Concept2 Forum

I have tried 2 with very POOR accuracy. The Lifetrak c410 and the sketchers band.

I am thinking of trying the Basis 1 watch, as they claim it is the most accurate, but was looking for any feedback first!

Thanks

i use the polar loop with polar h7 heart rate monitor; i also use the polar heart rate monitor cable plugged into the PM3 performance monitor. seems to work ok, the polar loop uses the heart rate monitor to track the workout intensity and calculate the activity of the training session.

Most activity trackers (including the Basis 1 from the brief look I took) don't track rowing activities well. Often what they are using to indicate the activity is arm movement, which you can translate well in rowing. For instance, you could be pulling at 20 spm but just piddling along, or you could do the same stoke rating but at much higher force. A heart rate monitor works the best in my opinion. I do wear an activity tracker, the Shine, which I like a lot, in part because it's waterproof, but I don't rely on it for accurate tracking of rowing as an activity. You can try to roughly approximate, by selecting another of the activities they do have algorithms for, such as swimming, running, tennis, and basketball, but none really match up well.

Hello, I thought I had posted a reply but I can't see it, so sorry if someone erased it.

Can anyone update on this question...perhaps the poster??

I am looking into the polar loop--mainly because it tracks sleep really well too.

Maybe someone can give input since a bit of time has past since the original post.

Thanks

I use the polar loop activity tracker with the H7 heart rate monitor; during "training sessions" with the polar loop sync'd with the H7 the heart rate activity is logged in the loop. once the "training session" is over and the loop is sync'd with the polar flow application the workout activity is categorized and quantified as activity for the day. i typically see "cardio" workouts (C2 erging 5k-6k & riding stationary bike - 30min) converted into >200% of daily activity. steps are just counted as steps so don't seem to factor in too much to the training sessions with the heart rate monitor.

i like it, it keeps my motivation level up, by having the personal diary on the polar flow website.

I have just started using a Polar Loop too - I misguidedly thought my current Polar HR belt would synch with it but no I need the new Bluetooth H6 or H7 so I am waiting for it to arrive. I think I'll be using it instead of my Polar T60. I like it so far!

I tried the new Fitbit Surge and returned it after a few days. It didn't accurately measure activity for anything other than walking, hiking or running. There was a generic "Workout" tracker on the Surge that was nothing more than a stopwatch + HRM. In reply to a review I wrote, Fitbit responded that the Surge "is not designed to track steps or distance on a row machine". Funny, because in their commercials people are wearing their products while rowing - and dancing, climbing, and doing a zillion other things in addition to walking and running.

Since I returned that I've read reviews of a bunch of similar products, and I've yet to find one that sounds like it would fit the bill. The idea of an always-on tracker has promise, I think, but the technology needs to evolve a bit more before one is developed that will be truly useful for indoor and/or rowing on the water. The ideal product, in my mind, would be a tracker that could sync with the Concept2 monitor, and integrate both with an online fitness diary.

I also like to track my activities, but if possible I don't want to be depending on commercial software. Especially easily sharing of data between different pieces of software can be a problem using a commercial solution. There are some very interesting initiatives though like DynRow, pyrow, RowMetrics , ergometer but most of them are still in early development and need polishing (and community support) to be able to replace something like RowPro.
I'd rather use separate activity specific sofware and have one piece of software (e.g. emacs - the geek in me is talking now ) connecting the data with the ability to manually add stuff.

I recently bought a Fitbit Charge HR which measure heart rate "continuously", mainly to keep track of heart rate when I'm not exercising with a Polar chest-strap heart monitor. I'm not sure what time interval the Fitbit averages the heart rate readings but it was inaccurate at the start of an exercise and seemed to underestimate the highs. At rest it seemed to be fine so it may be something to do with the averaging interval? I've set my Polar watch to log at 5 second intervals. After monitoring your sleep (which the Fitbit does automatically), you get a "base" heart rate reading (along with the sleep statistics and graph). My "base" reading is supposedly 58 bpm, but the graph shows that for most of my sleep I'm below 50, with low readings down to 46 or less. Despite the inaccuracy, the Fitbit is also useful for monitoring how the heart rate drops off after exercise. In my case I get down to 100 or so in a minute after finishing the exercise (heart rate at finish is 120 or over), and after a rest I have a shower and dinner. It takes 2 to 3 hours before the lower part of the graph drops down to my "base" heart rate (by that time I'm in my recliner resting up). So, the after-effect from the exercise lasts for a few hours and appears to increase my base HR by one or two bpm.

One other thing I've tried with the Fitbit is to strap it to my ankle (my ankle is not that thick) when rowing. It doesn't quite track the strokes accurately but seems better than having it on the wrist. By the way, it seems to measure HR as well on the ankle or wrist.

On a related note, I recently returned to rowing after being away travelling for over a month. I was surprised by my top heart rate going above well above 170 bpm (at age 60, my top rate is supposedly 160). After a week or so, it's back down to just above 160 for similar exercises. I have a friend in his early 70's who is/was an elite athlete. He trained daily and regularly topped his heart rate out to 190 or more. He suffered a stroke recently and although there was no apparent physical damage, his vision in one eye was impaired and there was also some memory loss. One can never be sure of what caused the stroke but surely pushing your heart rate well beyond its nominal range is asking for trouble? The risk just isn't worth it in my view.

While we're on measuring HR, one of annoying aspects of HR monitoring is downloading the data to the computer or online system. Fitbit's wireless USB works ok although needs to be told to sync every now and then. I have 3 Polar watches (FT6, RS400, CS400). The FT6 uses a slow sonic link through the PC's microphone and doesn't tolerate background noises well. Both the RS400 and CS400 require an expensive black IRDA and I only have an old IRDA of Windows 98 vintage (software is on a floppy!) and a silver IRDA. Needless to say it's a hit or miss as to whether the old IRDA or the silver IRDA will work or not. I also have 3 types of chest straps so it's a bit of a problem, and cost, keeping everything in sync. Fitness trackers are evolving quickly so it may be worth holding off for a bit longer but I think chest straps are here to stay for the serious measurements.

Cheers

SlickC2 wrote:On a related note, I recently returned to rowing after being away travelling for over a month. I was surprised by my top heart rate going above well above 170 bpm (at age 60, my top rate is supposedly 160). After a week or so, it's back down to just above 160 for similar exercises. I have a friend in his early 70's who is/was an elite athlete. He trained daily and regularly topped his heart rate out to 190 or more. He suffered a stroke recently and although there was no apparent physical damage, his vision in one eye was impaired and there was also some memory loss. One can never be sure of what caused the stroke but surely pushing your heart rate well beyond its nominal range is asking for trouble? The risk just isn't worth it in my view.

The "nominal range" represented by 220 - 60 has no basis in science at all. There is no need or justification to make any "clinical" conclusions using that as a yardstick. The only way of determining MHR is by doing a maximal piece - usually step down intervals are recommended. There are a number of threads on this Forum that discusses it.
http://www.rowingaustralia.com.au/docs/ ... rowing.pdf is one way of getting close to it!
Your MHR is obviously over 170 if you have seen that number so don't worry. Don't think there is any evidence that would link a stroke directly to heart rate and exercise unless there is some underlying undetected problems such as cardiovascular disease or hypertension.

This is an abstract from the Journal of Exercise Physiology

"THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE “HRmax=220-age” EQUATION.
Robert A. Robergs, Roberto Landwehr. JEPonline. 2002;5(2):1-10.
The estimation of maximal heart rate (HRmax) has been a feature of exercise physiology and related applied sciences since the late 1930’s. The estimation of HRmax has been largely based on the formula; HRmax=220-age. This equation is often presented in textbooks without explanation or citation to original research. In addition, the formula and related concepts are included in most certification exams within sports medicine, exercise physiology, and fitness. Despite the acceptance of this
formula, research spanning more than two decades reveals the large error inherent in the estimation of HRmax (Sxy=7-11 b/min). Ironically, inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of
published research or unpublished scientific compilations. Consequently, the formula HRmax=220-age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields. A brief review of alternate HRmax prediction formula reveals that the majority of age-based univariate prediction equations also have large prediction errors (>10 b/min). Clearly, more research of HRmax needs to be done using a multivariate model, and equations may need to be developed that are population (fitness, health status, age, exercise mode) specific."

Thanks Lindsay. A useful article. There's not many data points in the figures but for age 60 it looks like 170 bpm is towards the upper end of the range reported. At age 70, 190 bpm is well into the stratosphere, and well outside of observed values. But then again the individual is an elite athlete. I agree that gradually testing the limits for short periods may be the way to go.

Cheers

SlickC2 wrote:Thanks Lindsay. A useful article. There's not many data points in the figures but for age 60 it looks like 170 bpm is towards the upper end of the range reported. At age 70, 190 bpm is well into the stratosphere, and well outside of observed values. But then again the individual is an elite athlete. I agree that gradually testing the limits for short periods may be the way to go. Cheers

The main conclusion I guess is that there are no formulae. My MHR is about 173-4 (I think) and that is what I use for training bands though rarely see 170. Your buddy could justify a stress EKG/test of some sort at 190. It would also be interesting to look at resting (minimum) HR as well.

SlickC2 wrote:Thanks Lindsay. A useful article. There's not many data points in the figures but for age 60 it looks like 170 bpm is towards the upper end of the range reported. At age 70, 190 bpm is well into the stratosphere, and well outside of observed values. But then again the individual is an elite athlete. I agree that gradually testing the limits for short periods may be the way to go.

Cheers

Hf and levelmof fitness have nothing to do with each other, its about bloodvolume being pumped around and without knowing the volume per stroke, heartrate in itself say nothing. Intrained people do not have a lower max Hf, they do have a higher rest pulse though.
If there is any danger its bloodpressure during hard training. And for fitness and health we don,t need to see very high hf. Seeing 70/80% of our max is plenty enough to improve aerobic fitness.

I use a combination. Polar Loop and h7 heart monitor. It's great for tracking heart rate / exertion but that's about it. Does nothing for rowing activity. I use the USB cable plugged into my android phone and Boatcoach app to track my rowing and run workout programs. After I'm done with a row I sync the loop with the polar flow app on my phone then sync boatcoach with C2 logbook. Works pretty good for me.

i use a garmin vivo activity tracker and a garmin heart thingy.
starting the heart tracker automatically triggers an activity.
also i can check the bpm on the pm4/5 (garmin=ant)

i have to edit the activity manualy to display indoor rowing (i cross train), but the work/calories are there.