Polar has some models that track distance. I had one that used a shoe pod-- it was like a super-accurate pedometer. I found it more accurate than the fancy satellite Garmin I had briefly.
If you get a Garmin, be SURE that it really uses your heart rate to track calories. I had one that included a HRM and did tell you your heart rate, but it used the distance to calculate calorie burn! Made NO sense. (But it was a very cheap Garmin model, not their best quality.) I burn fewer calories per mile than most people, and the Polar readings corresponded really well to what happened to my weight. (Sadly, something about my body also kills digital devices. I make the digital display disappear over time. The Polar lasted longer than any other digital watch I've ever had, but after three years there were too many missing segments to be able to read it anymore, and I can't afford to replace it.)
It is expensive to get a device that tracks both heart rate/calories and distance. However, if you don't mind having to track two places, you can get an inexpensive heart rate monitor AND a pedometer for a fraction of the price of a Polar or Garmin that does both. And if you have an iPod, you can get a distance-tracking Nike thingy for $20. (I hate the Nike tracking site, though.) If you happen to have an iPod Nano, you don't need the thingy; there's a fitness/distance-tracker deal built in.
If you have to choose between distance tracking and heart rate tracking, the HUGE advantage of a HRM is that it will calculate calorie burn for ANY activity-- you can use it for Zumba or swimming (if it's waterproof) or rock climbing. A pedometer-based device or satellite distance tracker won't give you a reading for anything that doesn't involve significant forward motion.
| current weight: 132.0