Reebok HRM, Comments about



When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart rate
reading of any type of exercise I do. It's also the same reading I get if I
jog for long on a tread-mill set to 45 degrees. This HR is higher then any
of the various max heart rate formulas produce.

Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that should be
used when working out a cardio training range?

Thanks for any advice

Bob
 
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:26:05 -0500, " Bob Alan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart rate
>reading of any type of exercise I do. It's also the same reading I get if I
>jog for long on a tread-mill set to 45 degrees. This HR is higher then any
>of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
>
>Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that should be
>used when working out a cardio training range?
>
>Thanks for any advice
>
>Bob


The 220bpm minus your age is only a guideline. We had a discussion here
last month about some people having higher rates than this formula would
predict and one person had some testing done by her MD and found to be
normal.

If the rate you're getting is higher than 220, and you haven't been
training long, it might be worth getting a stress test on a treadmill,
hooked up to a cardiac monitor. You didn't say what your numbers were. Most
people have difficulty ever actually reaching their HR-max. I wouldn't
panic, but check with your sports med doctor.

Normally, as your cardio improves, your resting heart rate will decrease,
and therefore your peak rate will also be lower, but in return, the more in
shape you are the harder you can push yourself... ;-)

If you've been consistently training for a while (~2 years or more, 4 rides
per week?), I wouldn't be too worried about your max HR unless it suddenly
changed. When you're overtraining, the HR can be higher also. The rate, the
formula and the chart below are just guidelines. Often one feels they are
training hard, but when they consult their HRM it's below the threshold
they desired, according to what I've heard.

So even if your HRM minus your age is lower than what you actually
experience training, I believe the formulas below are still valid, i.e.,
VO2Max, LT, and Aerobic Thresholds will all be obtained as a percentage of
your HR-max:

At 86% + of HR-max, and above you are in the VO2Max range (Zone 5)
At 80-85% of HR-max, you are training your Lactate Threshold (Zone 4)
At 70-80% of HR-max, you are training your aerobic capacity (Zone 3)
At 65-70% of HR-max, you are building your endurance base, and (Zone 2)
At 60-65% of HR-max, you are doing recovery training. (Zone 1)

Now bear in mind these numbers are approximations, and to be getting this
level of training you should be -in- that training zone for 30 min to 60
min or longer. Just because you might -spike- a HR of 90% of your HR-max
for a minute doesn't mean anything. IOW, think steady state in those zones.
We all go _Anaerobic_ from time-to-time and at that time your rate may
spike above your calculated HR-max, iirc.

Note, I'm not an MD, and I'm just relating to you what I've read
(Carmichael Training System)

jj
 
On 2005-03-07, Bob Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
> When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart rate
> reading of any type of exercise I do. It's also the same reading I get if I
> jog for long on a tread-mill set to 45 degrees. This HR is higher then any
> of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
>
> Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that should be
> used when working out a cardio training range?
>
> Thanks for any advice


Yes, use the measured heart rate for that particular exercise.

I'm surprised the treadmill can be set to 45 degrees, most go up to 15% grade
which is less than 10 degrees.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
I have two complaints about the Timex I have (50 lap Ironman).

First, the use of two small buttons for Start/Stop and Split. IMO, there
should only be one big button. When you're in the middle of a race and you
reach down to hit the split button, you're tired and not thinking all that
straight, and there's just too much of a chance of hitting the wrong one.
Plus, since you are used to hitting the Split button (right) most of the
time, sometimes you hit that one by mistake at the start of the race, which
toggles between lap & split modes if the timer is at zero. If you realize
your mistake and press the start button, now you're in the wrong mode, which
it's not easy to recover without resetting the timer. So, moral is, ONE BIG
Button for lap/split, like the Polars. Use a side button for start/stop.

Second, the buttons don't work that well. Maybe it's due to the fact that I
wear mine in the pool twice/week, but I swear sometimes I hit that lap
button square on and hard, and nothing happens. Very frustrating -
especially in a race.

Oh yes, one more thing. Mine reboots occasionally! Yes, when I go to reset
the timer before my workouts, about once every 2 or 3 months, the display
goes into a test pattern, shows the firmware version number, then I'm at
12:00 with all my settings gone.

And I loose the signal frequently, even though the transmitter and receiver
are only a foot apart.

Needless to say, I'll be buying a Polar next time.


"jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Do you like the Timex? I'm thinking about getting one. I have never
> used a HRM.
>
>
 
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:18:58 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes. The formulae can be way, way off.
>
>That said, why even measure HR?


