"Rob Rudeski" ... wrote ...
> Hi All,
>
> I'm looking into getting a heart rate monitor. I'm interested in hearing your opinions as to which
> features are necessary, which are nice to have, and which are useless and, as always,
> recommendations on particular models.
>
> Also, has using an HRM really helped you improve your fitness level, or is it just another
> novelty?
I have had three HRMs over the past eight years, all Polars. One stolen, the others still working
perfectly. I use them for running, rowing and for cycling. I'd say go for the simplest model (one
that simply reads out your heart rate) or the top of the line (their greatest feature is recording
your hear rate every 5, 15 or 60 seconds, storing it and thus giving you the data to graph your own
heart rate over as many hours as you like). This is a fascinating exercise. You will learn a lot
about your body and how it responds to different stresses.
Don't pay too much attention to the 220 minus your age rule; it has no basis in science. To find out
your maximum hear rate you do NOT use a formula derived from a bunch of middle-aged heart patients -
like the 220 rule.
Quite simply you cycle or run till you reach your maximum. There are protocols for this to make sure
you don't exhaust yourself before your heart rate reaches its maximum. But they are simple rules.
Anyone who does not have a heart condition can do this. If you can't be bothered, then you probably
can't be bothered getting the most out of a HRM anyway.
Saliva works well to support the conductivity. Use only a HRM with a transmission belt on your
chest, not a clip on your ear or a wrist strap.
The transmitter is basically the same for all HRMs - cheap or expensive. Some have a different
transmission frequency so one HRM will not interfere with another nearby. But the physiological
information coming into the HRM is the same whether you pay $50 or $500.
Rowers, esp those with well-developed lats, may need to tape the transmission belt on, otherwise it
can slip down to your belly. This is not a problem for cyclists.
Ignore the readouts for calories used. The margin of error is immense with so many intervening
variables that it can be out by over 100%. Just a gimmick.
Polar have some heart rates from the 2002 Tour de France
http://tdf.polar.fi/tdf/polardreamteam.html
and plan to add more from the 2003 race.
Keith