We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Heart rate monitor? Necessary?

bex1408
bex1408 Posts: 39 Member
edited October 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
So the calories between the gym equipment (I know I don't put in my weight) and MFP are massively different. How do you guys track your exercise, do I need to invest in a hrm or is MFP accurate enough? Not sure which I should be using. Is there a hrm you would recommend to work out the calories, the cost seems to vary massively. Thanks x I am in uk btw x

Replies

  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    MFP is far more accurate than the gym equipment, I would say. A heart rate monitor is a nice tool and I love mine, but it's not necessary.
  • RahBuhBuh
    RahBuhBuh Posts: 585 Member
    Agreed: ^^
  • kwehkweh
    kwehkweh Posts: 70 Member
    I prefer a HR monitor with a chest strap instead of a touch sensor. With the chest strap, it sees when I have a drop in heart rate. With touch, it only sees my HR at the times I touch it. The same goes for the machines at the gym. And if you're going by the calorie counter without a HR monitor attached to it, chances are your calories burned are waaaaay different because machines don't know your fitness level.
  • Pebble321
    Pebble321 Posts: 6,423 Member
    MFP is far more accurate than the gym equipment, I would say. A heart rate monitor is a nice tool and I love mine, but it's not necessary.
    Agreed, it's nice to have but not essential - I've lost weight using MFP or runkeeper calories.
  • Missmaggieann
    Missmaggieann Posts: 68 Member
    I have a polar FT4 and I love it. Although I love my HRM I don't think they are a must. I was losing weight before I got one but find it interesting to track my burn. Get one with a chest strap if you do get one they are more accurate,
  • Butterfly3730
    Butterfly3730 Posts: 220
    I started without one and did ok but now that I have one, I would never be without. The equipment and MFP are way over calories actually burned. Now, I can monitor my heart rate and make sure I'm in my fat burning (heart rate) zone AND see really what calories are burned. It is a fun challenge for me. I think it is worth it. I have the Polar FT4 with the chest band (and it sync the exercise equipment up with it at the gym too).
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    I prefer a HR monitor with a chest strap instead of a touch sensor. With the chest strap, it sees when I have a drop in heart rate. With touch, it only sees my HR at the times I touch it. The same goes for the machines at the gym. And if you're going by the calorie counter without a HR monitor attached to it, chances are your calories burned are waaaaay different because machines don't know your fitness level.

    Oh, definitely. Don't even bother unless you're getting one with a chest strap. The watch only ones are useless.
  • AlmstHvn
    AlmstHvn Posts: 376 Member
    Being very overweight to start with, a concern of mine was if I was overdoing it into a danger zone when I got started. I couldn't afford a HRM right away, but got one after a few months. It's been VERY helpful - now I can tie how I'm feeling with some numbers and have a much better idea when I'm working "in the zone" versus overdoing it. So - required? Not so much - but now I am really glad to have one!
    11842605.png
    Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter
  • bex1408
    bex1408 Posts: 39 Member
    Thanks everyone :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories