Reebok HRM, Comments about

[Sam]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

HR is a measure of heart rate. It is an indirect indicator of exertion
at best. You gave a good point on why not to use HR since it is more
susceptible to differing conditions. RPE is very robust. If it is hot out
and one is running 7min/mile, it will likely feel harder than the same pace
at a cooler temperature.

In fact RPE is a very good indicator of something like LT where for an
individual it tracks very well.


>
> 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.

Thanks for proving my point. Use RPE then. The 6 to 20 scale was
developed for use with cardiac rehab patients. Supposedly just adding a
zero to the RPE (multiplying by 10) would give HR. This is not as neat as
you make it out to be. (A lot of things are "widely held" and proven to be
wrong--look at the whole fat burning idiocy).

I would argue that it is better to use the 1-10 RPE scale since so many
metabolic responses are decidely non-linear (look at a lactate curve for
instance).




>
> 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.
>

 

[Dot]

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 may have missed it, but what are your goals? In different hr training
"zones" (really locations along a gradient), you will be shifting
relative sources of energy (as well as some other things). So there's
different benefits to different effort levels. Most training alternates
hard / easy days or weeks in some manner and usually periodizes across a
year. "Hard" efforts are usually a minor percentage of total volume.
Most people use hrm to keep effort easy, since there's a tendency to do
easy workouts too hard and hard workouts too easy. Just a thought.

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.

 

[Phil M.]

Dot wrote:
> 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 may have missed it, but what are your goals? In different hr
training
> "zones" (really locations along a gradient), you will be shifting
> relative sources of energy (as well as some other things). So there's

> different benefits to different effort levels. Most training
alternates
> hard / easy days or weeks in some manner and usually periodizes
across a
> year. "Hard" efforts are usually a minor percentage of total volume.
> Most people use hrm to keep effort easy, since there's a tendency to
do
> easy workouts too hard and hard workouts too easy. Just a thought.

Very true. At least for me. For example last night I did a 5 x 4:00 vo2
max workout on the road with rolling hills. On a track it would be
easier to maintain pace and effort. However, I find it more convenient
to do these on a 3-mile stretch of road (business park, after hours, no
traffic). The HRM keeps me honest. I set my vo2 zone in a fairly wide
range, since I find it nearly impossible to get a very high HR while
going downhill. Keeping the easy days truly easy, is also a good reason
to use an HRM. I agree that some people can do this by perceived
effort. After using an HRM for quite a while, I too could probably
perceive my effort pretty well. At this point I think my HRM has become
more of a gadget/toy. I like to track my fitness with actual data. But
that's just me.

Phil M.

 

[jj]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:22:54 -0700, Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

>[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.

That makes sense. Now that I'm riding clipless pedals, and full biking
gear, it takes me almost 30 minutes to get dressed for winter riding. The
thought of having to strap on an HRM and another wristwatch in addition to
the balaclava, helmet, sunglasses, third-eye mirror, cycling shoes, cycling
jacket, utility belt with pepperspray, MP3 player, air-horn, cell phone and
starter pistol would just be too much! ;-)

>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.

I have one little half-mile hill at the end of my ride that on good days I
can ride up in a relatively high gear (52x17). On a not so good day, I have
to turn off mid-way and go down a side street and recover a little, then
continue. Regardless, I get this strong sensation of 'heart pounding out of
chest' at times - usually the legs are pretty good, although yesterday the
HR was quite and the legs were a little painful.

It's weird how some days I feel great, even super, mentally, then go out
and the legs just have no 'pop'. Other days I think, 'ok, I'll just do a
slow recovery ride and the legs are full of 'pop' and I spend the whole
route with the 'sprint light' on, heh.

jj

(ok, just kidding about the utility belt)

 

[Raptor]

Sskb wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
>>You get what you pay for.
>>
>
>
> Using the Forerunner 301 which is Garmin's first attempt at a heart
> rate monitor. Is it not as good as the others out there?

I was speaking of my advice and how much you're paying for it. Sorry,
I don't know much about this or that HRM.

For the record, my qualifications consist of being a certified indoor
cycling instructor, a certified personal trainer (NASM), and a
semi-serious cyclist for multiple decades. There are many people more
qualified than I to speak on these topics, but I know some things.

>>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.
>
>
> Having trouble determining those limits now with the data from the
> Forerunner. Wasn't trying to find the limits initially because the
> Forerunner calculates the stock heart rate zones based on the personal
> information in the setup. The runs were semi-cruise runs (9-10
> min/mile). That's why I was surprised the average hbm were so high
> compared to the stock numbers in the Forerunner. Resetting the zones
> to match the data estimating a 60%-70% or a 70%-80% effort would put
> the max off the chart and the 80%-90% and 90%-100% zones at very high
> levels.

My (free, and not based on personal knowledge of your background) advice
is, throw out the chart, including the chart programmed into the HRM.
You've got your body, and it's not your fault the charts are "wrong." If
you feel strong and healthy at HR's that are "off the chart," then the
chart just doesn't apply to you.

A heavy friend of mine is seriously trying to lose her extra weight.
Despite having piled on a ton of training volume in a matter of a couple
weeks, her resting heart rate remains in the 45 BPM range. This caused
some serious concern on my part, as I suspected a case of overtraining.
She went to a cardiologist, who pronounced her just fine, and gifted
with an especially strong heart. Now she has MY blessing to work her ass
off, and who knows, she might be winning open races at 40.

Your heart runs fast. It's always good advice to get odd-looking numbers
checked into, but probably, your body's just fine, if different. But,
this is your *heart* we're talking about.

>>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.
>
>
> Still do without any apparent problem at a comfortable pace. I'm not
> one of the gung-ho types I see breezing by me in the morning.
> But...the heart rate numbers make determining the zones unrealistic at
> least in this instance.

I don't see why, unless your monitor's programming just doesn't let it
function in your body's high range. Just tell it to use your parameters.

> Finally, you DON'T always get what you pay for. :^) Insurance companies
> and similar organizations are among the most profitable companies in
> America for a reason. If you look closely even the "non-profits" in
> the field are very profitable.

Can't argue with that.

--
--
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]

Raptor wrote:
> You get what you pay for.
>

Using the Forerunner 301 which is Garmin's first attempt at a heart
rate monitor. Is it not as good as the others out there?


> "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.

Having trouble determining those limits now with the data from the
Forerunner. Wasn't trying to find the limits initially because the
Forerunner calculates the stock heart rate zones based on the personal
information in the setup. The runs were semi-cruise runs (9-10
min/mile). That's why I was surprised the average hbm were so high
compared to the stock numbers in the Forerunner. Resetting the zones
to match the data estimating a 60%-70% or a 70%-80% effort would put
the max off the chart and the 80%-90% and 90%-100% zones at very high
levels.


>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.

Still do without any apparent problem at a comfortable pace. I'm not
one of the gung-ho types I see breezing by me in the morning.
But...the heart rate numbers make determining the zones unrealistic at
least in this instance.

Finally, you DON'T always get what you pay for. :^) Insurance companies
and similar organizations are among the most profitable companies in
America for a reason. If you look closely even the "non-profits" in
the field are very profitable.


> 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"

 

[Franklin's UsenetSpamTrap]

Raptor wrote:
> I don't see why, unless your monitor's programming just doesn't let it
> function in your body's high range. Just tell it to use your parameters.

Re Raptor's suggestion:

My perceived maxHR from rowing doing Conconi tests once a week for a
month or so didn't seem to fit the Polar program/zones/whatever. On my
Polar I chose to input my age as 25, even though I'm a decade+ older. It
just seemed to fit better with the built-in curves/program.

My numbers were about 20% higher than the norm for my age, and looking
at the normalized charts I picked out age 25. I seem to remember my
maxHR varying by about 3 beats over 5 or 6 Conconi tests, lower towards
the latter tests I think. I also had been to a medical checkup a few
months before I started with a HRM so I was relatively confident I
wouldn't kill myself.

My HRM benefit is that it paces me better, allowing me to keep the
workload up for a longer period, not peaking and burning out in the
beginning. I have tried measuring my rest HR in the mornings, but it's a
hassle with the belt, and just putting it on pulls my HR up and it takes
some time to get it down, enough time for me to fall asleep again!

My 2 cents worth, might not be worth any sense either...

br Franklin

 

[Sam]

"Raptor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>

Some people will experience a reduction in HRmax with endurance
training (see Zavorsky's review on the topic in Sports Medicine a few years
back).



> --
> --
> 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"
>

 

[DT]

Does anyone know what the average heart rate is for professionals while
skating marathons?

"trimark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.
>

 

[[email protected]]

DT wrote:
> Does anyone know what the average heart rate is for
> professionals while skating marathons?

Just curious: why do you ask? What would you do with
such information? Suppose I told you that the avg HR
is 178. What use is that to you?

The point is: specific HR is highly individualized.
You cannot say or tell anything from the number alone.

It might be more useful to talk about %MHR -- percent
of max HR -- and even more useful to talk about %VO2max,
which is related statistically.

But even though there is some novelty in such numbers,
even those numbers are individualized. If a person's
%MHR (or %VO2max) is higher or lower than some average,
it does not tell you much, especially without having
some correlating measure of performance.

 

[Phil M.]

[email protected] wrote:

> The point is: specific HR is highly individualized.
> You cannot say or tell anything from the number alone.

Have you noticed the OLN commentators talking about heart rates during
the tour de france? Totally meaningless number without knowing what
their VO2 max or maximum heart rates are. My guess is that the athletes
don't want to divulge that information and have it broadcasted.
Especially during a live broadcast.

--
Phil M.

 

[Neil Brooks]

"Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> The point is: specific HR is highly individualized.
>> You cannot say or tell anything from the number alone.
>
>Have you noticed the OLN commentators talking about heart rates during
>the tour de france? Totally meaningless number without knowing what
>their VO2 max or maximum heart rates are. My guess is that the athletes
>don't want to divulge that information and have it broadcasted.
>Especially during a live broadcast.

