Heart rate periodically vanishes from PM5 display

[Dangerscouse]

This is interesting stuff. I'll use ErgData all the time now. Thanks everyone, much appreciated.

My true average, shown on Polar Beat, is almost always 4 - 6 bpm less than the PM5 for anything that isn't really tough

[hikeplusrow]

This is interesting stuff. I'll use ErgData all the time now. Thanks everyone, much appreciated.

My true average, shown on Polar Beat, is almost always 4 - 6 bpm less than the PM5 for anything that isn't really tough

Blimey.

[Sakly]

This is interesting stuff. I'll use ErgData all the time now. Thanks everyone, much appreciated.

My true average, shown on Polar Beat, is almost always 4 - 6 bpm less than the PM5 for anything that isn't really tough

Blimey.

The new ergdata version (introduced many month ago) also calculates the "real" average. For some tests it showed the same value as Polar Beat.

[JaapvanE]

The new ergdata version (introduced many month ago) also calculates the "real" average. For some tests it showed the same value as Polar Beat.

My data was recorded with the latest version of the PM5 and ErgData.....

[nick rockliff]

My true average, shown on Polar Beat, is almost always 4 - 6 bpm less than the PM5 for anything that isn't really tough

Blimey.

The new ergdata version (introduced many month ago) also calculates the "real" average. For some tests it showed the same value as Polar Beat.

Didn't know that but just checked, my last session splits avg was 134 both on PM5 and Ergdata but avg in Ergdata HR section is 131.

Not that I ever used avg HR data for anything.

[hikeplusrow]

Blimey.

The new ergdata version (introduced many month ago) also calculates the "real" average. For some tests it showed the same value as Polar Beat.

Didn't know that but just checked, my last session splits avg was 134 both on PM5 and Ergdata but avg in Ergdata HR section is 131.

Not that I ever used avg HR data for anything.

This thread has saved me from a world of delusion.

[Sakly]

My data was recorded with the latest version of the PM5 and ErgData.....

Didn't know that but just checked, my last session splits avg was 134 both on PM5 and Ergdata but avg in Ergdata HR section is 131.

Exactly that ^^

Not that I ever used avg HR data for anything.

Me too.
I only look at HR data to see improvement over time.

[hikeplusrow]

My data was recorded with the latest version of the PM5 and ErgData.....

Didn't know that but just checked, my last session splits avg was 134 both on PM5 and Ergdata but avg in Ergdata HR section is 131.

Exactly that ^^

Not that I ever used avg HR data for anything.

Me too.
I only look at HR data to see improvement over time.

I actually think average HR is quite a useful metric, but fear I'd receive a verbal pasting from you guys if I attempted to trade punches on that particular peccadillo

[nick rockliff]

My data was recorded with the latest version of the PM5 and ErgData.....

Didn't know that but just checked, my last session splits avg was 134 both on PM5 and Ergdata but avg in Ergdata HR section is 131.

Exactly that ^^

Not that I ever used avg HR data for anything.

Me too.
I only look at HR data to see improvement over time.

I actually think average HR is quite a useful metric, but fear I'd receive a verbal pasting from you guys if I attempted to trade punches on that particular peccadillo

Not at all, everybody is entitled to train in whatever way suits them. I started HR training back in 2005 when every session was rate capped so the PM HR display was all I needed. Now I just use it to compare like for like sessions.

[Sakly]

I actually think average HR is quite a useful metric, but fear I'd receive a verbal pasting from you guys if I attempted to trade punches on that particular peccadillo

Not at all, everybody is entitled to train in whatever way suits them.

+1

[Dangerscouse]

I actually think average HR is quite a useful metric, but fear I'd receive a verbal pasting from you guys if I attempted to trade punches on that particular peccadillo

I never take notice of average HR other than seeing that it's different, so I'd be interested to hear why you think it's useful? I have no opinion either way so I'm just curious

[JaapvanE]

Not at all, everybody is entitled to train in whatever way suits them.

Agreed. And every approach has its pro's and con's, so lets learn from each other what works to inspire other rowers.

I tend to look at my current HR routinely during a row, as on ORM I can place it next to pace, strokerate and distance per stroke. From experience I tend to know where my HR should be at a certain session to not overshoot my HR target in the end.

Afterwards I sometimes look at the HR curve, but more often I start to look at breathing rate (a Garmin metric) to see when I left the "one breath per stroke" approach. But sharp bends are interesting (often sprints or intervals) as the behaviour afterwards gives a decent picture of recovery behaviour. HR, breathing and distance per stroke combined give a decent picture when I really started to struggle in a session. In my case, the pace stays nearly identical, but how to get there starts to change (higher SPM, BPM and HR). That point is interesting as you want to see it move backwards.

[hikeplusrow]

I actually think average HR is quite a useful metric, but fear I'd receive a verbal pasting from you guys if I attempted to trade punches on that particular peccadillo

I never take notice of average HR other than seeing that it's different, so I'd be interested to hear why you think it's useful? I have no opinion either way so I'm just curious

Like in rowing, in cycling training people don't have much time for average HR. Conversely, Functional Threshold Heart Rate is an average HR figure, and is readily accepted by all cyclists. So, cyclists, is average heart rate important or is it not? I would personally say it is, due to it's importance in testing protocol.

Secondly, one could argue that average HR represents the overall level of effort expended in a given workout, and negates the issue of cardiac drift. So, at the end of the workout, you can look at that average number and determine whether the workout was UT2, UT1 etc etc.

I'll get my coat.

[Dangerscouse]

Like in rowing, in cycling training people don't have much time for average HR. Conversely, Functional Threshold Heart Rate is an average HR figure, and is readily accepted by all cyclists. So, cyclists, is average heart rate important or is it not? I would personally say it is, due to it's importance in testing protocol.

Secondly, one could argue that average HR represents the overall level of effort expended in a given workout, and negates the issue of cardiac drift. So, at the end of the workout, you can look at that average number and determine whether the workout was UT2, UT1 etc etc.

I'll get my coat.

Thanks. I'm always interested in what other people consider useful, as the different perspectives of the same issue fascinate me.

[HornetMaX]

My understanding is what MPx said (2nd post in this thread): the PM5 records your HR at the last stroke of each the interval and then averages these to give you a number that is definitely not "your average HR across the session", even if it is called "avg HR".
One way to figure it out yourself is to log your session to the c2 logbook with any app (e.g. ErgData, ErgZone) and once done download the stroke data from the logbook (e.g. into a csv file) and compute the real HR average from a cvs (in a spreadsheet).

From my last 4x2000 intervals:

Code: Select all

			Int1		int2		Int3		Int3		Overall
logbook/PM5		171		177		179		178		176
From stroke data	162		167		169		168		166

I actually do use avg HR data, but only on steady state sessions (I do a 1H and 1n HM every week, always at the same pace).
In these situations the PM5 numbers are less wrong but still ...


Still mindblowing to me that the PM5 does that. I understand a long time ago it was maybe OK, but ...