How Many Of Us Use Heart Monitors

[old] Bill · Post by **[old] Bill** » December 26th, 2004, 11:55 pm

Hello, Following up from another thread. Was curious so posted this poll. Given the number of times I read about UT1 UT2 etc just wondered how many people use a monitor to pace themselves. I find it useful to measure progress with hard numbers rather than a subjective "That felt easier than last time". Do elite athletes use monitors extensively ? Bill

[old] SimonB · Post by **[old] SimonB** » December 27th, 2004, 12:01 am

Always use one. I can keep my HR in the correct zone for my current level of fitness.

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 27th, 2004, 1:29 am

Just started to but it will be a key component in my training this year - George

[old] Sir Pirate · Post by **[old] Sir Pirate** » December 27th, 2004, 10:25 am

Good topic Bill I ticked- sometimes. I use one about once every 3 weeks and only on a 30min recovery piece. I don’t think HR monitors are very accurate during sessions. I find you get such a varied reading from them as they don’t take into account how you are feeling within yourself, room temperature, stress levels etc. If I rowed a 30 min piece first thing in the morning at 2:00 pace my HR Monitor would show 125bpm (example) if I rowed the same piece in the evening, after riding 25 miles on the road bike (to and from work) all this after a full days work, my HR for the same session would be up around the 140bpm (example) mark. I feel that they can not be trusted, and it is far better to listen to your body, as that knows how far you can push it. If I want to row a piece at 75% max HR, I know my body well enough to get pretty close to that effort without a MR monitor. Sir Pirate

[old] SteveV · Post by **[old] SteveV** » December 27th, 2004, 10:39 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Sir Pirate @ Dec 27 2004, 09:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I don’t think HR monitors are very accurate during sessions. I find you get such a varied reading from them as they don’t take into account how you are feeling within yourself, room temperature, stress levels etc. If I rowed a 30 min piece first thing in the morning at 2:00 pace my HR Monitor would show 125bpm (example) if I rowed the same piece in the evening, after riding 25 miles on the road bike (to and from work) all this after a full days work, my HR for the same session would be up around the 140bpm (example) mark.  </td></tr></table> i don't think the difference is supriseing, in the morning you are fresh and well rested, so HR is lower by evening your body is more tired, stressed from the day, so HR will be higher it's not innacurate, just telling you what your body is feeling.

[old] Sir Pirate · Post by **[old] Sir Pirate** » December 27th, 2004, 10:46 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (SteveV @ Dec 27 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> i don't think the difference is supriseing, in the morning you are fresh and well rested, so HR is lower by evening your body is more tired, stressed from the day, so HR will be higher it's not innacurate, just telling you what your body is feeling.  </td></tr></table> So to get more consistent readings, you will have to do all your training at roughly the same time each day. Sir Pirate

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » December 27th, 2004, 10:55 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Sir Pirate @ Dec 27 2004, 09:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If I rowed a 30 min piece first thing in the morning at 2:00 pace my HR Monitor would show 125bpm (example) if I rowed the same piece in the evening, after riding 25 miles on the road bike (to and from work) all this after a full days work, my HR for the same session would be up around the 140bpm (example) mark.  </td></tr></table> Sir P., So what is your conclusion? Do you row your afternoon workout at 2:00 as well and consider this must be the right intensity or do you row at a slower pace? Cheers, Holm

[old] Mark Keating · Post by **[old] Mark Keating** » December 27th, 2004, 12:23 pm

I use mine almost all the time, but find it a distraction when I do my 2K test piece. I can carry a faster pace if I don't watch my heart rate for some reason. </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Sir Pirate @ Dec 27 2004, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I find you get such a varied reading from them as they don’t take into account how you are feeling within yourself, room temperature, stress levels etc. </td></tr></table> I agree but I am not sure if it is such a bad thing. There is no doubt that my heart rate fluctuates with the severity of various stress factors, but I think it is good practice to try to block out those stressors while rowing. My success at achieving this is easily measured by my heart rate relative to pace.

[old] Sir Pirate · Post by **[old] Sir Pirate** » December 27th, 2004, 12:39 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (holm188 @ Dec 27 2004, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> So what is your conclusion? Do you row your afternoon workout at 2:00 as well and consider this must be the right intensity or do you row at a slower pace?  </td></tr></table> Holm I will row a 30min piece on a Sunday at 11.00am, I do this every 3 weeks. I row it at 1:56-1:58 pace at 20spm. My HR for this workout will be around 135bpm. I use it to see of any improvements in fitness, when I first started doing this session my HR was around the 142bpm. Sir Pirate

[old] ebolton · Post by **[old] ebolton** » December 27th, 2004, 4:15 pm

I use an older Polar model, a Coach, which downloads to the PC acoustically. The traces can be informative, and I often spend more time looking at them after a workout than I do looking at the monitor during the workout. On long sessions, the slopes of the various parts of the trace are quite informative as to the intensity of the workout and my general condition. I look at the slopes more than the absolute numbers. Ed

[old] Bill · Post by **[old] Bill** » December 27th, 2004, 9:06 pm

Hello, Negatives - During my first 2k race I panicked and slowed down when I saw I was above 220 - Age. Today with 12 months more experience, learning from this forum and hindsight this was probably an unnecessary over reaction now that I know that 220 - Age is plus/minus 15 Positives As pointed out in previous post by someone else its a good quantitative way to compare sessions if train at same time every day i.e especially if first thing in morning after well rested ? Bill

[old] Chit · Post by **[old] Chit** » December 27th, 2004, 10:32 pm

I also just started with HR monitor, and got a bit flustered as my HR got higher than what I thought should be in 70-80% range. My wife, a cardiologist Nurse who performs stress tests on people often, shared her HR numbers. The cardiologists use 190-age= target HR. The THR is HR at which your heart achieves ~85% maximum work. This 85% area is where it is proven the heart needs to work at to 'condition' or excercise it. This makes sense. As one becomes better conditioned, it takes one a longer time (rowing at fixed rate) to achieve the THR. Thus, your body & heart have become better conditioned. She also said not to fixate too much on a specific HR number, but rather a range of 10+ bpm. This is similar to one stating "I lost 2 or 5 lbs today" You likely did not 'lose' the lbs body wt, but shed water, food, etc. Cheers.

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 28th, 2004, 12:37 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Chit @ Dec 28 2004, 03:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I also just started with HR monitor, and got a bit flustered as my HR got higher than what I thought should be in 70-80% range. My wife, a cardiologist Nurse who performs stress tests on people often, shared her HR numbers. The cardiologists use 190-age= target HR. The THR is HR at which your heart achieves ~85% maximum work. This 85% area is where it is proven the heart needs to work at to 'condition' or excercise it. This makes sense. As one becomes better conditioned, it takes one a longer time (rowing at fixed rate) to achieve the THR. Thus, your body & heart have become better conditioned. She also said not to fixate too much on a specific HR number, but rather a range of 10+ bpm. This is similar to one stating "I lost 2 or 5 lbs today" You likely did not 'lose' the lbs body wt, but shed water, food, etc. Cheers. </td></tr></table> Chit I have to disagree with much of this .... information from multiple sources has shown that training over 60% Vo2 max which is approx 60% HRR will have a beneficial effect on aorobic performance. I would be interested to read the scientific evidence that shows we need to train at a minimum of 85% to improve cardio-vascular performance. Where does the Cardiologist get the idea to use 190-age is THR and the heart is working at 85%. For me this would be 121BPM and I am just warming up, 85% of my max is about 145 and 85% of my working HR is 152 which is 30 bpm higher and based on percieved exertion, more like it. For most people 85% would be approx around the AT level, tho that is very approximate, and that is not sustainable day in and day out at any level for an extended duration, for an extended period without overtraining What do you mean .... " As one becomes better conditioned, it takes one a longer time (rowing at fixed rate) to achieve the THR. Thus, your body & heart have become better conditioned. " ..... this is precisly what we are trying to achieve, being able to row at a faster rate in the same 'zone' Maybe you could fill us in on some more detail regds George

[old] Chit · Post by **[old] Chit** » December 28th, 2004, 10:45 am

Clarification: The THR or 85% is number where heart gets its maximal conditioning. However, excercising for longer periods at a lower HR still improves aerobic conditioning of heart. I agree that for most us the 85% gets into AT, somerthing most us cannot do everyday. As one builds aerobic conditioning level, you able to row at higher levels longer at a lower HR, and have faster recovery times after AT work. THose that have built an aerobic base over years would row longer to achieve THR. This is a good thing. Pete

[old] phowd · Post by **[old] phowd** » December 28th, 2004, 11:12 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Chit @ Dec 28 2004, 02:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Clarification: The THR or 85% is number where heart gets its maximal conditioning. However, excercising for longer periods at a lower HR still improves aerobic conditioning of heart. I agree that for most us the 85% gets into AT, somerthing most us cannot do everyday. As one builds aerobic conditioning level, you able to row at higher levels longer at a lower HR, and have faster recovery times after AT work. THose that have built an aerobic base over years would row longer to achieve THR. This is a good thing. Pete  </td></tr></table> I got a HRM for Christmas, and did my first workouit with it yesterday, I decided to do something moderate, just to see where my HR settled. I was surprised. After a 6 min warmup I decided to do a 30 min row at 22 SPM. Did 7700 or so, my average heart rate for the row was 173. Started in the upper 150's (HR and pace), it was near 183 at the end when I pushed the pace down to the low 1:50's. HR dropped back down below 100 in 2-3 minutes. Then waited about 5 more minutes and did a 1K time trial. PB of 3:28.0 at 26 SPM strapless (it had been a long time since the last one.) Max rate 185, all splits were withing 0.5 sec in /500 pace and SR was constant. I am 47, about 6'1", weigh 225 lbs. Resting (morning) HR is 58. I was surprised and now, I guess, a bit afraid to wear it through one of the harder workouts I've been doing. I was encouraged to see my HR drop rapidly, and I should also note that when I started erging 9 months ago my resting HR was over 70 so I know I am much more fit. Another question - I have noticed that I have a 10% swing in HR between inhaling (higher) and exhaling pretty much regardless of absoulte HR. Seems efficient, but is it normal? Anyone else note this? Peter

Concept2 Forum

How Many Of Us Use Heart Monitors

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training