Heart rate monitors: worth the investment?

[emmzies]

I would seriously reccomend buying off ebay. The prices, even with shipping, are incredibly good compared to here.

I.e What i plan to purchase:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350193525478

Total cost off ebay: $250 NZ (inc shipping, as long as exchange rate stays strong)

Recc. retail here: $439.99 NZ ( as listed on their site)

The only downside is the warrenty issue.

But anyway if ebay aint your thing, retail stockists in your region listed here:

http://www.polarheart.co.nz/displayretailers.do?regioncode=07

[emmzies]

Oh, and since you mentioned Ebay, try Amazon.

Interestingly, they have the strapless Mio brand - I know nothing about them, but FWIW

Oh and on another note, you were right TFB about being able to buy them off amazon. They can even provide a worldwide warrenty, from what i can tell. Although they are more expensive than ebay, but still alot cheaper then retail here, so if your concerned about warrenties that would be the best bet. They have a great range too.

[Lamborghinilova]

Special Shipping Information: Currently, item can be shipped only within the U.S. and to APO/FPO addresses. For APO/FPO shipments, please check with the manufacturer regarding warranty and support issues.

On some of the polar watch pages....

my problem is that i see one, then see the model up, then all of a sudden i am looking at a US$300 watch

maybe ebay is the way to go...

or rebel sport... i'll have to have a look into how much of a price premium it is...And whether someone can get me staff discount lol (GA :grin: )

[Calvin]

What do you guys think of these Timex HRMs?

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Sports/Exercis ... 288147.htm

Im just after something basic which keeps a continuous HR reading on the screen. Not really after any more than that

[teamfatboy]

Haven't used a Timex HRM, but their regular watches are good quality (i've got one that's fifteen years old, still only on its 2nd battery!), and they've done HRM with a GPS unit for running, so I'd imagine it's probably going to do the job.

[GreekAdonis]

Just wait for a sale at Rebel and get a good deal.

Timex are also pretty good. Just make sure its not a parallel import or you wont even be able to get a replacement battery for it.

[emmzies]

Special Shipping Information: Currently, item can be shipped only within the U.S. and to APO/FPO addresses. For APO/FPO shipments, please check with the manufacturer regarding warranty and support issues.

On some of the polar watch pages....

Woops sorry for misleading ya. I should of said only some of the merchants who sell through Amazon ship to NZ. It just so happened the ones i wanted all did. Just luck really.

But yes, ebay all the way for the expensive models.... even with a staff discount at rebel... i doubt they could justify giving you like 40% off. :pfft:

[runveerun]

I wouldn't be without my heart rate monitor, it's handy in the gym too because if you are wearing the transmitter the treadmill picks it up, so you don't have to hold onto the thing to get a reading.

The chest strap doesn't bother me at all (from a female point of view) I stick it under my bra. you can get special bras that have a compartment for the transmitters, I saw some in the Nike or addidas store (can't remember which one!) in Dressmart not so long ago for about $20.

[GreekAdonis]

I dont even think we stock the full-on expensive HRM's at rebel, just the basic range. I rate the F4 at $240 and the F6 at $288 just to get started.

[emmzies]

I dont even think we stock the full-on expensive HRM's at rebel, just the basic range. I rate the F4 at $240 and the F6 at $288 just to get started.

Hmmm interesting. Do you stock the FT40 by any chance? I suppose you would just order them in for the customer...

I wouldn't be without my heart rate monitor, it's handy in the gym too because if you are wearing the transmitter the treadmill picks it up, so you don't have to hold onto the thing to get a reading.

The chest strap doesn't bother me at all (from a female point of view) I stick it under my bra. you can get special bras that have a compartment for the transmitters, I saw some in the Nike or addidas store (can't remember which one!) in Dressmart not so long ago for about $20.

The treadmill picks up on the signal and displays it on the screen?? Whoa...

Good idea about the bra, cheers! I'll have to have a hunt for them. Does it have a compartment that fits all brands of transmitters?

[runveerun]

I dont even think we stock the full-on expensive HRM's at rebel, just the basic range. I rate the F4 at $240 and the F6 at $288 just to get started.

Hmmm interesting. Do you stock the FT40 by any chance? I suppose you would just order them in for the customer...

I wouldn't be without my heart rate monitor, it's handy in the gym too because if you are wearing the transmitter the treadmill picks it up, so you don't have to hold onto the thing to get a reading.

The chest strap doesn't bother me at all (from a female point of view) I stick it under my bra. you can get special bras that have a compartment for the transmitters, I saw some in the Nike or addidas store (can't remember which one!) in Dressmart not so long ago for about $20.

The treadmill picks up on the signal and displays it on the screen?? Whoa...

Good idea about the bra, cheers! I'll have to have a hunt for them. Does it have a compartment that fits all brands of transmitters?

Yep the treadmill picks the signal up and displays it on the screen cool huh? I think most transmitters are similar size? I'm not too sure whether the bras would fit all transmitters.... all the transmitters I've seen all look pretty similar size.

[GreekAdonis]

Yeah the FT40 is $440

[emmzies]

Soooo i received my Polar FT40 today, courtesy of Israel Mail, who might i add, would kick useless NZ Post's ass any day.

Anyway, its bloody FANTASTIC!! :grin: \:D/ I wish i had got one so much sooner, so thanks for prompting me to make the investment guys.

But, I am now rather concerned and hoping you guys can help...

According to its calculations I burnt 900 cals on my normal workout.

If my calculations are correct my body uses 1800 cals a day on days i DONT exercise, or 75 cals per hour (I know it doesn't really work like that but just for the purposes of my calculations).

So, i workout for 1.5 hrs (900 cals) and semi-sedentry for the rest of the 22.5 hrs of the day (1687 cals) This means my body needs approx 2590 cals on workout days to keep even.

Whattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt???

2590 - :shock: WTF!? That can't be right. I only ever eat 1600-1800 most days and workout 5-6 times a week and I'm def not losing weight or starving myself (i didn't think :? ) which i would be if i was eating 1000 less cals then i should be.

Which leads me to question, How accurate is the data on these things?

Also questionable is the fitness test function which apparently grades me in the top bracket, but thats also a load of crap if you ask me. I could be alot fitter.

Any advice would be muchly appreciated

[Luigi]

maybe your just really fit and skinny but you cant see it yourself ?

[emmzies]

maybe your just really fit and skinny but you cant see it yourself ?

:pfft: Oh how I wish that were true (the fit part)

Put it this way, I couldn't run a marathon and I'll never be "skinny", i'm not built for that. I wouldn't want to be anyway, "skinny girls" are unhealthy IMO and optimal health is my only true goal.

[teamfatboy]

All good questions Emm, I'll be interested to see the answers.

My 2c worth.. I've found my Polar S725x to be accurate, in terms of calories burned in exercise. If you were working out intensely, it's certainly not impossible that you expended 900 cal in a 90-minute workout.

However, it's my view that some of the fitness assessment functions may be based on different perspectives - what I'd call "heart health fitness" versus true athletic/ aerobic performance fitness. By that I mean things like recovery time (How quickly hr drops after exercise), and charts of "normal" fitness for age/gender etc. The watch says "number of beats, weight, age, gender" - equals point X on the fitness graph, regardless of other factors like distance travelled, speed you ran at, and so on. So, you can perhaps take them with a pinch of salt.

Where you might want to do some extra reading is in your Basal Metabolic Rate - the actual "normal day" load on your system. A lot of formulas are based on height/gender/weight/age formulas. My guage, without knowing age/ weight etc is that 1800 cals may be a pretty accurate "normal day load".

My question would be "Why would you want to take in the 2590 cals to "keep even" on a work-out day?" If you did, and worked out, your body would not burn any mass (lean-muscle or fat). Put another way, to get some bodyfat burned on your normal diet's 1600-1800 cals (equals your non-working calorie needs), your workout should you into a calorie deficit.

In setting the composition of that normal-day diet, the composition and timing are also important. If your diet isn't clean, even a significant calorie deficit may not drive your body to burn bodyfat.

I had a similar experience - in my own case, I've gone for protracted periods at 500cal below the recommended maintenance calorie load, while exercising hard, for instance. With a maintenance intake of 2700, an actual intake of 2200, a hard workout of 900-1200 cals could leave me with a net calorie intake of only 1000 cals (yes, really !). And no, on that diet I didn't really feel I was starving - again, it goes to diet composition and timings.

You say you're not losing weight - but what do your measurements say? Are you replacing bulky, light bodyfat with dense lean-muscle mass? Do your favorite clothes feel looser?

Sorry, that's a long reply, hope there's a nugget or two in there.

[Lamborghinilova]

It is possiblke it is making the claculatiuons based on someone who is heavier then you? not sure, but you should read the manual to see if there is anything you have to program.

[teamfatboy]

It is possiblke it is making the claculatiuons based on someone who is heavier then you? not sure, but you should read the manual to see if there is anything you have to program.

The FT40 does have a weight setting under user information.... and that would throw off any calculations.

