For those of you that have heart monitors....

Options
2»

Replies

  • mllowe2
    mllowe2 Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    Thanks everyone...sounds like a pretty good consensus for this group.
  • CMmrsfloyd
    CMmrsfloyd Posts: 2,383 Member
    Options
    Love my Polar FT4 - when I bought it I was only concerned with the calorie estimates, and it does a great job at that. The FT7 is more expensive but also has a couple more options, just depends on what you're looking for.
  • BuildABetterMe
    Options
    The make of HRM also makes a difference. I had what I thought was a very nice Timex Triathlong HRM. The HRM portion was fine (although it doesn't sync with gym equipment), but the calories burned calculation was horrible! It read between 2 and 3 times too many calories burned...

    After much, and I mean MUCH research, I bought a Polar and haven't looked back.

    I got the FT80 at a bargain price through BodyTronics (GREAT people to work with) but most probably don't want to spend that much, and I totally understand. Both the FT4 and the FT7 are very popular, and can be had for well under $100.

    Just be sure that whatever you get has batteries that you can replace yourself, and not have to send the unit in. :)
  • mllowe2
    mllowe2 Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    Any recommendations on monitors? I would love to get one, but there's so many I'm confused (And I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars...).

    Search this on the forums...the question comes up daily! I answered it twice yesterday. But I have a WAHOO fitness, bluetooth chest strap one that uses my iphone. LOVE it

    I searched the forums and there was a ton of different answers....I was hoping to get some all in one place, which I did! Thanks, helped a lot.
  • angbieb
    angbieb Posts: 692 Member
    Options
    Wow! Thanks everyone for the great info!!!:flowerforyou:
  • robinogue
    robinogue Posts: 1,117 Member
    Options
    Any recommendations on monitors? I would love to get one, but there's so many I'm confused (And I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars...).
    Polar FT4 is well regarded and it's the least expensive one that does a good job of estimating calories.

    I use this one as well, it's not expensive and it's easy to use and understand.
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    Options
    From my own experience it all comes down to Training Zones and whether your HRM and the Gym Equipment are close when it comes to calories burned. Here is a basic breakdown of Training Zone:

    TRAINING ZONES

    Healthy Heart Zone (Warm up) --- 50 - 60% of maximum heart rate: The easiest zone and probably the best zone for people just starting a fitness program. It can also be used as a warm up for more serious walkers. This zone has been shown to help decrease body fat, blood pressure and cholesterol. It also decreases the risk of degenerative diseases and has a low risk of injury. 85% of calories burned in this zone are fats!

    Fitness Zone (Fat Burning) --- 60 - 70% of maximum heart rate: This zone provides the same benefits as the healthy heart zone, but is more intense and burns more total calories. The percent of fat calories is still 85%.

    Aerobic Zone (Endurance Training) --- 70 - 80% of maximum heart rate: The aerobic zone will improve your cardiovascular and respiratory system AND increase the size and strength of your heart. This is the preferred zone if you are training for an endurance event. More calories are burned with 50% from fat.

    Anaerobic Zone (Performance Training) --- 80 - 90% of maximum heart rate: Benefits of this zone include an improved VO2 maximum (the highest amount of oxygen one can consume during exercise) and thus an improved cardiorespiratory system, and a higher lactate tolerance ability which means your endurance will improve and you'll be able to fight fatigue better. This is a high intensity zone burning more calories, 15 % from fat.

    Red Line (Maximum Effort) --- 90 - 100% of maximum heart rate: Although this zone burns the highest number of calories, it is very intense. Most people can only stay in this zone for short periods. You should only train in this zone if you are in very good shape and have been cleared by a physician to do so.

    I spend no more than 5 minutes total between Zone 1 and 2 and make sure I am into the 3rd zone (Aerobic Zone) and stay there throughout my workout. I have a FT60 and have experimented on every piece of equipment at my YMCA and the biggest example I can give of what I am talking about is on the treadmill. I have severe knee problems which require me to where braces and I can only walk (no choice, can not run) and no matter what incline I set, I can't get enough speed to get my heart rate out of zone 1. So monday I did 1 hour on the treadmill and did an avg. incline of 8 and 2.8 mph. (bout as fast as my knee's will let me go) and after the hour was up the treadmill said I burned 906 calories, my Polar FT60 after that same workout said 660 calories.(Big Difference!!) Now switch to the Ellipitcal (Precor 576i) and today i did crossramp training up to level 20 and back down in 1 minute increments with a resistance set at 11 and in 81 minutes the machine said a burned 1238 calories and my FT60 said I burned 1270 calories... But I only spent 5 minute warmup getting my heart rate into zone 3 and then kept it there. Once you get your hear rate up into those higher zones it is much easier to keep it there... Hope that helps....
  • My1985Freckles
    My1985Freckles Posts: 1,039 Member
    Options
    Any recommendations on monitors? I would love to get one, but there's so many I'm confused (And I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars...).

    I got a sportline one from Walmart for $50. It is water resistant too. I haven't personally swam with it yet, but you are supposed to be able to. It works great! I've had no issues with it other than sometimes forgetting to take it with me LOL
  • chicago_dad
    Options
    to answer the question posed: sometimes. All are based on simple equations. The more accurate the information going into those equations, the more accurate you will get with your calories burned calculation. So, use a HRM to measure avg HR, you'll also need age (rounded fractionally), accurate weight, and accurate time working out. Try this calculation (for MEN):

    (.6309 * avg hr + .09036 * weight + .2017 * age - 55.0969) * minutes / 4.184

    I use 90% of that as my calories burned number for MFP logging.
  • Bakins929
    Bakins929 Posts: 895 Member
    Options
    I have a Polar FT40 that I like a lot. Got it on eBay, snagged it for $78! Sometimes it pays to wait until the last second to bid...
  • Minnesnowtagurl
    Minnesnowtagurl Posts: 406 Member
    Options
    My biggest one is the Eliptical Machine...at some points it will tell me I have burned as little as 80 calories in 15 minutes and my HRM (with chest strap) says as high as 147-168!

    I guess the best you can do is figure out your target HRM for fat burn zone and try to stay with in that and do intense cardio where you woulr burn about 10 calories a minute.
  • chrissi_k
    chrissi_k Posts: 175 Member
    Options
    From my own ............. But I only spent 5 minute warmup getting my heart rate into zone 3 and then kept it there. Once you get your hear rate up into those higher zones it is much easier to keep it there... Hope that helps....

    Thank you so much EdDavenport for writing that. I always asked friends etc what it means staying in that heart rate range all I got was, you will lose weight or it is for your endurance, but nothing more.

    The last time I was on the treadmill I got over 300 cal from my HRM and less than 200 from the treadmill even though I entered my weight in the machine, but my HRM even has my age and height considered...
  • weightofyourskin
    Options
    My HRM is generally much higher than the machines at the gym or even MFP, which I don't really understand because MFP also has my age, height and everything. For example, yesterday's cardio workout - MFP said I burned 322 calories, RunKeeper said 316, and my HRM said 488!

    It's a Polar FT7 which I got for Christmas - I really like it so far, it's a neat little gadget.
  • aweightymatter
    Options
    My HRM is generally much higher than the machines at the gym or even MFP, which I don't really understand because MFP also has my age, height and everything. For example, yesterday's cardio workout - MFP said I burned 322 calories, RunKeeper said 316, and my HRM said 488!

    It's a Polar FT7 which I got for Christmas - I really like it so far, it's a neat little gadget.

    I don't know how that one works specifically but there are a couple of things you can try... Make sure you have your HRM set to running, specifically, if that's an option rather than "general," and if you use a foot pod type of thing, you may have to recalibrate it. I have a Garmin and it was overestimating as well, compared to MFP, until I made sure I did those things.
  • jdjefferson
    Options
    This is going to sound rather flippant, but...
    put two fingers on your carotid artery (neck) and count the pulse for a given length of time. Works every time and is 100% accurate (and doesn't cost a penny)!