Heart rate monitor

K

KOTA

New member
Is there a such thing as a heart rate monitor, calorie burn calc. watch that is fairly accurate without having to use a arm or chest type belt? I want to purchase one but not if they are not worth anything.

Thanks
 
The "Biggest Losers" have the Bodybugg (their website is I am nt sure this will be considered advertising, that was not my intention but I understand if they want to remove the link), which as far as I understood from the show measures cals in and cals out.
I have no clue, it may be insanely expensive, I just saw in on telly and thought that may be what you are looking for.

Personally I don't know if you need that much control, I don't for sure. I guesstimate and it has been working fine. I don't want to do anything I would not do "for the rest of my life" whilst changing my lifestyle and definitely being so controlled would not be something I am aiming for.
However if you do want that I am sure there are alternatives to the bugg, I just happened to come across it.
Camy
 
Hmm... my watch doubles as a heart monitor, it has 3 sensors, one on the underside, then one on the top and bottom on the face of the watch. You put your thumb and forefinger on those top 2 sensors, and it reads your heart rate. It's pretty darn accurate too. But it's not constant, unless you wanna keep your fingers there all day.

As far as Body Bugg is concerned though, it doesn't do heart rate, it tells how many calories are burned based off movement, which makes it less accurate. And it's pretty expensive. But it can do about anything else, or so I hear.

I dunno, I find that the chest strap that came with my sports watch doesn't really bother me as long as I don't wear it too tightly. But to each his own. ;P
 
The chest strap is probably the most accurate if you want a continual reading. I don't know of anything that works w/out some kind of chest or wrist strap that doesn't require you to hold on to a sensor at some point.

Honestly I wear my chest strap when I workout every single time. Never bothered me at all.
 
mooniestar said:
As far as Body Bugg is concerned though, it doesn't do heart rate, it tells how many calories are burned based off movement, which makes it less accurate. And it's pretty expensive. But it can do about anything else, or so I hear.
Click to expand...

It tells you how many calories you burned by using much more than just movement.

Everybody's experience is different but I've personally found the heart rate monitor I've tried to severely overestimate calories burned. However, since January 1st (past ~5 weeks), my theoretical weight loss (calculated from bodybugg's calories burned minus my calories eaten) is only 0.2 pounds different than my actual weight loss. So at least for me, it's very accurate and takes the whole guessing game out and reduces it to a mere calorie number game.

But to answer the OP's question, how will the "device" estimate your calories burned if it's not connected to your body?
 
I bought a heart rate monitor watch at Walmart for about $25, which worked for a few months then died. It was the kind you had to press and hold to get a reading. It served its purpose for a while, when I was just walking for exercise. Any exercise much more intense than that, and it would not be practical. I didn't bother to get another one.
 
Thanks guys.


aravind82 said:
But to answer the OP's question, how will the "device" estimate your calories burned if it's not connected to your body?
Click to expand...

Guess what i Meant was, Is there a product that could measure cals burned from just being on your wrist rather than having to have a chest belt. I guess that's asking alot for something to be accurate just off your wrist though.

Thanks again guys and gals.
 
KOTA said:
Guess what i Meant was, Is there a product that could measure cals burned from just being on your wrist rather than having to have a chest belt. I guess that's asking alot for something to be accurate just off your wrist though.
Click to expand...
The one I had gave you an accurate heart rate reading, but as I mentioned, it requires two hands and does not give a continuous readout. The problem is that to get an electrical signal from your heartbeat, it needs to make a complete circuit from one part of your body, through the watch, to another. It gets that when you press the button and complete the circuit from your finger, through the watch, to the wrist it is strapped on.

It counted calories, but you had to keep pressing the button to update the heart rate signal, then it extrapolated that heart rate until you took another reading. That function did not seem very accurate. It gave a reading of calories burned that was way high compared to the exercise charts.
 
KOTA said:
Thanks guys.




Guess what i Meant was, Is there a product that could measure cals burned from just being on your wrist rather than having to have a chest belt. I guess that's asking alot for something to be accurate just off your wrist though.

Thanks again guys and gals.
Click to expand...



Ah but thats a problem in itself- you need to wear a strap- wherever it may be, very tightly. The chest straps are beable and stay put but a wrist strap? with your arms flailing around all over the shop that band would have to be pretty tight and then be able to work with the fact that you do expand as you warm up your body through exercise.

I'd second the chest strap, I have read they are also more reliable too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top