[emmzies]

However, it's my view that some of the fitness assessment functions may be based on different perspectives - what I'd call "heart health fitness" versus true athletic/ aerobic performance fitness. By that I mean things like recovery time (How quickly hr drops after exercise), and charts of "normal" fitness for age/gender etc. The watch says "number of beats, weight, age, gender" - equals point X on the fitness graph, regardless of other factors like distance travelled, speed you ran at, and so on. So, you can perhaps take them with a pinch of salt.

Where you might want to do some extra reading is in your Basal Metabolic Rate - the actual "normal day" load on your system. A lot of formulas are based on height/gender/weight/age formulas. My guage, without knowing age/ weight etc is that 1800 cals may be a pretty accurate "normal day load".

My question would be "Why would you want to take in the 2590 cals to "keep even" on a work-out day?" If you did, and worked out, your body would not burn any mass (lean-muscle or fat). Put another way, to get some bodyfat burned on your normal diet's 1600-1800 cals (equals your non-working calorie needs), your workout should you into a calorie deficit.

In setting the composition of that normal-day diet, the composition and timing are also important. If your diet isn't clean, even a significant calorie deficit may not drive your body to burn bodyfat.

I had a similar experience - in my own case, I've gone for protracted periods at 500cal below the recommended maintenance calorie load, while exercising hard, for instance. With a maintenance intake of 2700, an actual intake of 2200, a hard workout of 900-1200 cals could leave me with a net calorie intake of only 1000 cals (yes, really !). And no, on that diet I didn't really feel I was starving - again, it goes to diet composition and timings.

You say you're not losing weight - but what do your measurements say? Are you replacing bulky, light bodyfat with dense lean-muscle mass? Do your favorite clothes feel looser?

Thanks for your input TBH very interesting points....

Firstly, Yes the FT40 has all that input data about weight etc and that has alll been entered to get the 900 cal figure, so i'm guessing its as accurate as possible, based on your experience too. I guess i thought 900 cal was alot for 1.5 hours. I do workout intensely but not super hardcore like "others" (aka you guys) do :shifty: I feel super duper lazy when I read the training journals you guys post on here....

In terms of the fitness assessment, the one they recommend you do when you first use it is a resting assessment which gauges your vo2Max or something(?) to give you a more accurate max and min heart rate. I totally just don't see how a test, which makes me lie down and relax for three minutes, could accurately class me as an 'elite' athlete. :-s

As for my Basal metabolic rate, that's where i got the 1800 cal maintenance figure from, the big long formula you mentioned . I still think its too high though, for a day with no exercise. I never go hungry on my 1600 a day, I eat till I feel I'm sufficiently full, so surely that should be the most important factor, as opposed to these random figures? I don't know, maybe I'm not eating enough energy dense food. :? I'm 63 kg, 166 cm and 21 yrs old - what would you estimate my daily cal maintenance figure to be?

You make a great point about not actually needing the 2560 cal figure each day :nod: i never really thought about it that way. That makes my huge daily cal deficit less concerning. My diet is primarily clean (i think :-s ) so hopefully my workouts do drive my body to burn body fat, as you say. But really I don't know, i'm thinking I may be needing to seriously up my protein intake.

In terms of whether I'm losing weight on my 1600 cal a day, Its hard to tell. I definitely feel like I've gained some muscle lately and yet my weights remained the same, so i suppose thats a good sign? As for my how my clothes feel...thats probably not the best gage since I've been kinda 'growing out' (well, the opposite) of them for a few years now so they're constantly needing replacing. I think maybe I should gage it on my weight in relation to how much muscle mass I feel I'm gaining, but I really would like to get a bodyfat analysis done one day, i feel like I'm working out blind somewhat at the mo. :?

:shock: This is all so complex when I start actually looking into it….thank goodness for you pro's! :grin:

[teamfatboy]

I've not checked precisely what Polar does during that test - whether it relates to your VO2Max. I suspect it's aimed at accurately determining your resting heart rate, from which more accurate Maximum heart rate (and therefore %HR) can be calculated. It's more accurate than the old "220 minus your age equals Max HR" formula.

Remind us how long you've been training? If you've stopped "growing-out" LOL after only a comparatively short period, then you're probably on the right track. If you've been training and eating clean for a long period (more than just a few months) then there may be other factors to consider.

Maybe it's time you posted a diet and training plan in a journal :nod:

And as for getting an accurate gauge, the best option's the "girths and skinfolds" - from a qualified PT, ideally. Perhaps the CHC crew (Becbecs and Deepsouth ?) might know someone.

[emmzies]

I've not checked precisely what Polar does during that test - whether it relates to your VO2Max. I suspect it's aimed at accurately determining your resting heart rate, from which more accurate Maximum heart rate (and therefore %HR) can be calculated. It's more accurate than the old "220 minus your age equals Max HR" formula.

