Heart Rate Monitor

I swear by mine, too, especially for spinning class. I have a Timex Ironman (woman's) because my old gym was pretty crowded with lots of folks wearing Polars--too much interference. I find that the treadmill and the elliptical at my new gym aren't too far off with the calories burned, but I tend to be more careful about keeping my heart rate up in the zone if I am wearing my monitor.

I would highly suggest wearing one for spinning classes--our instructor tells everybody that they should be burning about 500 calories in 45 minutes, but I think that many of them would be hard-pressed to hit that with the lack of effort that I have noticed... I was pleasantly surprised by the number of calories that I burned during kickboxing and boot camp classes, too!

what type of monitor do you reccomend? there are kinds that go on your wrist, and those that have the chest strap. any ideas? Are the machines crazy off?

As I said, mine is a Timex Women's Irontman Triathlon 30 Lap HRM. I got it 4 or 5 years ago from REI and it cost about $90--it doesn't appear that prices have gone up significantly. It doesn't do any of the fancy downloading, but it fits my needs for a reliable HRM and makes for a decent wristwatch for ohter outdoor endeavors (a day on the boat or a day snow skiing). This one has a chest strap, but considering the fact that I am always wearing a sports bra when I wear it, the strap is hardly noticable.

FOR ANYONE WANTING AN HRM....

http://sellout.woot.com/

Today and today only
$19.99 + $5 shipping
I have the Reebok branded version of this, but it's identical.
I LOVE mine (and paid the same years ago).

Chest straps are more accurate than wrist. After you use it a couple times, you won't even notice it's there.

The machines can only know a few generic things about you (weight, age, watts, etc), while the HRM knows exactly your heartbeats per minute for the entire workout and is therefore significantly more accurate.

How so? Heart rate has no direct correlation with calorie expenditure. Why assume that the HRM "knows" "exactly" what is going on?

Machines like bikes and treamills from top manufacturers like Life Fitness, Precor, Technogym, have calibrated workloads for which there are well-established and validated prediction equations for estimating energy cost. Since the machines are measuring the *actual* work that is being performed, calorie counts on these modalities would likely be more accurate than any HRM. (for walking and cycling at least--the lack of wind resistance leads to overestimation for treadmill running at faster speeds).

Ellipticals cross trainers are the one modality where the machine counts are likely to be the least accurate because there is no standard movement. You have to depend on each manufacturer to do their own testing and few of them take the time and expense to do so.

Pray tell, why would you instantly put such unquestioned faith in the accuracy of a cheapo doodad from WalMart while summarily dismissing the information displayed on a cardio machine in a gym? Why would you think that the walmart thingie is designed any better?

Were you trying to be that snooty or was that just an accident? Cause... my snoot monitor is red lining!!!

:laugh:

But the use of "Pray Tell" gets extra points! For sure.

Not really--it was more an attempt to break though the holy aura that seems to be attached to heart rate monitors. I know that humor and nuance often get lost during text conversations, so I guess it came off more snidely than I intended. It's also because this has come up at least a dozen times before and I was getting bored with my usual answers. I'm human, too.

Not really--it was more an attempt to break though the aura that seems to be attached to heart rate monitors. I know that humor and nuance often get lost during text conversations, so I guess it came off more snidely than I intended.

Well I thought it was hilarious that you were being so snide. But I apologize for that. You need smilies man! Smilies!!!

OK, I'll admit it----

I cannot get the smiley things to work in my posts. I pull them over from the little list, but all I ever see when I post the comment is the script--not the little smiley guys.

FOR ANYONE WANTING AN HRM....

http://sellout.woot.com/

Today and today only
$19.99 + $5 shipping
I have the Reebok branded version of this, but it's identical.
I LOVE mine (and paid the same years ago).

I just bought it; thanks for posting it. Hope it's good.:flowerforyou:

While I would agree with this for lower quality products that use little info besides heart rate and age, the more advanced products do their own testing and use far more numeric values, one of which, an important one, is VO2 Max, which directly correlates to calorie expenditure (Krebbs cycle, oxygen efficiency), and similar to higher quality machines, higher quality HRM's go through rigorous testing and study to test against results of direct testing machines such as in a Lab.

