Heart Rate Monitor Recommendations - Page 2 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-11-2005, 11:14 AM

"pjbphd" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:nZ4Pd.14433$6u.11738@fed1read02...
> Can anyone suggest a good heart rate monitor? I have an older model Polar
> in the past but I'm looking to upgrade to a model that retains data that I
> can download into my computer. It want to be able to review and monitor
my
> rate while I do a variety of exercises including running, bicycling, and
> using cardio machines at the gym.
>
> I see Timex, Nike, and others are in the business. Any recommendations on
> recent models are advancements?
>

I've tried a couple of other brands of HRM's, and none of them worked as
well as the Polar do. I would stay away from the S410 if you're interested
in downloading. Some people have had problems with them. IIRC, the S610
was designed specifically for runners, and has much more robust downloading
features. I don't need the cyclometer functions (I use a powertap or a
specialized pro for those) on the more expensive polar's, so the S610 works
well for everything else.

I don't know which Polar models have it now, but they do have a new chest
strap where the sensor pads are cloth as opposed to plastic. If you have
sensitive skin (or run and train for ultra's), this may be worth
investigating. I know some people complain of chafing with the polar chest
straps. When this current strap I have wears out, I'll definitely be
looking to upgrade to the new strap.

Overstock.com had the cheapest prices on Polar S610, but they're stocking is
spotty, and as long as you're not in a hurry to get it.

Regards,
H.

02-12-2005, 01:29 AM

pjbphd wrote:
> Can anyone suggest a good heart rate monitor? I have an older model Polar
> in the past but I'm looking to upgrade to a model that retains data that I
> can download into my computer. It want to be able to review and monitor my
> rate while I do a variety of exercises including running, bicycling, and
> using cardio machines at the gym.
>
> I see Timex, Nike, and others are in the business. Any recommendations on
> recent models are advancements?
>

I like my Polar S625x. I was looking mainly for a hrm that could store
multiple training sets until I could download them (so I could separate
different portions of multiple-activity workout), barometric altimeter
(for elevation gain / loss and plotting against hr), and accelerometer
for estimating total distance run. It also has some optional cycling
features that I haven't gotten.

I defintely like the infrared link connection as compared with the sonic
link of the S410 that I just upgraded from. (had a few glitches
originally, but once I got it sorted out, it works great.)

It obviously doesn't have some of the advantages of a gps unit where I
can map trails and use regardless of activity - running, mtn biking, xc
skiing, snowshoeing. It has advantage of not depending on satellite
signal. I'll take a gps with me on all long runs (or ski, snowshoe,
etc), and use the footpod if running. Since I run trails most of the
time, I'm happy with distance estimates within 5-10% of actual value -
just for logging value, since my alternative may be guesstimating from
inaccurate map or throwing darts. I run by time and effort so real-time
pace is not of interest to me.

The altimeter has worked surprisingly well on rolling hills (30-70 ft
vertical) with the obvious issues of barometric altimeters when a front
comes through. I wasn't sure if it would be sensitive enough for those
small hills so have been pleasantly surprised. (I use 15-sec recording
intervals to eliminate some of the noise of 5-sec intervals).

<If not interested in distance measurements, stop here.>

The footpod may be larger than some other brands, but it hasn't bothered
my feet for gentle hills (may on steeper but not sure). Since it arrived
during our first snow in October, I haven't had an opportunity to
calibrate it on dry ground on a section line road (with gravel
shoulder). But curiousity got the better of me, and I have used it
uncalibrated while running on hard-packed snow (not too different from
dirt).

For simple terrain, it seems to be within about 3% of my best
guesstimate of overall distance - out of the box. For some trails, I've
had either a map with "measured" (not sure exact methods, but reported
in 1-m increments) distances between intersections or some mile posts
(clueless as to accuracy but they're at start of Iditarod Trail). For
other trails I may just have a route on map or a gps distance. At any
rate, for most conditions for total distance, values are within about 3%
of each other most of the time - occasionally out to 5%, many times
within 0-1% of alternate best guess. I've found it really handy for the
ice we've had the last few weeks when I've just been running laps up and
back in a mowed hay field (grass covers ice) - distances on each lap
were reasonably repeatable, given I may not have been running exactly
the same place. I also ended up with a little bushwhacking in a
snowstorm (don't ask) with it the other evening, with reasonable
results. Its distance estimates are close enough to any other estimate
that I have, that I just use it now for running.

Not sure how it will do on our regular hills (10-30%) when I have a good
surface, but suspect it will be off there - but may cancel out by the
time I go up and down.

I haven't used it on twisty single track yet. I don't think I had good
results on loose snow on 20%+ slope, but I didn't have any real results
to compare it to. It was 1/2 step back for each step up, and a
landmarkless location where I turned around.

Dot

--
"You try to slow down and enjoy it. You try to look at the scenery. But
your brain can kind of go blank. All you want to do is tell your feet to
keep working."
-Cedar Petrosius, women's winner 2004 Matanuska Peak Challenge (14mi,
9000ft up and down)

02-12-2005, 01:29 AM

pjbphd wrote:
> Can anyone suggest a good heart rate monitor? I have an older model Polar
> in the past but I'm looking to upgrade to a model that retains data that I
> can download into my computer. It want to be able to review and monitor my
> rate while I do a variety of exercises including running, bicycling, and
> using cardio machines at the gym.
>
> I see Timex, Nike, and others are in the business. Any recommendations on
> recent models are advancements?
>

I like my Polar S625x. I was looking mainly for a hrm that could store
multiple training sets until I could download them (so I could separate
different portions of multiple-activity workout), barometric altimeter
(for elevation gain / loss and plotting against hr), and accelerometer
for estimating total distance run. It also has some optional cycling
features that I haven't gotten.