Remind us how long you've been training? If you've stopped "growing-out" LOL after only a comparatively short period, then you're probably on the right track. If you've been training and eating clean for a long period (more than just a few months) then there may be other factors to consider.

Maybe it's time you posted a diet and training plan in a journal :nod:

And as for getting an accurate gauge, the best option's the "girths and skinfolds" - from a qualified PT, ideally. Perhaps the CHC crew (Becbecs and Deepsouth ?) might know someone.

Yeah I do think the test is relating to the VO2Max Heart rate. It surely couldn't be anything else if it just asks you to lie down for a while. Easiest (and most ironic) "fitness" test i've ever done...

I've been "training" and eating clean for a while, but probably more intensly over the past 4 months or so. I wouldn't call it training in the same sense that you guys do, I.e I don't really have a workout plan as such. I have a routine that I pretty much stick too, although i do vary it, even if a lot less than i should.

And yeah, I've kinda lost track of the whole if i'm still 'growing out' or not thing. If i am at all, I'm doing so at a very slow rate these days. My Measurements don't say I am, but people seem to say I'm still shrinking, so who knows. :roll:

Haha and me, have a journal? Thats hilarious! :pfft: You have no idea how amateur I am compared to you all. :oops: It would be a joke.

Plus I'm not aiming for body building status, which those journals seem to be for. i'm just aiming to increase muscle mass along with overall cardio fitness as much as i can.

[teamfatboy]

You're already halfway to being as 'pro' as anyone on here - you've admitted to having a programme, and to eating clean, and training regularly :nod: You've got some training goals, and you're sufficiently keen to invest in a HRM... sounds like you've as much right to be here as the rest of us

Some of the others simply use a journal as a place to park their queries and get feedback... me, I use it as a place to write my workouts down, 'cos I keep forgetting my hard-copy journal :doh: - and if, in the process, I get some help or positive feedback, that's a definite bonus! :dancing:

Just my 2c worth (or do I have to say 10c worth now ? :grin:)

[emmzies]

Hmmmm :nod: when you put it that way, i suppose i don't feel too outta my league on here lol. Its great how this site brings you back to earth though when you start getting all high and mighty watching and judging everyone around you scoff refined carbs and saturated fat down their gobs morning noon and night. Just a quick read of the journals here though makes you realize you could always do heaps better, which is great motivation.

Maybe i shall think about starting my own... I'm always up for new uni-work-avoiding activities

But yeah, thanks heaps TFB for all ya advice, i appreciate it. :grin:

Oh, and i think your at least up to 50c :pfft:

[teamfatboy]

I found this in Runnersworld Magazine (July 2009, US edition)...

"Burning Issues: why are calories so hard to count?"

It sound like a simple question: how many calories do you burn running at an eight-minute pace? But alas, things are not so simple. That's our conclusion after a tester ran that pace on a treadmill for forty minutes and tracked his supposed calorie burn with multiple devices. The treadmill awarded him 642 calories. With the Nike+ system he got 531. The Polar RS800CX heart rate monitor said 415. And the ActiTrainer - an accelerometer, heart sensor and sophisticated metabolic tracking device - spit out 395.

So, why is there so much variability and which devices are the most accurate? The real count was probably closest to the ActiTrainer, which tracks body motion and heart rate, says Dan Heil, an exercise physiology professor at Montana State University. As you add more information into the device, it has more to work with. Calories are burned by the mechanics of moving a certain mass (your butt) over a certain grade at a certain speed, which is how most treadmills approach the problem. Factoring in heart rate further helps a device estimate calories, since highly efficient runners burn fewer calories. Yet the biggest factor is the quality of a device's mathematical formulas. "It's all about processing the raw data with the best statistical methods available", says Heil. Electronics manufacturers are crunching more data all the time and purchasing geeky new algorithms from scientists to sharpen their calorie counts. Watchmaker Polar employs such inputs as resting heart rate and VO2 Max to refine its calories. Suunto and Garmin use formulas based on heart-rate variability, a measure of the time intervals between heartbeats, which in testing brings predicted calories within seven percent of the actual amount. Of course, a more accurate calorie count means you'll have to make your peace with cheesecake all over again". Brian Parks.

Interesting, eh! Since weights workouts are the same - moving a certain amount of weight over a certain distance will ALWAYS require the same nett energy input...using a HRM would be just as relevant for weights as for cardio.

[Calvin]

Soooo i received my Polar FT40 today, courtesy of Israel Mail, who might i add, would kick useless NZ Post's ass any day.

How much did you end up paying.. taking into account exchange rate and shipping?