ISTR them indicating that most of the cyclists' max HR's were about
185-190, with notable exceptions like LA, whose max is about 205.

An LA (no pun intended) Times article [1] confirms LA at:

resting = 32-34 bpm
max = 201 bpm

Yikes.

[1] http://snipurl.com/gdp9

 

[Chris Neary]

>Have you noticed the OLN commentators talking about heart rates during
>the tour de france? Totally meaningless number without knowing what
>their VO2 max or maximum heart rates are. My guess is that the athletes
>don't want to divulge that information and have it broadcasted.
>Especially during a live broadcast.

If you look at the onscreen graphics, the heart rate data for the rider
includes maximum heart rate.

I don't know where OLN gets that info from.


Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

 

[Aspiring Tortoise]

"Chris Neary" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> >Have you noticed the OLN commentators talking about heart rates during
>>the tour de france? Totally meaningless number without knowing what
>>their VO2 max or maximum heart rates are. My guess is that the athletes
>>don't want to divulge that information and have it broadcasted.
>>Especially during a live broadcast.
>
> If you look at the onscreen graphics, the heart rate data for the rider
> includes maximum heart rate.
>
> I don't know where OLN gets that info from.
>
It could simply be the maximum recorded during the tour which should be a
pretty good proxy.

 

[Rich]

Chris Neary wrote:

> If you look at the onscreen graphics, the heart rate data for the rider
> includes maximum heart rate.
>
> I don't know where OLN gets that info from.

Some of the riders are wearing heart rate monitors for them. They had a
brief info segment on that.

 

[Chris Neary]

>> If you look at the onscreen graphics, the heart rate data for the rider
>> includes maximum heart rate.
>>
>> I don't know where OLN gets that info from.
>
>Some of the riders are wearing heart rate monitors for them. They had a
>brief info segment on that.

Oh I realize that.

I just don't know who provided the maximum heart rate info (rider, team
directors, WAG?)


Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

 

[Diablo Scott]

Aspiring Tortoise wrote:

>
> It could simply be the maximum recorded during the tour which should be a
> pretty good proxy.
>

Maybe close but probably several bpm too low. A good MHR test only
takes about 15 minutes because muscle fatigue can limit one's ability to
reach MHR. Your maximum achievable in a sprint at the end of a 200km
race would be measurably lower than your maximum achievable in a 15
minute controlled test.




--
My bike blog:
http://diabloscott.blogspot.com/

 

[DT]

Not sure what %MHR would demonstrate. Studies have shown that %MHR is
about the same for both average athletes and fast athletes during
competition. %MRH is a measure of effort and I think everyone more or less
tries hard in competition. If stats were availabel for inline skating I
think this would pervail. Agree that %VO2max differentiates. I think that
heart rate would also differentiate the fast from the slow and suspect that
the faster skaters would have higher heart rate.

It might be more useful to talk about %MHR -- percent
of max HR -- and even more useful to talk about %VO2max,
which is related statistically.

But even though there is some novelty in such numbers,
even those numbers are individualized. If a person's
%MHR (or %VO2max) is higher or lower than some average,
it does not tell you much, especially without having
some correlating measure of performance
"Chris Neary" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> If you look at the onscreen graphics, the heart rate data for the rider
>>> includes maximum heart rate.
>>>
>>> I don't know where OLN gets that info from.
>>
>>Some of the riders are wearing heart rate monitors for them. They had a
>>brief info segment on that.
>
> Oh I realize that.
>
> I just don't know who provided the maximum heart rate info (rider, team
> directors, WAG?)
>
>
> Chris Neary
> [email protected]
>
> "Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
> you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
> loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

 

[Sam]

Actually I saw the HRmax numbers a couple of times.


"Phil M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The point is: specific HR is highly individualized.
>> You cannot say or tell anything from the number alone.
>
> Have you noticed the OLN commentators talking about heart rates during
> the tour de france? Totally meaningless number without knowing what
> their VO2 max or maximum heart rates are. My guess is that the athletes
> don't want to divulge that information and have it broadcasted.
> Especially during a live broadcast.
>
> --
> Phil M.
>

 

[Neil Cherry]

On 20 Jul 2005 08:51:23 -0700, Phil M. wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The point is: specific HR is highly individualized.
>> You cannot say or tell anything from the number alone.
>
> Have you noticed the OLN commentators talking about heart rates during
> the tour de france? Totally meaningless number without knowing what
> their VO2 max or maximum heart rates are. My guess is that the athletes
> don't want to divulge that information and have it broadcasted.
> Especially during a live broadcast.

Shhsh! Your screwing it up for me. I get to tell people that my max is
around 198 (which it is) and I can easily ride 180 to 240 Km (I do
rides like that each Saturday). Of course I can't ride at a 25+ mph
pace over 240 Km. ;-) But most people don't think that far ... ;-)

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry [email protected]
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ (Text only)
http://hcs.sourceforge.net/ (HCS II)
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog