Heart Rate Monitors

katiebythebay
katiebythebay Posts: 611 Member
edited November 9 in Fitness and Exercise
Definitely in the market for a reliable heart rate monitor.

Cost is a factor, but don't want something that will break in 6-9 months or become unreliable.

Looking for a relationship with longevity with my new monitor. Have heard the Timex Iron Man watches aren't built like they used to be and Polar may not be reliable. Saw a New Balance monitor and something called a Striiv from Amazon.

Anyone have any advice they would like to share with a novice buyer, I would appreciate the help.


~katie
«1

Replies

  • pg1girl
    pg1girl Posts: 268 Member
    Garmin 405cx gps/hrm. Love it!
  • MaximalLife
    MaximalLife Posts: 2,447 Member
    curious myself:smokin:
  • Steph1383
    Steph1383 Posts: 20 Member
    I got the Polar FT4 and I love it. Only cost about $60 through Amazon.
  • meg0013
    meg0013 Posts: 102
    i love my polar ft7. i bought it for $90 in store but you could definitely find it cheaper online.
  • tgaul
    tgaul Posts: 123
    I have a Polar F4 and love it. My friends have had theirs for over a year and have had no problems either. I bought a bowflex one first which I found not to be user friendly. Hope this helps.
  • courtneymal17
    courtneymal17 Posts: 672 Member
    I'm curious myself. I'd like a waterproof one (I swim a lot), and I've heard chest ones are more accurate than wrist ones, but I'm totally confused after that, so if anyone can give me any advice, id be grateful as well
  • 2live4ever79
    2live4ever79 Posts: 79 Member
    I have the sportline hrm that I bought from Walmart for about $40 and it's been good so far.
  • katiebythebay
    katiebythebay Posts: 611 Member
    Garmin 405cx gps/hrm. Love it!


    Hey there,

    Thanks for the response. Questions: How long have you had it? Do you use it constantly and is it water resistant? Do you think the calorie count is fairly accurate?

    I am so ready to drive to walmart's to pick one up....not sure of MFP's accuracy on the calorie count on aerobic exercises or my elliptical's calorie count either unfortunately.
  • kyrstensmom
    kyrstensmom Posts: 297 Member
    Garmin 405cx gps/hrm. Love it!

    This is what I have....LOVE it.
  • katiebythebay
    katiebythebay Posts: 611 Member
    I got the Polar FT4 and I love it. Only cost about $60 through Amazon.

    Ooh, Paul (Mr. Ferris) got one recently. Waiting to see what he says about his, but he's only had it a short while.
  • rachmaree
    rachmaree Posts: 782 Member
    I love my polar ft7. Love it!
  • Pebble321
    Pebble321 Posts: 6,423 Member
    I have a Garmin Forerunner 405 too (not the CX though, I think that is similar but waterproof) - but be aware that it is primarily a GPS system with heart rate built in. It doesn't use your heart rate to calculate calories, I think the Garmin models ending in 0 do, but 5 don't.
    If you want to use it for treadmill or indoor workouts you have to buy an extra foodpod so it tracks your activity without using the GPS.

    For me, it's about perfect because I run or walk or cycle outside. I have used it inside when I'm doing strength training, but I just use it to get my average heartrate and then use that to calculate calories burned. I love it because it gives me contstant feedback on my pace which is really useful for me, although I'm starting to use heart rate more as a guide too.

    So, make sure you think about what kind of workouts you will do and what you want from the HRM - then you will get one that is a good match for you.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    http://www.consumersearch.com/heart-rate-monitors/review

    Polar and Suunto are going to be the biggest names given.

    Just make sure that the chest strap has a replaceable battery (otherwise you just doubled the cost who knows how long down the road).

    You should probably mention what purpose you want it for.

    Reliable and cost effective leaves a lot out.

    Some literally just give you visual HR while wearing it. No timer, no post workout stats of average or max, totally meant for relaxed use and curious where your HR is.

    Add on stats after the workout, and watch, so it only records HR during the timed workout.

    Add on zone alarms, visual first, perhaps audio as upgrade, so you can try to stay in a certain zone HR of your choosing.

    Now add on ability to enter more stats like age, gender, weight, MHR, ect, so now estimates of HR can be given. If it doesn't ask for that much info minimum, forget it for calorie estimate.

    Add on ability to have several zones, and time in each is recorded, for more intense specific workouts.

    Now add on some self testing means to figure out MHR or VO2max or other self tests, and upload data to an app to for computer model training.

    Now add GPS.
  • kcfrogge
    kcfrogge Posts: 1
    I scouted around Amazon and looked at the reviews and decided on the Polar FT4... just got it today. Unfortunately, I will have to lose some weight before I can use the chest strap, and ultimately the transmitter to go with it. So it looks like I got a nice, expensive watch for awhile, and will have to rely on manual heart rate monitoring until I get some serious time in. (I'm a very big gal starting out here, but hope to be down 100 by December with the aid of a reliable personal trainer here.
  • kyrstensmom
    kyrstensmom Posts: 297 Member
    Garmin 405cx gps/hrm. Love it!


    Hey there,

    Thanks for the response. Questions: How long have you had it? Do you use it constantly and is it water resistant? Do you think the calorie count is fairly accurate?

    I am so ready to drive to walmart's to pick one up....not sure of MFP's accuracy on the calorie count on aerobic exercises or my elliptical's calorie count either unfortunately.

    I have had mine for about a month...I read lots of reviews before I bought it and it got great reviews. It is water resistant up to 1 meter (as I remember) for up to 30 minutes. Definitely not for swimming. The calorie count is accurate as far as I can tell. I got mine through Amazon for $179, which is kinda spendy if you're only looking for a HRM, but I needed GPS for running, so it was totally worth it to me.
  • kyrstensmom
    kyrstensmom Posts: 297 Member
    I have a Garmin Forerunner 405 too (not the CX though, I think that is similar but waterproof) - but be aware that it is primarily a GPS system with heart rate built in. It doesn't use your heart rate to calculate calories, I think the Garmin models ending in 0 do, but 5 don't.
    If you want to use it for treadmill or indoor workouts you have to buy an extra foodpod so it tracks your activity without using the GPS.

    For me, it's about perfect because I run or walk or cycle outside. I have used it inside when I'm doing strength training, but I just use it to get my average heartrate and then use that to calculate calories burned. I love it because it gives me contstant feedback on my pace which is really useful for me, although I'm starting to use heart rate more as a guide too.

    So, make sure you think about what kind of workouts you will do and what you want from the HRM - then you will get one that is a good match for you.

    One of the main differences between the Garmin 405 and 405cx is the 405cx uses the heart rate in its calorie computations and not just distance/time, which is why I picked the 405cx over the 405.
  • katiebythebay
    katiebythebay Posts: 611 Member
    Garmin 405cx gps/hrm. Love it!


    Hey there,

    Thanks for the response. Questions: How long have you had it? Do you use it constantly and is it water resistant? Do you think the calorie count is fairly accurate?

    I am so ready to drive to walmart's to pick one up....not sure of MFP's accuracy on the calorie count on aerobic exercises or my elliptical's calorie count either unfortunately.

    I have had mine for about a month...I read lots of reviews before I bought it and it got great reviews. It is water resistant up to 1 meter (as I remember) for up to 30 minutes. Definitely not for swimming. The calorie count is accurate as far as I can tell. I got mine through Amazon for $179, which is kinda spendy if you're only looking for a HRM, but I needed GPS for running, so it was totally worth it to me.


    I read that in changing the battery, you have to send it back to the factory, no other options.

    Has that been a inconvenience for anyone - does it hamper the positive affects?
  • Pebble321
    Pebble321 Posts: 6,423 Member
    I have a Garmin Forerunner 405 too (not the CX though, I think that is similar but waterproof) - but be aware that it is primarily a GPS system with heart rate built in. It doesn't use your heart rate to calculate calories, I think the Garmin models ending in 0 do, but 5 don't.
    If you want to use it for treadmill or indoor workouts you have to buy an extra foodpod so it tracks your activity without using the GPS.

    For me, it's about perfect because I run or walk or cycle outside. I have used it inside when I'm doing strength training, but I just use it to get my average heartrate and then use that to calculate calories burned. I love it because it gives me contstant feedback on my pace which is really useful for me, although I'm starting to use heart rate more as a guide too.

    So, make sure you think about what kind of workouts you will do and what you want from the HRM - then you will get one that is a good match for you.

    One of the main differences between the Garmin 405 and 405cx is the 405cx uses the heart rate in its calorie computations and not just distance/time, which is why I picked the 405cx over the 405.

    OK, thanks for the info. I didn't do any research until after I got mine - as my husband bought it for me for a Christmas surprise!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Personal experience on ones at different price ranges. All had replaceable batteries in strap, all but Garmin in monitor (it is rechargable).

    CardioSport $40 about 10 yrs ago - plenty of options which was nice like audible zone alarms, heart rate recovery range timer, in zone timer, calories, but not enough stats to do accurate calories, post workout min,avg,max. Stopwatch, countdown timer

    Timex $55 while back - some nice options with audible zone alarms, heart rate recovery at 1 min after workout stopped, time in zone, even less stats that CardioSport to get accurate calories, post workout min,avg,max, Stopwatch. Was digital and never had crosstalk in the gym, nor electrical interference

    Polar FT7 $70 - upper zone alarm only, no countdown timer, setable MHR and enough stats for accurate as possible calorie burns, pretty simple really, digital, no interference in gym.

    Garmin 305 $150 - GPS of course was main reason for outdoor runs and bike rides. HR functions of multizone analysis after data upload, zone alarms up or down or both, pre-programmed workouts by pace, distance, time, or HR (really cool on those, total training if desired), calorie burn not based on HR at all, but age, weight, pace. Totally configurable, love it. Kind of big for gym, hence getting the Polar lately. Upload data.

    For the inaccurate HRM's I've always had (except Polar now), I know my tested VO2max, so just took data here for total workout calorie burn.

    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I scouted around Amazon and looked at the reviews and decided on the Polar FT4... just got it today. Unfortunately, I will have to lose some weight before I can use the chest strap, and ultimately the transmitter to go with it.

    Note on Amazon the 2 types of straps they use now.

    You can get an extension to one of them, I saw it on Amazon. Hate for you to miss out on using it for too long.
  • kyrstensmom
    kyrstensmom Posts: 297 Member
    Garmin 405cx gps/hrm. Love it!


    Hey there,

    Thanks for the response. Questions: How long have you had it? Do you use it constantly and is it water resistant? Do you think the calorie count is fairly accurate?

    I am so ready to drive to walmart's to pick one up....not sure of MFP's accuracy on the calorie count on aerobic exercises or my elliptical's calorie count either unfortunately.

    I have had mine for about a month...I read lots of reviews before I bought it and it got great reviews. It is water resistant up to 1 meter (as I remember) for up to 30 minutes. Definitely not for swimming. The calorie count is accurate as far as I can tell. I got mine through Amazon for $179, which is kinda spendy if you're only looking for a HRM, but I needed GPS for running, so it was totally worth it to me.


    I read that in changing the battery, you have to send it back to the factory, no other options.

    Has that been a inconvenience for anyone - does it hamper the positive affects?

    No issues with the battery so far. Its rechargeable and I leave it on the charger when I'm not using it so its always ready when I am.
  • kyrstensmom
    kyrstensmom Posts: 297 Member
    I have a Garmin Forerunner 405 too (not the CX though, I think that is similar but waterproof) - but be aware that it is primarily a GPS system with heart rate built in. It doesn't use your heart rate to calculate calories, I think the Garmin models ending in 0 do, but 5 don't.
    If you want to use it for treadmill or indoor workouts you have to buy an extra foodpod so it tracks your activity without using the GPS.

    For me, it's about perfect because I run or walk or cycle outside. I have used it inside when I'm doing strength training, but I just use it to get my average heartrate and then use that to calculate calories burned. I love it because it gives me contstant feedback on my pace which is really useful for me, although I'm starting to use heart rate more as a guide too.

    So, make sure you think about what kind of workouts you will do and what you want from the HRM - then you will get one that is a good match for you.

    One of the main differences between the Garmin 405 and 405cx is the 405cx uses the heart rate in its calorie computations and not just distance/time, which is why I picked the 405cx over the 405.

    OK, thanks for the info. I didn't do any research until after I got mine - as my husband bought it for me for a Christmas surprise!

    Awesome Christmas surprise!!
  • mrFerris
    mrFerris Posts: 122 Member
    Hi Katie ... My FT7 is settling in nicely. It has the chest strap which is nice and comfortable and you forget it's there after a while. The watch part looks stylish and appears to work well. I have no idea how accurate it is compared to MFP but I can tell you that it records very different calorie burn figures. I would trust the HRM over MFP simply because it actually measures my heart rate where as MFP guesses. My daily 2.5mile walk records 200 ish kcal while the HRM records 300. My rate gets to 120bpm. I bet MFP doesn't expect that.

    So far, I am totally happy with it.
  • Ahluvly
    Ahluvly Posts: 389 Member
    Hey hon, I have the Polar FT60 and it's brilliant to be honest! I'm going to buy the FlowSynch device too so I can monitor how much my fitness is improving!

    Hope that helps!
  • LilacDreamer
    LilacDreamer Posts: 1,364 Member
    i used my polar ft7 for the first time yesterday, and it synched itself to the treadmill at my gym. i didnt even have to touch the treadmill and it knew by heart rate. it was kind of creepy, but convenient.
  • Gt3ch
    Gt3ch Posts: 212 Member
    I used a new Timex Iron Racetrainer a few months back and it was fine. I don't think Timex is junk.

    My current favorite, though, is the Wahoo Fitness Run Kit for my iPhone.
  • WandaVonDunajew
    WandaVonDunajew Posts: 183 Member
    I have a Kalenji one, which is Decathlon's own brand. Dunno if you have this chain in the US. It was cheap (around 50 dollars) and from what I understand, pretty accurate with the cal burning (needs data like weight, height, sex etc). and comes with a fitness monitoring program. The only thing that bothers me is that it does not measure distance and speed (that would be a higher end model, 80 dollars was out of my price range) but I can live with that, I haven't started the couch 2 5 k program yet anyway.
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Here is the low down:

    Timex is junk... Does not estimate calories accurately at all because it assumes you are a male and thus gives you the calorie burn of one.

    Polar is one of the best brands that you can buy... I had an FT7 since April of last year and recently upgraded to an FT60. I love and they are easy to use/set up and give a pretty realistic calorie estimation.

    I've heard good things about New Balance but I can't personally testify if they are or not.

    Bottom line what ever you decide, make sure it has a chest strap at the very least.. and remember that you get what you pay for. Go for a super cheap one from Walmart and you will most likely wind up with a junky HRM that is going to break and not be accurate.
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    I went with the Polar FT60 and have had it for a few month now and Love It. Tracks your HR training zones and times spent in each zone. alarm to notify when in/out of zone, has a built in training program to help give you incentives whether your training for fat loss/cardio strengthening, etc... setable MHR, Fitness test to find V02Max (also can be set manually), has uplink for 40 bucks(set watch on link uploads all data to your own personal page on polar site to track all exercise, is GPS upgradeable (just need to buy foot pod at a later time), and I find it pretty darn accurate figuring your calorie burns, interfaces with gym machines to show HR on machine (which is nice , don't have to look down at my watch to see HR).
    Got mine off:
    http://www.heartratemonitorsusa.com/ft60.html

    They have/had a promo if you put POLAR in at checkout you get an extra 5% off.... Also I know alot of people just wet the strap and it works fine but I decided to use the electrode cream called Buh Bump and my HR monitor hasn't skipped a beat once been working great since day one.....
  • 1546mel
    1546mel Posts: 191
    Polar FT 7 here, has the chest strap but i also heard that it is more accurate than ones without one. the calories on everything seem to be higher than what my Polar says, but i beleive my Polar :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories