Concept2 Forum

Does anyone out there conduct heart rate based training using Polar equipment?

Although I used to be a big fan, I am extremely frustrated with with current Polar equipment, specifically the M430 watch and the H10 Heart rate sensor (transmitter).

When used in rowing (indoor or OTW), the Polar M430's wrist-based heart rate measurement system is erratic and inaccurate. Polar acknowledges this limitation, although halfheartedly: ""Not necessarily accurate in sports where you move your hands vigorously or flex the muscles and tendons near your wrist."(https://support.polar.com/us-/support/w ... ate_with_a).

When I discussed this problem with Polar technical support they suggested I purchase a new H10 sensor that could communicate directly with the M430 and bypass the wrist-based M430 sensor. They gave me $25 off the purchase price of the H10 so I bought one. However, while the H10 allowed me to accurately record my heart rate to the M430 while rowing, I could not simultaneously record my heart rate to BOTH the M430 and the PM5 on the Concept2. In my opinion, the Polar equipment was useless for trying to conduct heart rate based training in my sport of rowing.

That was over a year ago.

Recently Polar announced they added the ability to pair the H10 with more than one device. In my case this would allow me to record my heart rate to BOTH the PM5 on the Concept2 and the Polar Beat App on my iPhone. The Polar Beat App would provide me with the detailed heart rate information and graphs for my session and still record heart rate data for my splits on the PM5. This is exactly what I was looking for.

However, there is a problem in that the heart rate data supplied by the H10 is highly erratic and inconsistent. Attached is a screen shot of the Polar Beat graph and PM5 monitor of a 10K session that I did this morning. Note how the heart rate drops off and then later spikes up for no reason. This is actually a mild example. I have others where the heart rate hovers around 50 for the first half of a 5K piece and then bounces up to the typical 160-170 bpm range for the last half.

I contacted Polar Technical Support again and their proposed solution did not work. Their other suggestion was to purchase another belt. Needless to say, after having been burned twice, I am reluctant to throw any more money their way.

Has anyone else experienced similar problems? What heart rate equipment monitoring equipment are others using?

My apologies. Apparently you can no longer post attachments with posts on this form. Please ignore my reference to the screenshot of the heart rate graph.

Also, here is the correct (full) link to the Polar web site citing problems with sports where "you flex the muscles and tendons near your wrist:" https://support.polar.com/us-en/support ... ate_with_a

Do you want to use HR as a proxy for Power? Luckily for us all C2 machines read power directly, which makes workout control very simple.

there are a lot of threads about all this around here such as
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=187520

@jamesg, i expect he's trying to use it not as a proxy for power but to try to gain insight into the energy systems his body uses to generate that power.

to the OP: I've always had good results with Garmin chest straps, although i don't think they'd pair to your iPhone (at least not without a ANT+ dongle for hte iPhone) and the Wahoo Tickr. I wonder if the issue is being created by whatever polar did to make it so that you could pair a sensor with two devices via bluetooth at the same time. I was always under the impression that you could only pair one device (via bluetooth) at a time, although you COULD pair to one via ANT+ and one via Bluetooth, if supported.

I've switched to a Tickr, which pairs nicely with the PM5, but last year I used an H10. I just watched my HR on the phone display and didn't pair with the PM5 at all.

The Polar chest strap is better, I think, than the Tickr. Otherwise I don't see much of a difference between to two.

Thank you all for your input.

I wanted the heart rate data to start "heart rate based" training where you target different intensity levels based on heart rate. So the heart rate acts as a proxy for intensity and you spend your training time in different "intensity" zones.

I am new to this theory and am not sure I completely buy into it. For me there does not seem to be a precise correlation between heart rate and intensity. But a lot of people I know are using this method so I thought I would give it a try.

So I wanted to see detailed heart rate data for this new training approach as well as the heart rate associated with my splits on the the PM5 that I am used to seeing.

But the H10 sensor is completely erratic. Today was more of the same. On a 5K erg piece the heart rate just drops dramatically all of a sudden and then it recovers. For most of the piece the recorded heart rate appears accurate but these periodic deviations make everything seem suspect.

Thanks again for your input and product alternatives.

On a 5K erg piece the heart rate just drops dramatically all of a sudden

How much is dramatically? I've seen this too, but knew it was due to my heart missing a beat every now and then, since I hear it do so. What we see in such a case would depend on how the impulse sequence is sampled and averaged before updating the HR reading, and is not a fault of the watch or the belt.

"Intensity" presumably means Power, i.e. Watts, albeit adjusted subjectively for how we feel, ambient conditions etc. One major reason for using the erg and/or other items in the C2 catalogue is that they show power directly.

It's considered (or was, Conconi) that Watt and HR bands are linearly related if we are in the aeerobic bands, but that if anaerobic the curve flattens. So we can go as fast as we like, when anaerobic, without regard for HR. In this case power reading is our only early warning.

As well as the 70-80-85% HR Range band limits, as shown in the old Interactive plans, there was also a column showing 60-70-80% as upper limits for the UT2, UT1 and AT bands, based on a 2k test Wattage. This avoided all the complications of HR, but not the 2k test. I use another less stressful test, which still gives me a reasonable guideline for Watt bands.

More prosaic methods are also in order of course: with a good stroke, ratings 18-23 cover the aerobic training range.

dave2013 wrote: ↑

December 16th, 2019, 10:03 pm

I wanted the heart rate data to start "heart rate based" training where you target different intensity levels based on heart rate. So the heart rate acts as a proxy for intensity and you spend your training time in different "intensity" zones.
I am new to this theory and am not sure I completely buy into it. For me there does not seem to be a precise correlation between heart rate and intensity. But a lot of people I know are using this method so I thought I would give it a try.
Thanks again for your input and product alternatives.

I have found the Tickr a very reliable tool. FWIW I have used HR zones for some years now - initially based just on %HRR (MHR-RHR) but you have to know a real maximum of course. My 80% was 147 so tried to stay under that for aerobic sessions and over 90% for anerobic. I was able to do a full VO2max OTE a couple of years ago with lactates etc and that gave me a threshold of 153 so it wasn't too different. It confirmed my MHR as well. If I am doing a hard interval type or single distance session then I find reaching 95%+ of max a reliable indicator of intensity.
The AIS testers also used a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) in conjunction with the bloods and they do regard it as a reliable metric.

Greg Smith has written a lot on this stuff: https://quantifiedrowing.com/

This is useful if you haven't seen it yet: http://freespir.s409.sureserver.com/for ... calculator

Dave, there's no chance that your heart rate doesn't follow your power output. Muscles burn fuel, which requires oxygen, which necessitates blood flow to deliver more oxygen, which requires the heart to beat faster. If any of that stops working you've got a real situation on your hands.

But heart rate isn't a perfect indicator of power. It's influenced by things like hydration levels, the need to shunt heat off the body, and other things that aren't directly related to the force being applied to the flywheel. The 500 meter split displayed on the erg monitor reflects power and nothing but power, independent of whether you're tired, dehydrated, etc.

I'm sure there's nothing here you don't already know, but consider this: The argument for using heart rate for a gauge instead of pure power is that it is an indication of what's happening in your body, not just the force you're applying to the handle. If you've been rowing for an hour at 200 watts, or a 2:00 split, or whatever unit of force, you need to keep applying the same level of force to hold that split. But if your heart rate starts climbing from a manageable 150 beats per minute to 170 or 180, while you keep holding that same split, you have a good indication that you physiology is being challenged at an increasing level. Maybe you're overheating, or running out of fuel, or accumulated fatigue is setting in. Whatever the factors, you're starting to redline.

You may be able to grit your way through a few more minutes at the high end of your heart rate, but it can't go on indefinitely. Eventually you'll blow up and be forced to rest, allowing your heart rate to drop back into a sustainable range. Just focusing on holding that 2:00 split (or 200 watts or whatever) doesn't give an indication of anything internal -- it's only a measure of power. That's both the beauty (objective, not influenced by physiology) and the limitation (doesn't reflect what's happening in your body) of measuring power. But if you combine power with heart rate you've got a lot more information to work with.

Thank you Gentlemen for the well written (and reasoned) responses and links!

Just two weeks ago I bought a Polar M460 bike computer with an H10 chest sensor. The surprise was that the H10 functions very well with the old Polar pickup/transmitter that combines with the PM3. Previously I used the Polar T31 chest strap.
The nice thing is that I can now analyse my runs with the Polar Flow software, for example the recovery in heart rate after a stop. There is an occasional spike in a run, but nothing serious.

Here is a 10K run from this morning.

Nomath, that's a very solid effort with about half the run time in zone 5.

If you're planning on following a "polarized" training model you're looking at several days of zone 2/3 efforts -- no higher -- before going that hard again.

But that's not everyone's cup of tea. Especially with erg workouts (and rower's personalities), many find it too boring to stick to low-intensity efforts for several days before getting back to 90%+ of max heart rate again.

Nonetheless, that's what many exercise experts would recommend. Not all, but many of them.

Thanks Mark, for your sympathetic comments, but at an age of 71 I'm not in competition anymore, except with my own PB's one season ago. Training or an all-out effort is what I decide each day shortly before a row, not by a long-term plan. I do not feel the need to recover from a heavy effort, like when I row some 20 mins in zone 5. I know I can repeat it next day.

In fact, I am a bit sceptical about Polar's training advice. One of the niceties of the M460 is that you can do a fitness test to estimate your VO2max. It measures heart rate variability. Since this test is done in complete rest, you can repeat it many times on a day and on every day of the week. The results in my case scatter between 36 and 44 and average 42, which at my age is between very good and excellent. Each time I improve just 1 digit on the scale my Polar robot coach applauds my training efforts. If I drop one digit I am advised to review my training method. The robot doesn't recognize that in-between these results I was just lying on my bed.

Nevertheless I am very thankful for the Polar tool to monitor my instantaneous heart rate during a row. I know that when you get near to 95% of HFmax, a little more effort can break you down in a minute, whereas with a slight restraint you can uphold almost the same effort for 10 minutes or more.

Nomath, one question for you is whether this is actually based around your true max heart rate

because 22 minutes in zone 5--and then doing it again the next day--is a lot. especially (ironically) for someone who is more fit.