol' lady), but who has a general understanding of heart rate and exercise but no specialized insight into HRM algorithms, my guess would be that typically/generically they'd tend to underestimate calories for people who are fitter than average, and overestimate for people who are less fit than average, with "average" being defined as whatever was the mean in research they rely on. But that's absolutely a guess.
I'm logging the 138 calories, BTW - in maintenance, but trying to pull back a little right now.FWIW, here's a real-life experiment, OP, just as thought-fodder:
This morning, I did 2 x 2000m (medium steady state) on the rowing machine (hope to have time for another 2 later). This should be the type of exercise that a HRM is good at estimating calories for. In addition, my Garmin Vivoactive 3 "knows" I'm rowing, and knows my actual measured/tested max heart rate, I've done its "fitness test" thingie, and all that good stuff, so it has the best circumstances I can give it to produce sound calorie estimates.
My actual rowing time was 19 minutes, 44.3 seconds (per rowing machine). The Concept 2 rowing machine measures watts (I averaged 108 watts in this case), which is a better basis for estimating calories than heart rate, and the machine has a good reputation for accuracy in this regard.
My VA3 says I burned 138 calories. The machine (after I do the proper bodyweight adjustment) says I burned 199 calories - 44% more.
Pretty big percentage difference. Not very exciting absolute calories difference. (I'm sure I make 66 calories of unknown/unknowable food logging errors every day from food scale imprecision, one apple being sweeter than the next, and that sort of thing. If I get my second set of 2 x 2K in later, presumably the absolute value gap widens to around 130 calories. That's not going to break a weight loss process.
It's likely that HRM-based estimates are too high for some people, and too low for others. As someone who likes to think about algorithms and error sources (weird li'l ol' lady), but who has a general understanding of heart rate and exercise but no specialized insight into HRM algorithms, my guess would be that typically/generically they'd tend to underestimate calories for people who are fitter than average, and overestimate for people who are less fit than average, with "average" being defined as whatever was the mean in research they rely on. But that's absolutely a guess.
I'm logging the 138 calories, BTW - in maintenance, but trying to pull back a little right now.FWIW, here's a real-life experiment, OP, just as thought-fodder:
This morning, I did 2 x 2000m (medium steady state) on the rowing machine (hope to have time for another 2 later). This should be the type of exercise that a HRM is good at estimating calories for. In addition, my Garmin Vivoactive 3 "knows" I'm rowing, and knows my actual measured/tested max heart rate, I've done its "fitness test" thingie, and all that good stuff, so it has the best circumstances I can give it to produce sound calorie estimates.
My actual rowing time was 19 minutes, 44.3 seconds (per rowing machine). The Concept 2 rowing machine measures watts (I averaged 108 watts in this case), which is a better basis for estimating calories than heart rate, and the machine has a good reputation for accuracy in this regard.
My VA3 says I burned 138 calories. The machine (after I do the proper bodyweight adjustment) says I burned 199 calories - 44% more.
Pretty big percentage difference. Not very exciting absolute calories difference. (I'm sure I make 66 calories of unknown/unknowable food logging errors every day from food scale imprecision, one apple being sweeter than the next, and that sort of thing. If I get my second set of 2 x 2K in later, presumably the absolute value gap widens to around 130 calories. That's not going to break a weight loss process.
It's likely that HRM-based estimates are too high for some people, and too low for others. As someone who likes to think about algorithms and error sources (weird li'l ol' lady), but who has a general understanding of heart rate and exercise but no specialized insight into HRM algorithms, my guess would be that typically/generically they'd tend to underestimate calories for people who are fitter than average, and overestimate for people who are less fit than average, with "average" being defined as whatever was the mean in research they rely on. But that's absolutely a guess.
I'm logging the 138 calories, BTW - in maintenance, but trying to pull back a little right now.FWIW, here's a real-life experiment, OP, just as thought-fodder:
This morning, I did 2 x 2000m (medium steady state) on the rowing machine (hope to have time for another 2 later). This should be the type of exercise that a HRM is good at estimating calories for. In addition, my Garmin Vivoactive 3 "knows" I'm rowing, and knows my actual measured/tested max heart rate, I've done its "fitness test" thingie, and all that good stuff, so it has the best circumstances I can give it to produce sound calorie estimates.
My actual rowing time was 19 minutes, 44.3 seconds (per rowing machine). The Concept 2 rowing machine measures watts (I averaged 108 watts in this case), which is a better basis for estimating calories than heart rate, and the machine has a good reputation for accuracy in this regard.
My VA3 says I burned 138 calories. The machine (after I do the proper bodyweight adjustment) says I burned 199 calories - 44% more.
Pretty big percentage difference. Not very exciting absolute calories difference. (I'm sure I make 66 calories of unknown/unknowable food logging errors every day from food scale imprecision, one apple being sweeter than the next, and that sort of thing. If I get my second set of 2 x 2K in later, presumably the absolute value gap widens to around 130 calories. That's not going to break a weight loss process.
It's likely that HRM-based estimates are too high for some people, and too low for others. As someone who likes to think about algorithms and error sources (weird li'l ol' lady), but who has a general understanding of heart rate and exercise but no specialized insight into HRM algorithms, my guess would be that typically/generically they'd tend to underestimate calories for people who are fitter than average, and overestimate for people who are less fit than average, with "average" being defined as whatever was the mean in research they rely on. But that's absolutely a guess.
I'm logging the 138 calories, BTW - in maintenance, but trying to pull back a little right now.FWIW, here's a real-life experiment, OP, just as thought-fodder:
This morning, I did 2 x 2000m (medium steady state) on the rowing machine (hope to have time for another 2 later). This should be the type of exercise that a HRM is good at estimating calories for. In addition, my Garmin Vivoactive 3 "knows" I'm rowing, and knows my actual measured/tested max heart rate, I've done its "fitness test" thingie, and all that good stuff, so it has the best circumstances I can give it to produce sound calorie estimates.
My actual rowing time was 19 minutes, 44.3 seconds (per rowing machine). The Concept 2 rowing machine measures watts (I averaged 108 watts in this case), which is a better basis for estimating calories than heart rate, and the machine has a good reputation for accuracy in this regard.
My VA3 says I burned 138 calories. The machine (after I do the proper bodyweight adjustment) says I burned 199 calories - 44% more.
Pretty big percentage difference. Not very exciting absolute calories difference. (I'm sure I make 66 calories of unknown/unknowable food logging errors every day from food scale imprecision, one apple being sweeter than the next, and that sort of thing. If I get my second set of 2 x 2K in later, presumably the absolute value gap widens to around 130 calories. That's not going to break a weight loss process.
It's likely that HRM-based estimates are too high for some people, and too low for others. As someone who likes to think about algorithms and error sources (weird li'l ol' lady), but who has a general understanding of heart rate and exercise but no specialized insight into HRM algorithms, my guess would be that typically/generically they'd tend to underestimate calories for people who are fitter than average, and overestimate for people who are less fit than average, with "average" being defined as whatever was the mean in research they rely on. But that's absolutely a guess.
I'm logging the 138 calories, BTW - in maintenance, but trying to pull back a little right now.
thanks for the replies! My polar does cut out now and again and would like GPS for when I do go out road running!MeanderingMammal wrote: »smudger_24 wrote: »I currently have the polar FT7 and chest strap which I love but it is pretty dated.
Is there anything actually wrong with it?
Given the type of activities that you're talking about the scale of error from a different device is probably much the same as you're getting more anyway.
I’ve ordered the polar v800 after reviews online and for what I want to use it for so fingers crossed! Thanks everyone
1 -
pierinifitness wrote: »I used Polar for years. Recently, when I decided it was time again to get back being a heart rate monitor junky, it wad time for a new purchase. I bought a Garmin 35 and paid extra and bought a chest strap. Awesome device and powerful information. Syncs with MFP.
The combo is contributing great results in my current journey.
You won’t regret investing in a Garmin 35 or higher.
I went with the polar v800 after reading reviews online and what I want it for, I like a HRM and for me I have always found it accurate to use alongside MFP. I’m nearly 7 stone down since I originally started and kept it off so it must be doing something right!
Thanks for the reply 👌🏻😬
0 -
I use a MyZone belt. Not as popualr as a lot of the others, but I do find it very useful for training.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 437 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions