Need Info on Heart Rate Monitor



J

Jay Chan

Guest
I am planning to get a heart rate monitor for running outdoor. But I know very little about it, and
whatever information that I know may have become obsoleted since the last time I used them.

My questions are:

- I assume that all of them require a sensor to be placed on my chest. Some of them can sense our
heart rate through the handle bar in a trackmill. But I am running outdoor; therefore, that is
not what I am asking for. Are there devices that don't require putting a sensor onto my chest?

- I assume that all of them show the reading on wristwatch devices. I am wondering how the
information being sent from the sensor to the wristwatch? Are they use radio frequency to
transmit reading? They are all wireless, right?

- Can you suggest any model that has these feature: o Wireless connection between the sensor and
the wristwatch. o Has a time clock to see date and time. o Has a stop watch feature to show the
time spent on running (no need to keep record on prior running). o Has a heart rate monitor that
can warn me if my heart rate goes below or goes over a heart rate zone that I define.

Thanks.

Jay Chan
 
Geez, what HRM doesn't have all these features? This is considered pretty much the basics. I have a
Polar Coach which is a pretty basic model, and it has all this plus 28 subintervals that can be
measured, and some other things I never learned how to use (too complicated). You can do intervals
with timed recovery or recovery down to a certain heart rate, etc, but I always found the
programming a PITA.

Any good HRM would do all this, Larry

Jay Chan <[email protected]> writes:
: I am planning to get a heart rate monitor for running outdoor. But I know very little about it,
: and whatever information that I know may have become obsoleted since the last time I used them.

: My questions are:

: - I assume that all of them require a sensor to be placed on my chest. Some of them can sense our
: heart rate through the handle bar in a trackmill. But I am running outdoor; therefore, that is
: not what I am asking for. Are there devices that don't require putting a sensor onto my chest?

: - I assume that all of them show the reading on wristwatch devices. I am wondering how the
: information being sent from the sensor to the wristwatch? Are they use radio frequency to
: transmit reading? They are all wireless, right?

: - Can you suggest any model that has these feature: o Wireless connection between the sensor and
: the wristwatch. o Has a time clock to see date and time. o Has a stop watch feature to show the
: time spent on running (no need to keep record on prior running). o Has a heart rate monitor
: that can warn me if my heart rate goes below or goes over a heart rate zone that I define.

: Thanks.

: Jay Chan
 
On 20 Feb 2004 09:33:07 -0800, [email protected] (Jay Chan) wrote:

>I am planning to get a heart rate monitor for running outdoor. But I know very little about it, and
>whatever information that I know may have become obsoleted since the last time I used them.
>
>My questions are:
>
>- I assume that all of them require a sensor to be placed on my chest. Some of them can sense our
> heart rate through the handle bar in a trackmill. But I am running outdoor; therefore, that is
> not what I am asking for. Are there devices that don't require putting a sensor onto my chest?
>
>- I assume that all of them show the reading on wristwatch devices. I am wondering how the
> information being sent from the sensor to the wristwatch? Are they use radio frequency to
> transmit reading? They are all wireless, right?
>
>- Can you suggest any model that has these feature: o Wireless connection between the sensor and
> the wristwatch. o Has a time clock to see date and time. o Has a stop watch feature to show the
> time spent on running (no need to keep record on prior running). o Has a heart rate monitor that
> can warn me if my heart rate goes below or goes over a heart rate zone that I define.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Jay Chan

Check out Polar's sight they have a comparison chart of features that you'll probably find
helpful. Polar alone has on the order of 20-40 different HR monitors.

http://www.polarusa.com/

~Matt
 
Jay Chan wrote:

> Are there devices that don't require putting a sensor onto my chest?
Yes, but... the others either have a tight wrist strap, or require you to touch the watch with two
fingers of the other hand. A tight wrist strap, to me, is less comfortable than a chest strap.
Touching your wrist with the other hand makes you unable to swing your arms, and throws your stride
off. Personally, I prefer the chest strap...

> - I assume that all of them show the reading on wristwatch devices. I am wondering how the
> information being sent from the sensor to the wristwatch? Are they use radio frequency to
> transmit reading? They are all wireless, right?
Right. They use radio. Some low-end models are subject to interference if you run with a group.
(Your watch might receive from the wrong sensor.) The models that have "coded" sensors avoid that
problem, by some technical magic.

> - Can you suggest any model that has these feature: o Wireless connection between the sensor and
> the wristwatch. o Has a time clock to see date and time. o Has a stop watch feature to show the
> time spent on running (no need to keep record on prior running). o Has a heart rate monitor
> that can warn me if my heart rate goes below or goes over a heart rate zone that I define.

A Polar 210 has those, and more. I like that the HR zone alarm makes a beeping sound, so I don't
have to look at it. It tells me when to slow down a little. Another feature that I like is that the
HR, stopwatch, and time are all on one screen. When running, the HR and SW are big and easy to read,
but the time-of-day is smaller. When not running, the time-of-day is big. You can use it for a
watch, if you want. Higher models (more cost) also have more features, such as computer interface.

Lower models have fewer features. I tried the Polar S5, first, because of it's lower price. The S5
has your feature list. But it only displays one thing at a time (HR or SW, but not both on one
screen.) And, the HR zone alarms (over/under) don't make any sound, so you have to keep looking at
it. I didn't like it.

Steve
 
> > Are there devices that don't require putting a sensor
> > onto my chest?
> Yes, but... the others either have a tight wrist strap, or require you to touch the watch with two
> fingers of the other hand. A tight wrist strap, to me, is less comfortable than a chest strap.
> Touching your wrist with the other hand makes you unable to swing your arms, and throws your
> stride off. Personally, I prefer the chest strap...

Thanks for the summary of the alternatives available. I need to take a good look on the wrist strap
version to see if it is practical to me. I tried the chest-strap version before many years ago, and
I didn't like it.

I agree with you that asking me to use two finger to touch the watch in another arm just to check
the heart rate doesn't sound very appealing to me. I would much rather to use a chest-strap version
if I had to choose between that and the chest-strap version.

> Right. They use radio. Some low-end models are subject to interference if you run with a group.
> (Your watch might receive from the wrong sensor.) The models that have "coded" sensors avoid that
> problem, by some technical magic.

Good. I run alone early in the morning when no one is around. I don't think interference will be a
problem to me.

> A Polar 210 has those, and more. I like that the HR zone alarm makes a beeping sound, so I don't
> have to look at it. It tells me when to slow down a little. Another feature that I like is that
> the HR, stopwatch, and time are all on one screen. When running, the HR and SW are big and easy to
> read, but the time-of-day is smaller. When not running, the time-of-day is big. You can use it for
> a watch, if you want. Higher models (more cost) also have more features, such as computer
> interface.
>
> Lower models have fewer features. I tried the Polar S5, first, because of it's lower price. The S5
> has your feature list. But it only displays one thing at a time (HR or SW, but not both on one
> screen.) And, the HR zone alarms (over/under) don't make any sound, so you have to keep looking at
> it. I didn't like it.

Thanks for pointing out the audio beep feature. This feature makes a lot of sense to me. I will
defintely ask for it. And I will put Polar 210 in my short list.

Jay Chan
 
> Any good HRM would do all this,

Thanks for the good news. My experience with heart rate monitor is something like 4 to 5 years old.
Since then, I haven't kept track with its development. Glad to hear that a decent heart rate monitor
will do all these and some.

Jay Chan
 
> Check out Polar's sight they have a comparison chart of features that you'll probably find
> helpful. Polar alone has on the order of 20-40 different HR monitors.
>
> http://www.polarusa.com/

Thanks for the link. I will go there to compare the models.