I don't know if it's the same thing, but my DD and SIL are both very active and wear those bracelet trackers 24/7. I'm not sure which one they have but will text and ask if that's what you are looking for.

I do and I love it. It is the Polar FT7. Yes, it records your average heart rate for the workout. It also records how many calories you've burned and how much of that was fat burning & how much of it was improving your fitness level. We paid about $65 for it.

I also have the Polar FT7. It is very easy to use and program. LOL, it even gave me a little birthday cake the other day on its face for my birthday. You can get it on Amazon for about $55. Yes, it gives average HR and total kcal. You also might want to consider the Fitbit Charge which is both a HR monitor and activity tracker. I have not used the charge but I have several student-athletes who wear it. If the Charge had come out before Christmas I would have asked for that, so I have the Polar FT7 and the Fitbit One.

FWIW, the trackers that are worn at the hip do tend to be more accurate than the wrist ones although they all have their issues. I also do not know the accuracy of the HR on the Fitbit Charge. They have not released that info, or that I know of an independent lab/colleague that has verified. The Polar HR monitors are ECG accurate. Polar has been around for a very long time.

I have a Polar FT4 that I used a great deal when logging all of my calories and trying to make sure I was eating back any exercise calories. I haven't used it in a about two years, since I started weightlifting, but it worked great and was very helpful when I wanted to count all of my calories in and out :)

Thank you all. that is what I meant. I was thinking Polar was the best. I did buy a fit bit zip recently, the hip kind, and it seems to be working. I don't count the steps though to see :) I had read the wrist HR monitors were not accurate while exercising so I didn't get the Fitbit charge HR. I figured they might gt better over time.

I don't put a lot of stock in heart rate monitoring. The system that we use was never really scientifically tested. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/maximum-heart-rate-theory-is-challenged.html

It's a good idea to track your HR when you're exercising. Tracking it 24/7 is another story, unless you're monitoring for a health condition.

I have an older Polder that I use for indoor training (treadmill and cycle). It's accurate and easy to use. I set the stop watch and go. When I'm cycling, I stay in a target zone for a specific period of time then switch to another zone. I will alternate zones to give my heart a good workout. Helps with endurance and it helps me understand my personal training zones. Slow warm up and cool down always....

Outside, I have a Sigma Rox 6.0 on my bicycle (new this year). It tracks my distance, time, speed, pedaling cadence and altitude changes. I can take the computer off and put it on my wrist if I'm doing a cycling/hiking trip. For running/walking, I have a Sigma RC1209 watch/computer. This tracks my distance, speed, HR (if I use the chest band), time and all that stuff. This has to be calibrated to your walking and running stride but is accurate once calibrated.

I recently bought a FitBit Charge (non-HR) to keep track of my daily steps (I have a desk job and work from home) as well as track my sleep patterns.

The NYT article brings up good points about the inaccuracy of max HR formulas, but HR can still be a good indicator of tracking intensity for a lot of people. It was scientifically tested but not meant to be the be all and end all like how it has been used. People like Seals have proposed other calculations than 220-age for max HR. At least with my undergraduates, when we test them on the treadmill with the metabolic measurement system they are often within 2-3 beats per minute of their age-predicted max. I had a maximal nuclear stress test earlier this year because I was having dizziness which luckily was not cardiac related, just vertigo. My age-predicted was 169 and I reached 171 at max--and I told the techs I was going for max, but I've always followed the formula. The only way to really know your max HR is to have a maximal test and measure it, but that's not something everyone can have done.

You can also use perceived exertion aka Borg scales as a check. We recommend this a lot, especially if someone is using medications that may affect their HR like beta-blockers and/or if they have other chronic health problems. You can either use the original 6-20 scale or use the the modified 0 to 10 scale found in most health clubs.

http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/measuring/exertion.html

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/heart/prevention/exercise/rpe-scale

Thank you Dees and Gsciencechick! that is what I want to use it for gsciencechick. I want to be sure, for now, that i am pushing consistently hard during my walking on the treadmill (via speed or incline). I would think over time as I get in better shape or do different things (like classes) that my goals would change.

Right now I use the bars on the treadmill but sometimes I think you need to hold on longer than others and I don't feel like it is accurate. Additionally, I want to know the average for the session and I can't' get that now.

Thanks gsciencechick! I was surprised, but you are right. I probably didn't need the watch. the belt is working with my treadmill at home.

One thing I don't understand though is that the reading on the treadmill is different than the watch for my HR. How could that be? It is pretty significantly off. By about 20-25. I think the threadmill is right. I am wondering if maybe the watch battery is dying. I used it twice. once last night for an hour and once this morning for an hour and both times it was off.

You need to store the watch a good distance from the belt or you'll drain the battery really fast. Generally, I would trust the watch reading over the treadmill. The watch would perform a continuous HR monitoring while the treadmill may take an average.

In the end, if you're using the HR monitor just to stay in a specific zone, I would stick with the watch.

The treadmill is reading the same belt that the watch is reading. that is the part I dont understand.

I understand that....what I'm trying to say is that maybe each piece of equipment is doing different things with it. For example, the watch may be continuously monitoring your HR but the treadmill only processes a reading every 10-15 seconds. This could cause a difference in display. Or the treadmill is taking an average of your HR over the last X period of time.

Hard to say.....they should both be continuous but they could be different! When in doubt, trust the "paired" equipment; which in your case, is probably the watch.

Which one is not reading--the TM or the watch? Is your chest strap tight enough? Also, you may need to wet the electrodes on the chest strap. That might be why you are getting different readings. Today in Spin class, the receivers on the bikes seem to be more variable than the Polar watch, but it's still within 1-3 bpm.

I don't have/need a heartbeat monitor, but I just got a Jawbone Up24 for very cheap ($25) because the manufacturer discontinued this model. I just bought it kind of as a novelty (I walk a lot anyway b/c of the dogs and am in pretty good shape). My dad decided he wanted one too since I got one.

I HIGHLY recommend everyone get one esp. if you can find a good deal. I have had it for two weeks and I notice I am making a conscious effort to walk even more (as is my dad, who doesn't exercise very often) because I want to get my "steps" in or beat my record. It's cool to get little notifications like "You've Walked 50,000 steps!" and it keeps you motivated to get up and move. It also alerts me if I've been idle for too long, which is nice when I'm working and I don't always see how much time has passed.