Heart rate monitors-advice-tutorial

[jamesg]

felt the Concept2 community would be the best source of what to use and why.

I use an ABC bt belt with a Polar watch, PM5 and ergdata. The belt has a 2032 battery that can be replaced. With a little sweat it all connects except the PM which wants a few buttons pressed, even though I'm the sole user. If the PM doesn't read, no HR data gets to logbook even if ergdata sees it directly.

As to why, this will depend on your training theory or on types of activity. I find it useful in controlling warm-up and interval rest, on the erg.

Training plans for erging need not use HR:
https://www.britishrowing.org/indoor-ro ... ing-plans/

The Interactives allowed for erg work control via HR range, rating and Watts. For technique, control of rating and power is essential in any case, so adding HR (as a proxy for effort) can lead to confusion, though may be of use failing rating or power reference levels as with beginners.

The Wolverine L4 work is very effective, apparently because it ignores HR completely. I haven't used the other types described in that thesis.

[frankencrank]

Seeking some advice or knowledge and advice on heart rate monitors for the PM5. I have been rowing for over a year and have not thought about using one until recently as I am beginning to train a lot more seriously. I have read a few posts and have done some research but felt the Concept2 community would be the best source of what to use and why. I am not opposed to a watch but would probably prefer a chest type strap or open to any suggestions. I want something that links effortlessly with the PM5 and has an app or system to store data. I am a novice on this subject, I am open to any and all advice and want to thank everyone in advance for their time and help.

Steve

Let me make a few general comments about training with HR. To me, for the serious athlete, the most important HR to monitor is early morning resting HR. That may be the best indicator if you are over-trained and need a light or rest day. It is why I sleep with my watch. (My Apple Watch will measure HR variability, another indication of being over-trained I understand.)

HR is a good proxy for oxygen consumption/cardiac output. As your fitness improves you should see your power go up for the same HR and your resting HR go down (when I was in my best fitness ever my resting HR was in the mid 30's).

When you are inexperienced HR can help you judge the intensity of your workouts. However, as you gain experience you will eventually be able to predict your HR within a few beats by how you feel. The problem with HR controlling your effort is there is a day to day variation (did you sleep well, too much coffeee, worried about something) such that, once you are very experienced, perceived exertion is probably a better metric. But, if you are trying to document improvement for others, then HR is the best metric.

When HR monitors first came out many years ago many felt they would change sport big time. They have not. Their usefulness, IMHO, is for the novice/intermediate who is learning to gauge effort for various distances, especially long distances. Before HRM there was the talk test, how easy was it to talk while exercising, as a good measure of exercise intensity. HRM's do nothing to shorten the time to fitness. Still got to put in the time and effort.

[frankencrank]

HR is a good proxy for oxygen consumption/cardiac output. As your fitness improves you should see your power go up for the same HR and your resting HR go down (when I was in my best fitness ever my resting HR was in the mid 30's).

I was rereading this and thought this wasn't very clear and even, perhaps, a bit misleading. It is all true but I didn't say why, which could confuse people.

HR is a good proxy for oxygen consumption in any one person that day. But, oxygen consumption varies with cardiac output and CO is determined by a combination of HR and stroke volume (how much blood is pumped with each beat). As we gain fitness stroke volume will increase (the heart learns to better relax so can take in more blood between beats). With increasing aerobic fitness stroke volume increases both at rest and as the HR goes up such that the cardiac output increase isn't linear. It is why a low resting HR is an indicator of good aerobic fitness - our resting oxygen consumption hasn't necessarily changed but our resting stroke volume has. Sedentary people have resting HR in the 70-80 range. Extremely fit people have resting HR in the 30-40 range.

Comparing HR between two people is not comparing cardiac output or oxygen consumption between them. HR is only an indicator of cardiac output in each person each day all other things being the same.

[Carl Watts]

Best not to compare your HR to other people, to much variation and at the end of the day it doesn't matter that much as the numbers do not directly correlate to performance.

Ideally you get your stats when you wake up one day and decide to get fit. Write down your resting HR and do some tests and then 6 months later after some decent training do them again.

Personally I freak out whenever my HR starts to drop to the low 50's just sitting on the rower so I jump up and start running up and down stairs to raise it.

If I ever saw something in the 40's I would be worried about some pending medical problem because its simply not "Normal" for me to be in that range.

Max is still pretty high for my age so that's the setup I have and once you have a "Baseline" you can use that to train, track your performance increase and recognize when your overtraining as your resting HR is high.

[frankencrank]

If I ever saw something in the 40's I would be worried about some pending medical problem because its simply not "Normal" for me to be in that range.

What is normal is determined by what you are doing. If you were to increase your weekly load your resting HR could go lower and you would soon get used to it. I am 76 and my resting HR is in the high 40's. Of course, an unusual change should be checked out but when your doctor says it is normal you can relax.

Max is still pretty high for my age so that's the setup I have and once you have a "Baseline" you can use that to train, track your performance increase and recognize when your overtraining as your resting HR is high.

220 minus age is a terrible estimate of max HR for those who have a long history of endurance fitness. I am 76, 220 - 76 = 144. An exercise stress test a year ago I got to 165. In the 140's I can still talk, although not easily. Not bad for someone with 6 stents (note: endurance fitness is not protective for cardiac disease per se - listen to your body). I now regularly get into the 150's on the ergometer.

[Tsnor]

There was a lot of discussion on HRV (Heart rate variability) earlier in this thread. So I looked it up https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/hea ... 7112212789

Perfect timing, my fitbit watch (charge 3) just started reporting HRV along with breathing rate. Look in your "health metrics" tab on the ap. The http based dashboard does not seem to have it.

That said, do not use a fitbit watch while rowing and expect to get useful numbers from it. It just produces random numbers. People say some of the other optical sensors work, especially the polar arm mounted units. But charge 3 doesn't work at all for rowing.

[mict450]

my fitbit watch (charge 3) just started reporting HRV along with breathing rate.

This is interesting. I wonder if it is accurate? My impression has been that only a good chest strap monitor would be accurate enough to measure the minute changes of the R-R interval.

Finally received the Coospo H808S, & have taken 2 morning readings so far via the EliteHRV app. Curious to see if this will be a useful metric.

[Dangerscouse]

Finally received the Coospo H808S, & have taken 2 morning readings so far via the EliteHRV app. Curious to see if this will be a useful metric.

So am I. I have heard mixed views, but mainly good. It definitely works for me.

[Tsnor]

my fitbit watch (charge 3) just started reporting HRV along with breathing rate.

This is interesting. I wonder if it is accurate? My impression has been that only a good chest strap monitor would be accurate enough to measure the minute changes of the R-R interval.

Finally received the Coospo H808S, & have taken 2 morning readings so far via the EliteHRV app. Curious to see if this will be a useful metric.

Think fitbit only looks at sleep numbers when you are not moving to try to get better data, then does a lot of averaging. Note that HRV swings a great deal at different times of day, so this may also factor into when the fitbit chooses to measure. (If you don't wear the fitbit when you sleep you do not get data).

As for accuracy, I was thinking that I could trend the data on HRV vs when I do interval work. HRV should be worse (lower) the night after intervals as repairs take place. But I don't really like wearing the fitbit at night so will likely not do this. The numbers reported for me are in the 20-30 millisec range which is at the low/bad end of the scale so could be accurate. Changes in HRV are what I'll likely look for (assuming the trend is more apt to be accurate than the number).