Polar OwnIndex Test

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

I received a Polar F11 watch and heart rate monitor for Christmas and one of the features is the OwnIndex Test, which, according to the Polar user manual, is comparable to a VO2 test.

I performed the test today and got a reading of 68, which is considered 'elite' (for my age category 20-24 anything >62 is elite). This is great and all, except I don't know how accurate the test is or how much it really tells me about my 'eliteness'. Does anyone know any more about the test than I do? I don't have access to a VO2 test, so I wonder what my score on this reflects about my possible VO2 max.

If anyone has done this test before or knows more about it I'd to hear it.

Oh and also, I was just wondering what most people's heart rate is who train at a relatively high level. My resting heart rate is 49, which is apparently pretty good, but I don't know how it compares to other rowers.

[Tinus]

I've once owned a polar (which is dead now) which also featured a condition test whose score could be compared to VO2max. I can remember that the test also asked for weight and daily exercise level. Especially the latter can be difficult to determine.

The test which I had on this polar was based on the value of the average resting hearth rate and it's variation. The claim was a higher VO2max is associated with a higher variation.

The measurement of the polar is not a direct measurement of VO2max. The determination is based on the fact that heartbeat parameters correlate withVO2max. The heartbeat measurements are compared with measurements of people of the same class (age, sex, weight, activity level) for which the VO2max is determined by means of a secondary direct measurement in the lab.

Polar stated that the test score is not the same as VO2max. Also, due to the large size of a class and the large variation within the class an error is inevitably made. Because of that, Polar advised to use the values not too strict. The values are best not used to determine difference between people (because of different errors for each person) but instead to determine difference for a single person at different times (always about the same error if it is the same person) e.g. to determine amount of progress or detect over training. (I trained a lot but can't remember the value changed a lot over a period of 1 year)

[Carl Watts]

Your resting HR is pretty good. I know a good rower who's resting HR is 45. Mine is closer to 60 so I have work to do.

I have a Polar watch as well but never use it these days as I use the Polar receiver on the PM3 with just the Wearlink Coded chest strap.

It could be out there already but it would be good to have a bit of software that using your heartrate and drag, power etc and other info from the PM3 could say analyse a 20-30min row and give you quite an accurate fitness level. Already suggested this as part of RowPro.

Cannot see how just a watch on it's own is going to come up with anything absolute, it doesn't have all the info it needs. Would be good as a reference to you alone in monitoring any improvements.

[jimmel]

The Own Index is greatly affected by the fitness level you select. If you select a lower fitness level the score will go down. As a previous poster suggested the best way to use this test is by looking at your results over time. Even thoug it may not give you an accurate score vs a real vo2 test it will give you feedback about your progress over time.

[Nosmo]

Your 2K score tells you much more about your VO2 max then any HR monitor will. Here is a basic start:
http://www.concept2.com/us/interactive/ ... vo2max.asp
The score along with your height, weight and age, tell you how elite you are.

[NavigationHazard]

Resting HR will tell you roughly squat about your fitness compared to other rowers. There's too much individual variation to draw meaningful conclusions. See http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/healt ... tml?src=pm and look for the bits by Fritz Hagerman on p. 3.

[M. Podolsky]

Interesting article. The same page had a link to another article about the benefits of HR training, using the 220-age formula.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/02/techn ... tml?src=pm

I agree that resting HR is not an absolute measure of fitness. Clearly there is still a lot to be learned. Using conventional wisdom my RHR of 35 means I am either a super elite athlete or at death's door. In reality I fall somewhere within that range.

[NavigationHazard]

Unsolicited plug: Roy benson and U VT's Dr. Declan Connolly (runs the Exercise Physiology Lab there) have a book coming out called "Heart-Rate Training" that's aimed at tailoring HR-monitor training to individuals. The former author is a long-time HS track coach and erstwhile contributor to Runners World; the latter has a pedigree a mile long and consults for US Rowing, among other organizations. I believe it's due out in March.

http://www.humankinetics.com/2011-relea ... -press-kit

[bobkwan2007]

Your VO2 score means little in terms of your daily training. As someone has already stated, using your 2k score and your weight you can get a pretty accurate approximation from the C2 calculator. There are two ways to improve your score: get faster at the same weight, or lose weight and not lose speed.

I don't know what "eliteness" means. If a score of more than 62 is considered elite, then I'm elite too. I find that to be quite amusing.

For what's it's worth, Lance Armstrong had a VO2max of 87 at the peak of his cycling career, and Bjorn Dahli, the Norweigian xc skier, had a phenomenal score of 91. These guys are elite!

[Bob S.]

As someone has already stated, using your 2k score and your weight you can get a pretty accurate approximation from the C2 calculator. There are two ways to improve your score: get faster at the same weight, or lose weight and not lose speed.

The C2 calculator is screwed up royally. I didn't weigh myself when I did a 2k test recently at 8:35.4. So I checked it out at what I considered to be the upper and lower ends of what I considered to be my likely weight range that day.

I entered 8:36 and 165# and it came up 29.33.
With 8:36 and 170#, it came up 36.4.

So it seems that a lower weight at the same speed gives a lower score - in contrast to what you said above - also in contrast to logic.

It also makes a big difference whether of not you consider yourself to be highly trained. Selecting highly trained works to your disadvantage.

Bob S.

[Bill]

Unsolicited plug: Roy benson and U VT's Dr. Declan Connolly (runs the Exercise Physiology Lab there) have a book coming out called "Heart-Rate Training" that's aimed at tailoring HR-monitor training to individuals. The former author is a long-time HS track coach and erstwhile contributor to Runners World; the latter has a pedigree a mile long and consults for US Rowing, among other organizations. I believe it's due out in March.

http://www.humankinetics.com/2011-relea ... -press-kit

Hello,

I bought this book and am currently digesting what they say and applying the training program, coming back after a long break from training.

Anybody else had a look at it ?

Am a bit puzzled about some of the issues discussed but am prepared to give the training program a go.

They dont use the concept of HR reserve - they use zones based simply on %age MHR.

Was hoping to get some help on understanding cardiac drift and how to factor it in to assessing the training zone for a fixed load but not very helpful on this topic.

Regards

Bill