Allan Bennett said:W K said:"Terry Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:Ernie Trish wrote:
> I have a calorie burn question.
<snip>Most people also have bodies equipped with fatigue mecanisms that will tell
them when their heart rate is too high, yet we still find that we need
heart rate monitors; these mechanisms simply don't work to perfection..Who is this "we" that "need heart rate monitors"? Having used them for a
couple of decades or so with athletes of various standards, I find them a
distraction and relatively useless as a coaching tool...
I got a Polar recently, and had not used an HR monitor since my only
experience with one on an exercise bike in a gym 10 yrs ago.
What I found was exactly what I expected. The answer, Allan, IMHO, is
that we rowers don't need them - whereas we cyclists do.
I have found - just as I predicted - that when on a 70 mile bike ride, I
spend a lot of time down in the 130s and 140s and even 120s in the final
hour. (I am 39 y.o. and the rule of thumb seems to apply pretty closely
to me). Every time I look down and see it in the 130s or 140s, I feel
guilty for slacking off and ride harder. I get home a lot more tired and
have been having much more rewarding long rides. And it really hasn't
changed the intensity of my 1-2 hour rides at all.
However, in the single scull - just as I predicted - my HR is 160 to 165
as I go down the lake at full pressure. Rising to 170 during power tens
and 175-180 for the final 500 meter sprint. Exactly the numbers I was
expecting. It's just not very hard to budget your energy accurately for
an 8 minute or 20 minute or 60 minute workout at constant effort. It's
quite a different thing altogether to budget it for a many-hour bike ride
with hills, weather, hunger, food, etc, involved.
So I've stopped bringing my polar to the boathouse. But I cringe when I
realize that I've forgotten to wear it on the bike.
dkl