Ratios are still valid. As long as your HRM is not acting flakey and giving
true readings 86% of HR-max is still VO2max training zone, etc.


jj



>" Bob Alan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:Mq5Xd.12013$2s.3157@lakeread06...
>> When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart rate
>> reading of any type of exercise I do. It's also the same reading I get if
>> I
>> jog for long on a tread-mill set to 45 degrees. This HR is higher then
>> any
>> of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
>>
>> Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that should
>> be
>> used when working out a cardio training range?
>>
>> Thanks for any advice
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>

>
 
Frank C wrote:

> And I loose the signal frequently, even though the transmitter and
> receiver are only a foot apart.


Lose the satellite signal or lose the link from arm pod to watch?

If you're losing the link (and the watch says something like "link broken")
then either it's failing batteries of a faulty system. Given that your
watch reboots itself, you have to suspect a fault. If you're losing the
satellites, well that's down to overhead cover.

Tim
 
Bob Alan wrote:
> When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart rate


> reading of any type of exercise I do.


If you really want your max achievable heart rate then this is a good
way to find it. We call it the bucket test. Put a bucket at the top of
a reasonably steep hill, about 250m is fine. jog to the bottom, turn
around run as fast as you can to the top, around the bucket and jog
back down; repeat 4-times and after the 4th time take your heart rate.

Why the bucket?? When you finish the 4th loop, if you don't feel like
throwing up into the bucket you have not tried hard enough! ++Mark.
 
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:18:58 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>" Bob Alan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:Mq5Xd.12013$2s.3157@lakeread06...
>> When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart rate
>> reading of any type of exercise I do. It's also the same reading I get if
>> I
>> jog for long on a tread-mill set to 45 degrees. This HR is higher then
>> any
>> of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
>>
>> Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that should
>> be
>> used when working out a cardio training range?


>Yes. The formulae can be way, way off.
>
>That said, why even measure HR?


To record heart recovery rate, to work out more accurately
improvements in cardio vascular fitness levels.

HTH
 
In news:[email protected],
Charles <[email protected]> rattled on thusly:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:18:58 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> " Bob Alan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:Mq5Xd.12013$2s.3157@lakeread06...
>>> When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart
>>> rate reading of any type of exercise I do. It's also the same
>>> reading I get if I
>>> jog for long on a tread-mill set to 45 degrees. This HR is higher
>>> then any
>>> of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
>>>
>>> Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that
>>> should be
>>> used when working out a cardio training range?

>
>> Yes. The formulae can be way, way off.
>>
>> That said, why even measure HR?

>
> To record heart recovery rate, to work out more accurately
> improvements in cardio vascular fitness levels.
>
> HTH


What is the best way to record your recovery heart rate? I've heard some
people take their heart rate at t0 and then t+1minute, t+2minutes and
t+5minutes and leave it at that, others take it at t0 and t+1minute and
subtract one from the other to get a single figure... At the moment I do
neither (or anything else) but would like to start wth my next exercise
session. What do people here do?

M.

--
Psycho killer, qu'est que c'est?
 
Mazza wrote:
> In news:[email protected],


> What is the best way to record your recovery heart rate? I've heard

some
> people take their heart rate at t0 and then t+1minute, t+2minutes and


> t+5minutes and leave it at that, others take it at t0 and t+1minute

and
> subtract one from the other to get a single figure... At the moment I

do
> neither (or anything else) but would like to start wth my next

exercise
> session. What do people here do?


Are you interesting in recovery heart rate to measure performance
improvements? I don't measure my recovery heart rate, but what I do is
run the fitness test on the stationary bike at the gym (using a polar
chest strap). It provides a good estimation of VO2 Max without paying
big bucks at a testing facility.
 
>Tomorrow it might well be different, it'll
>be different while doing something else, and it'll >be different at

the
>end of your workout because your heart gets t>ired just like other
>muscles do.


Does your heart really get tired like other muscles do? I'd say that
day to day fatigue differences would be affected by skeletal muscle way
before cardiac muscle. Just a thought . . . .

Ooch
 
Mazza wrote:
> What is the best way to record your recovery heart rate? I've heard

some
> people take their heart rate at t0 and then t+1minute, t+2minutes and


> t+5minutes and leave it at that, others take it at t0 and t+1minute

and
> subtract one from the other to get a single figure


I would record actual HR. That can be used for either
way you want to use recovery HR. The delta can be
computed from the actual HRs.