Banks, stop now please, because the last time you guys went at it in a thread - last week some time - all I could think of was Saturday Afternoon when I was young - watching Godzilla vs Gigan on Monster Island.

Two titans going head to head. Quite frankly it was a little frightening...

Seriously, seeing having to witness two testosterone laden intellects butt heads makes me nervous, because your head is exactly what you don't want to bust!

Yeesh. :laugh:

I used smilies...

How so? Heart rate has no direct correlation with calorie expenditure. Why assume that the HRM "knows" "exactly" what is going on?

Machines like bikes and treamills from top manufacturers like Life Fitness, Precor, Technogym, have calibrated workloads for which there are well-established and validated prediction equations for estimating energy cost. Since the machines are measuring the *actual* work that is being performed, calorie counts on these modalities would likely be more accurate than any HRM. (for walking and cycling at least--the lack of wind resistance leads to overestimation for treadmill running at faster speeds).

Ellipticals cross trainers are the one modality where the machine counts are likely to be the least accurate because there is no standard movement. You have to depend on each manufacturer to do their own testing and few of them take the time and expense to do so.

While I would agree with this for lower quality products that use little info besides heart rate and age, the more advanced products do their own testing and use far more numeric values, one of which, an important one, is VO2 Max, which directly correlates to calorie expenditure (Krebbs cycle, oxygen efficiency), and similar to higher quality machines, higher quality HRM's go through rigorous testing and study to test against results of direct testing machines such as in a Lab.

Yes, they are using more sophisticated algorithims, but they are still going after moving targets. There is inherent heart rate variability not only between individuals, but within the workout itself. I see wide variability between the first half and the second half of a 45 min workout with my Polar F11, even with a constant workload. I have posted only some of the data, but it has been consistent. Comparing two halves of my workout, I have seen a 20%-25% increase in the number of calories consumed, while the intensity level increased only 2-3%. Obviously I don't have a metabolic cart to verify actual VO2, but it is relatively constant, and cardiovascular drift is a well-documented phenomenon.

I don't know if Polar has accounted for this in their design. I suspect they haven't, but I know a lot of the research is proprietary--or at least I have not been able to find it.

The point that I am making is not really to trash Polar--it's to challenge this assumption of "HRM is the gold standard for calorie estimation". HRMs are valuable tools, but I think such an assumption is misleading. First of all, your HRM is only as accurate as the background information you program into it. Most people have no idea of their VO2 max, and only a vague idea of their HR max. So, their is a substantial error factor built in before you even put the thing on. I also see people using HRMs to measure total daily calories, which I don't think they are designed to do, and to estimate calories expended during strength workouts, which I know is not accurate at all.

I am just trying to keep things in perspective--that's what I do. I have a tendency to react to what I consider are reflexive absolutist statements and try to establish some perspective (quite frankly, if someone came on here and made a statement like "HRMs are total scams", I would be making supportive statements about how accurate they *can* be).

I just think people should realize that, outside the research lab in the real world, HRM calorie counts have an error factor of probably 15%-20%. (Which is fine--that's as close as you need to be IMO). For some activities like walking, running, cycling on a bike with a calibrated workload, rowing on a concept 2 rower with their performance monitor--calculated calorie totals from tables or the machine readouts, will probably be as accurate or even more accurate than an HRM. For more unstructured activities--classes, spin classes, (classic) circuit training, etc--the HRM is really the only option.

I also do not discount the importance of the motivation that HRMs provide. Absolutely the opposite. I used makeshift HR tracking devices long before HRMs existed and have been using different types for 20+ years (which was not always easy since the early ones used earlobe sensors and I have no appreciable earlobes). I think anyone who wants to be serious about their workout program should use an HRM. To me, it's as important as my shoes.

What I am becoming intrigued by is the newer technology that is incorporating multiple-inputs of data in addition to heart rate to make the devices more accurate. One example was mentioned yesterday--the Body Bugg. At first I was ready to give it more of a thumbs down because they use accelerometers. I had previously researched the use of accelerometers to measure calorie expenditure based on body movement and the studies I saw did not support the accuracy of the method. However, the BB also measures 3 or 4 other parameters. Since it's easy now to crunch all the numbers with tiny sensors and processors, they can do a lot more. I read (actually scanned, since a lot of the engineering was way over my head) a paper the inventor published describing his technology and I have to say it sounded promising. Another company, First Beat Technologies (www.firstbeattechnologies.com) is following a similar pattern (although measuring completely different things) to enhance the accuracy of their HRM technology. They have licensed their software to Suunto for their t-series training watches. I am sure Polar is working on similar improvements.

So who knows-in a year or two, this argument may be moot--we'll all be able to wear mini metabolic analyzers linked up to a synthetic nutrient dispenser that will automatically inject us with the exact food energy and nutrients we need on a minute-by-minute basis.

Unfortunately, it will probably only be available through iTunes.

While I would agree with this for lower quality products that use little info besides heart rate and age, the more advanced products do their own testing and use far more numeric values, one of which, an important one, is VO2 Max, which directly correlates to calorie expenditure (Krebbs cycle, oxygen efficiency), and similar to higher quality machines, higher quality HRM's go through rigorous testing and study to test against results of direct testing machines such as in a Lab.

Banks, stop now please, because the last time you guys went at it in a thread - last week some time - all I could think of was Saturday Afternoon when I was young - watching Godzilla vs Gigan on Monster Island.

Two titans going head to head. Quite frankly it was a little frightening...

Seriously, seeing having to witness two testosterone laden intellects butt heads makes me nervous, because your head is exactly what you don't want to bust!

Yeesh. :laugh:

Nah--just good, clean fun.

Actually, working on this website has been both therapeutic and helpful. During my years in the wilderness selling fitness equipment, I was not able to stay as current in the field as before. These past few months, I have been able to reconnect to the fitness world and become re-energized about figuring out a way to get back in and actually make a living at it again.

Chest straps are more accurate than wrist. After you use it a couple times, you won't even notice it's there.

The machines can only know a few generic things about you (weight, age, watts, etc), while the HRM knows exactly your heartbeats per minute for the entire workout and is therefore significantly more accurate.

How so? Heart rate has no direct correlation with calorie expenditure. Why assume that the HRM "knows" "exactly" what is going on?

Machines like bikes and treamills from top manufacturers like Life Fitness, Precor, Technogym, have calibrated workloads for which there are well-established and validated prediction equations for estimating energy cost. Since the machines are measuring the *actual* work that is being performed, calorie counts on these modalities would likely be more accurate than any HRM. (for walking and cycling at least--the lack of wind resistance leads to overestimation for treadmill running at faster speeds).

Ellipticals cross trainers are the one modality where the machine counts are likely to be the least accurate because there is no standard movement. You have to depend on each manufacturer to do their own testing and few of them take the time and expense to do so.

oh my gosh.
I decided I should get a HRM. Then I wondered if I should spend the money, questioning whether I'd use it after the weight loss is done (I have only 4-5lbs to go, but it's a battle and I thought the added accuracy might help).
Then I went round & round over model, partial to Polar due to the many recommendations on this site. Didn't want to spend a ton of money on anything fancy. Then I found what seemed to be the perfect solution: a Nike+ Superband (I think?) that goes on your wrist and in your shoe and measures only pace, distance and calories. Simple, perfect for running and less expensive ($79 in Canada). I bought it, then literally turned around at the door and returned it questioning how accurate the calorie count could be without a HRM! Except now I am learning that heart rate as no relevance to calorie count. I thought it must, the logic being that my body may be quite different then the generic formulas used in the gym machines. ARG!!!
I thought I'd done my research, I questioned accuracy on all of these, and ended up buying a Polar F4 that I will recieve on Thursday. I know the only way to know if I will love using one is to try it, but I *thought* I was buying this to get a more accurate calorie burn tracker than what MFP and the gym says. :indifferent:
oh my gosh.

Overall, you are. I am sorry if my remarks came across as "no relevance". Sometimes I might make the discussion too academic (for reasons I mentioned in another post in this thread).

Use your HRM -- 15% variance is not that big a deal. The calorie counts for the food items, the estimates for your daily caloric needs--none of that is any more accurate. Given all the variables in the way our bodies work, the error factor in the HRM is acceptable. It's just not exact--that's the point I am trying to make. And you have to make sure you adjust it as your body changes--weight decreases, fitness level improves, resting HR descreases.

Unfortunately, it will probably only be available through iTunes.

o.0

Okay now THAT was funny. :laugh: