Heart rate interface crosstalk

[c2scott]

I can confirm that the ending HR avg heartrate that is logged. That is to say, not the last beat -- as you are never looking at an instantaneous HR, but more of a rolling average.

I think the thought process during the design was that for most steady rows, what most people are looking for is what their HR was towards the end, where it would typically be highest.

-- Scott

[Gus]

I can confirm that the ending HR avg heartrate that is logged. That is to say, not the last beat -- as you are never looking at an instantaneous HR, but more of a rolling average.

I think the thought process during the design was that for most steady rows, what most people are looking for is what their HR was towards the end, where it would typically be highest.

-- Scott

First time I've heard any one from C2 explain that what I think most of us thought was the instantaneous HR is really a rolling average. The Model is a great piece of equipment and the PM3 gives us a lot of information. It would be nice if the manual would explain exactly what the information is that we are receiving. Call it harsh but it's very frustrating to not have these things properly explained.

For athletes who correctly use HR for training purposes, what is important while we are exercising is the instanteous HR reading. We are trying to keep our HR within the proper training zones. HR averages are nice for comparisons to previous workouts, but aren't really important while exercising. It's not the average that needs to stay in the zone. I also don't think it's very valuable for splits to only show the HR "rolling average" at the very end of the split. An overall split average HR is likely much more usuable though some of us would prefer an option of seeing a maximum reading which isn't necessarily the ending HR.

[Birkyboy]

Well.

Had a response from C2 UK.. where I bought my HR Interface..

They acknowledge the Average is not an Average, but represents the HR at the end of a split..

Gus. Thanks for those points. PM3 may be valid training at Steady pace.
But for a 10k piece where you do some bursts.. chasing a pb.. if those burst are in the wrong place (for the HR Measure) reading will be false.. and I think you agree with me.. that is NOT Good.

C2 appear to hold the view that if you want better options get a Watch.. which is the point.. HAD I known the HR Interface would NOT do what it says on the Tin.. (give an Average) I would not have bought it for the purpose of taking readings..

I want to do a CONTROL piece to compare down the line.

This I cannot do with the PM3 application.. If I burst or burp it will distort all my readings..

My Tests are now meaningless as C2 accept that is how the PM3 works.. but I did one non the less.. Result the same.
True AHR for single piece of work 123 - Here is how it went.
Polar Watch AHR 123
PM3 Display AHR 153

This was achieved doing a single 5 minute piece. I kept HR to under 125 from start to 4:30 then sprinted off for last 30 seconds. Finishing HR 153.

This was an extreme difference but shows how LITTLE value or for a piece of 'Training Equipment' the HR aspect is FLAWED.

Wonder if C2 may have a rethink..?

[whp4]

I can confirm that the ending HR avg heartrate that is logged. That is to say, not the last beat -- as you are never looking at an instantaneous HR, but more of a rolling average.

I think the thought process during the design was that for most steady rows, what most people are looking for is what their HR was towards the end, where it would typically be highest.

-- Scott

First time I've heard any one from C2 explain that what I think most of us thought was the instantaneous HR is really a rolling average. The Model is a great piece of equipment and the PM3 gives us a lot of information. It would be nice if the manual would explain exactly what the information is that we are receiving. Call it harsh but it's very frustrating to not have these things properly explained.

For athletes who correctly use HR for training purposes, what is important while we are exercising is the instanteous HR reading. We are trying to keep our HR within the proper training zones. HR averages are nice for comparisons to previous workouts, but aren't really important while exercising. It's not the average that needs to stay in the zone. I also don't think it's very valuable for splits to only show the HR "rolling average" at the very end of the split. An overall split average HR is likely much more usuable though some of us would prefer an option of seeing a maximum reading which isn't necessarily the ending HR.

Well, it was pretty obvious to me (from observation) that it is a running average, and I suspect if you compared the readings from the "instantaneous HR" reading on a Polar watch to an EKG tape you would see some evidence of short-term averaging or other smoothing, too. Here's an easy experiment - while at rest, but with the HR belt on, lift the belt away from your chest for a second or two so that the belt doesn't detect a heartbeat and watch the reading. What happens when it doesn't see that heartbeat? Does it report a instantaneous HR of half the previous reading?

Just how fast do you think your HR changes once you are up to speed? Is your stroking really that inconsistent? What are some of the quantifiable adverse effects of inadvertently training for a few seconds at a HR of 162 when the band you estimated a month ago only extends to a HR of 161? No offense, but I think you may be deluding yourself with the apparent precision and accuracy of these readings.

Bill

[whp4]

Well.

Had a response from C2 UK.. where I bought my HR Interface..

They acknowledge the Average is not an Average, but represents the HR at the end of a split..

C2 appear to hold the view that if you want better options get a Watch.. which is the point.. HAD I known the HR Interface would NOT do what it says on the Tin.. (give an Average) I would not have bought it for the purpose of taking readings..

I just looked through C2 US and UK brochures, training manual and purchase websites and I have yet to find any concrete specification of what the exact behavior of the HR interface is - instantaneous or average. Where exactly did you see it stated that the behavior would be as you expected? I agree that they ought to describe the functioning of the apparatus sufficiently well that one can make an informed purchasing decision, and that they have fallen short in this regard, but it is also the responsibility of the purchaser to ask questions and otherwise do due diligence before the money changes hands to make sure they are buying what they expect.

If you've already got a watch which you believe measures in the fashion you prefer, what do you want with the C2 HRI? Just curious...

I want to do a CONTROL piece to compare down the line.

This I cannot do with the PM3 application.. If I burst or burp it will distort all my readings..

You want to do a control piece, but in an apparently uncontrolled fashion? Why are you bursting during your control piece? Are you going to be able to do the burst in repeatable fashion in the pieces you compare with the control piece? And out of curiosity, are you doing these control pieces with a controlled stroke rate? If so, are you counting strokes in the piece - the SPM display on the monitor used by itself will allow quite a bit of sloppiness.

My Tests are now meaningless as C2 accept that is how the PM3 works.. but I did one non the less.. Result the same.
True AHR for single piece of work 123 - Here is how it went.
Polar Watch AHR 123
PM3 Display AHR 153

This was achieved doing a single 5 minute piece. I kept HR to under 125 from start to 4:30 then sprinted off for last 30 seconds. Finishing HR 153.

This was an extreme difference but shows how LITTLE value or for a piece of 'Training Equipment' the HR aspect is FLAWED.

Wonder if C2 may have a rethink..?

Why do you want an average HR for a steady piece with HR deliberately held low followed by a sprint? That's like asking what the average price of a car is by adding the price of a new Rolls-Royce and a used Fiat and dividing by 2 and concluding your calculator is useless because the answer doesn't make sense!

If that measurement is worth doing, why not set it up as a variable interval consisting of your 4:30 at HR target of 125, no rest period and then a 30 second sprint? You'll get a much clearer picture of what your HR did.

If you really think the HRI is useless, ring up the place where you bought it, calmly explain that it doesn't work the way you expected and see if they'll take it back or make some other accomodation. If not, put up a note on the UK forum offering it for sale - I doubt it will be hard to sell, unless you insist on describing how useless it is in the advertisement

Bill

[Birkyboy]

whp4.

The ODD test I did, was to prove that the AVERAGE shown was NO SUCH THING..

That is why I did that in a extreme way. Plus C2 had not 'confirmed' that it was NOT an Average, but a Snapshot when I undertook that test.. for 'evidence and self confirmation' of what I felt was happening.


When doing a steady piece.. Which has say 5 splits within it.. Should I burp at the end of a split the Average (which we now accept is not an Average.. but a snapshot) will be corrupted.

Why HR Interface if I have the Watch.
Well.. I stupidly bought and expensive Polar.. which does not have a strap that opens.. but is a compete circle, just clasp closes it when put on.. I cannot 'strap' it to the handle as I once did with old watch (donated to my son now)..
Biggest reason.. I can see HR on Monitor and that is GOOD.. That is records in a strange way.. Not Good.


Back to what do I want C2 to do..

Well.. Where it says AVERAGE I would suppose that that is what it was going to be.. An average... but taken over a reflective time slot.. not just the odd seconds at the END of a split.

WAY AROUND THIS.
I think today I found the 'issue'.. Did 10k pieces today.. But set up the 'splits to MAX' allowed. 1/20th of distance.. so measurement (by C2 end of split method) taken 20 times.. (as opposed to 1/5 as default setting).. and it was accurate to within 1 bpm.

So quite happy there.

In conclusion.. Think there should be some 'EXTENSIVE' Explanation in Manual on this... For the 'nit-pickers' like me.. who want some accurate reflection and who do store training data.

[Dragone]

but still get these eratic heart rate readings? My HR monitor just drops the signal sometimes or it reads over 200 or around 5 bpm. Would it have anthing to do with using an IPod in my pocket while I row? The IPod is closer to the receiver than the polar belt, so maybe that could be it. Any thoughts?

[tap]

but still get these eratic heart rate readings? My HR monitor just drops the signal sometimes or it reads over 200 or around 5 bpm. Would it have anthing to do with using an IPod in my pocket while I row? The IPod is closer to the receiver than the polar belt, so maybe that could be it. Any thoughts?

I had just this problem as well. Ultimately, I had a computer on the other side of the wall from my erg and that was causing me this grief. I moved the receiver to a location that shielded it from the computer (down near my right foot) and things have been fine since.