Medical research seems to focus on the delta HR --
specifically the number of bpm dropped in 2 min after
a maximal stress test (85-90% MHR). Medical papers
report a statistical relationship between an X-bpm
drop after 2 min and mortality and some coronary
diseases. Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement
on what "X" is. I have see 22; I have also seen 42.

Fitness people seem to focus the time to return to
your pre-exercise HR as a measure of fitness. After
a maximal exercise session, a very fit person should
return to his/her pre-exercise HR within 2 min.
 
Bob Alan wrote:
> Thanks all, for all the great advice
>
> The treadmill to which I refered is a Nordictrack 9600 and it goes higher
> then 45 degrees, it just gets hard to handle more then 45
> http://www.nordictrack.com/cgi-bin/...&prrfnbr=465995&cgrfnbr=356708&rootcat=356708


From that page
"You'll enjoy extreme inclines of up to 50%"

50% is *about* 25 degrees, so I suspect you have it set at 45%, not
degrees, but that's still a good workout. One thing nice about that tm
is the 5% decline that many treadmills don't have although it's nowhere
near the strength workout that a 20-30% downhill provides.

But that doesn't change any of the discussion, just wanted to clarify that.


Something you might want to pay attention to is when you start
transitioning from breathing hard to panting. That *may* be close to 90%
of max hr, probably in the 85-95% range. That's how I estimate my max
hr, and the zones I end up with fit pretty well with verbal descriptions
of them.

Dot

--
"After 26 hours 38 minutes, we accomplished our mission, and the next
day were fortunate to read about our adventure in the sports section of
the local papers rather than the obituaries."
-Dean Karnazes recounting their running of the WS100 trail in winter.
 
Raptor wrote:
> Bob Alan wrote:
> > When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart

rate
> > reading of any type of exercise I do. It's also the same reading I

get if I
> > jog for long on a tread-mill set to 45 degrees. This HR is higher

then any
> > of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
> >
> > Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that

should be
> > used when working out a cardio training range?
> >
> > Thanks for any advice
> >
> > Bob

>
> As joeu noted, it probably isn't your real max. But who really cares?


> You can go to a doctor and have him/her watch you as you push

yourself
> to the absolute limit on a calibrated test, but that's just your max

on
> that day doing that activity. Tomorrow it might well be different,

it'll
> be different while doing something else, and it'll be different at

the
> end of your workout because your heart gets tired just like other
> muscles do.
>
> Continue using your highest number ever seen, add a fudge factor,

crunch
> whatever zones you want to use, and don't obsess over the digits. If

you
> practice specific exercises often enough, base your workouts on
> different maxes, each appropriate to the activity.
>



Using that advice might probably kill off a few people but who's
counting. 45 year old male, 5'9", 160 lb. in decent shape after 9
months in training who got a heart rate monitor and was amazed to see
197-202 avg. hbm on moderately easy 6 mile runs. So what would your
"fudge factor, crunch whatever zones you want to use, and don't obsess
over the digits" advice be?

To the other guy, when there is doubt, go see the doctor. If your
health plan 'discourages' this kind of 'frivolous' visit, go outside
your plan. It's your life.
 
Sam wrote:
> Yes. The formulae can be way, way off.
> That said, why even measure HR?


Why have a spedometer in your car? I mean: do you really
look at it all the time, or do you rely on "perceived
velocity" most of the time? On the other had, don't you
keep one eye on your spedometer when you see a cop nearby?

The answer to your question is: while "perceived exertion"
(RPE) can be used, it is a subjective indicator. In contrast,
measuring your HR is an objective indicator of exertion. Both
can be misleading under some (differing) conditions.

But they are simply two methods of measuring the same thing.
Your choice is a matter of personal preference.

In fact, it is widely held that there is a statistically
linear relationship between RPE and HR. For example, if your
RPE is 14 on the Borg scale, it is widely held that your HR
is about 140. Even the ACSM asserts this.

Personally, I find that assertion remarkable. However, I
would believe a relationship between RPE and %MHR (or %VO2max).
Also, I want to reiterate that I said "statistically linear".
Like the age-based MHR formulas, there is probably wide
variation among individuals.
 
Bob Alan wrote:
> Is there any value in pushing to the highest HR or is it just harmful
> stress. I was guessing that at least doing it for brief periods might be
> useful.


I've not heard of a quantifiable benefit of MaxHR training, and I've
asked people who should know.

One advantage of trying to work at that intensity COULD be: the fitter
you are, the harder you have to work to see appreciable gains. It can be
very demanding. So trying to push your HR higher can get you "up there."
However, anyone who achieves that state of fitness is very likely
self-motivated enough to maximize their training.

Work at the high levels also requires discipline as overtraining is an
inevitable consequence of continually pushing yourself harder.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"
 
DaOoch wrote:
>>Tomorrow it might well be different, it'll
>>be different while doing something else, and it'll >be different at

>
> the
>
>>end of your workout because your heart gets t>ired just like other
>>muscles do.

>
>
> Does your heart really get tired like other muscles do? I'd say that
> day to day fatigue differences would be affected by skeletal muscle way
> before cardiac muscle. Just a thought . . . .
>
> Ooch


The heart isn't skeletal muscle, of course, so it doesn't respond the
same way.

IIRC, I've only seen the assertion that your heart tires in one source,
but it was a pretty good one with plenty of information I've seen
corroborated elsewhere: Speed On Skates. The effect cited was that your
max HR will be lower at the end of a workout/competition than before.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"
 
Sskb wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
>>Bob Alan wrote:
>>
>>>When I jog or bike up a long steep hill, I get the highest heart

>
> rate
>
>>>reading of any type of exercise I do. It's also the same reading I

>
> get if I
>
>>>jog for long on a tread-mill set to 45 degrees. This HR is higher

>
> then any
>
>>>of the various max heart rate formulas produce.
>>>
>>>Am I correct that the measured max heart rate is the baseline that

>
> should be
>
>>>used when working out a cardio training range?
>>>
>>>Thanks for any advice
>>>
>>>Bob

>>
>>As joeu noted, it probably isn't your real max. But who really cares?

>
>
>>You can go to a doctor and have him/her watch you as you push

>
> yourself
>
>>to the absolute limit on a calibrated test, but that's just your max

>
> on
>
>>that day doing that activity. Tomorrow it might well be different,

>
> it'll
>
>>be different while doing something else, and it'll be different at

>
> the
>
>>end of your workout because your heart gets tired just like other
>>muscles do.
>>
>>Continue using your highest number ever seen, add a fudge factor,

>
> crunch
>
>>whatever zones you want to use, and don't obsess over the digits. If

>
> you
>
>>practice specific exercises often enough, base your workouts on
>>different maxes, each appropriate to the activity.
>>

>
>
>
> Using that advice might probably kill off a few people but who's
> counting. 45 year old male, 5'9", 160 lb. in decent shape after 9
> months in training who got a heart rate monitor and was amazed to see
> 197-202 avg. hbm on moderately easy 6 mile runs. So what would your
> "fudge factor, crunch whatever zones you want to use, and don't obsess
> over the digits" advice be?


You get what you pay for. :)

"Moderately easy 6 mile runs" aren't a good way to estimate your max.
But you're right in alluding to your nine months of training. I wouldn't
be comfortable asking a couch potato to find their max. Always ramp up
gradually in terms of intensity and training volume.

In your case, I suggest going harder. Not all the time, just enough
times to get your HR up there. Listen to your body, blah blah, and
always approach your limits with care. But after a few such workouts
(varieties of self tests are available for the searching), you'll gain a
useful understanding of your max.

Then you can calculate zones based on percentages, and exercise strictly
accordingly. Or, you can just work out like you usually do. If you're
not a competitive or otherwise serious athlete, the latter suffices.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Sam wrote:
>
>>Yes. The formulae can be way, way off.
>>That said, why even measure HR?

>
>
> Why have a spedometer in your car? I mean: do you really
> look at it all the time, or do you rely on "perceived
> velocity" most of the time? On the other had, don't you
> keep one eye on your spedometer when you see a cop nearby?
>
> The answer to your question is: while "perceived exertion"
> (RPE) can be used, it is a subjective indicator. In contrast,
> measuring your HR is an objective indicator of exertion. Both
> can be misleading under some (differing) conditions.


I rarely bother to take my HRM to a workout anymore. Once I had one and
wore it for several weeks of working out, I was able to correlate my RPE
with my HR. ("When I feel like this, my heart's pounding this fast.)
Importantly, I found that a "recovery zone" workout was much much easier
than I thought. Since then, I've had the knowledge I feel I need to work
productively.

I'm not a competitive athlete, just an athlete. Were I competing, I'd
pay much more attention to my numbers, beyond HR.

I think the most beneficial result of tracking your HR is to diagnose
fatigue or possible health problems. If your resting HR is higher than
usual, that's a signal to work a little easier that day, or even take
the day off.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"
 

Similar threads