I defintely like the infrared link connection as compared with the sonic
link of the S410 that I just upgraded from. (had a few glitches
originally, but once I got it sorted out, it works great.)

It obviously doesn't have some of the advantages of a gps unit where I
can map trails and use regardless of activity - running, mtn biking, xc
skiing, snowshoeing. It has advantage of not depending on satellite
signal. I'll take a gps with me on all long runs (or ski, snowshoe,
etc), and use the footpod if running. Since I run trails most of the
time, I'm happy with distance estimates within 5-10% of actual value -
just for logging value, since my alternative may be guesstimating from
inaccurate map or throwing darts. I run by time and effort so real-time
pace is not of interest to me.

The altimeter has worked surprisingly well on rolling hills (30-70 ft
vertical) with the obvious issues of barometric altimeters when a front
comes through. I wasn't sure if it would be sensitive enough for those
small hills so have been pleasantly surprised. (I use 15-sec recording
intervals to eliminate some of the noise of 5-sec intervals).

<If not interested in distance measurements, stop here.>

The footpod may be larger than some other brands, but it hasn't bothered
my feet for gentle hills (may on steeper but not sure). Since it arrived
during our first snow in October, I haven't had an opportunity to
calibrate it on dry ground on a section line road (with gravel
shoulder). But curiousity got the better of me, and I have used it
uncalibrated while running on hard-packed snow (not too different from
dirt).

For simple terrain, it seems to be within about 3% of my best
guesstimate of overall distance - out of the box. For some trails, I've
had either a map with "measured" (not sure exact methods, but reported
in 1-m increments) distances between intersections or some mile posts
(clueless as to accuracy but they're at start of Iditarod Trail). For
other trails I may just have a route on map or a gps distance. At any
rate, for most conditions for total distance, values are within about 3%
of each other most of the time - occasionally out to 5%, many times
within 0-1% of alternate best guess. I've found it really handy for the
ice we've had the last few weeks when I've just been running laps up and
back in a mowed hay field (grass covers ice) - distances on each lap
were reasonably repeatable, given I may not have been running exactly
the same place. I also ended up with a little bushwhacking in a
snowstorm (don't ask) with it the other evening, with reasonable
results. Its distance estimates are close enough to any other estimate
that I have, that I just use it now for running.

Not sure how it will do on our regular hills (10-30%) when I have a good
surface, but suspect it will be off there - but may cancel out by the
time I go up and down.

I haven't used it on twisty single track yet. I don't think I had good
results on loose snow on 20%+ slope, but I didn't have any real results
to compare it to. It was 1/2 step back for each step up, and a
landmarkless location where I turned around.

Dot

--
"You try to slow down and enjoy it. You try to look at the scenery. But
your brain can kind of go blank. All you want to do is tell your feet to
keep working."
-Cedar Petrosius, women's winner 2004 Matanuska Peak Challenge (14mi,
9000ft up and down)

02-19-2005, 11:27 AM

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:14:41 GMT, "HardwareLust" <n00ne@n0where.c0m> wrote:

>I don't know which Polar models have it now, but they do have a new chest
>strap where the sensor pads are cloth as opposed to plastic. If you have
>sensitive skin (or run and train for ultra's), this may be worth
>investigating. I know some people complain of chafing with the polar chest
>straps. When this current strap I have wears out, I'll definitely be
>looking to upgrade to the new strap.

Be aware that the "new" coded Polar chest strap with replaceable battery
has a weaker transmitter (even with a new battery) than the older coded
Polar chest strap with non-replaceable battery. YMMV.

02-19-2005, 11:27 AM

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:14:41 GMT, "HardwareLust" <n00ne@n0where.c0m> wrote:

>I don't know which Polar models have it now, but they do have a new chest
>strap where the sensor pads are cloth as opposed to plastic. If you have
>sensitive skin (or run and train for ultra's), this may be worth
>investigating. I know some people complain of chafing with the polar chest
>straps. When this current strap I have wears out, I'll definitely be
>looking to upgrade to the new strap.

Be aware that the "new" coded Polar chest strap with replaceable battery
has a weaker transmitter (even with a new battery) than the older coded
Polar chest strap with non-replaceable battery. YMMV.

02-20-2005, 09:10 AM

For further information on various models and companies, go to
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. You should note that Nike and Timex do not design
the technology themselves. They usually use Polar's technology in their
products. Polar and Cardiosport are probably the two largest
manufactures in the industry.
Bill

pjbphd wrote:
> Can anyone suggest a good heart rate monitor? I have an older model Polar
> in the past but I'm looking to upgrade to a model that retains data that I
> can download into my computer. It want to be able to review and monitor my
> rate while I do a variety of exercises including running, bicycling, and
> using cardio machines at the gym.
>
> I see Timex, Nike, and others are in the business. Any recommendations on
> recent models are advancements?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> McGinty
>
>

02-20-2005, 09:10 AM

For further information on various models and companies, go to
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. You should note that Nike and Timex do not design
the technology themselves. They usually use Polar's technology in their
products. Polar and Cardiosport are probably the two largest
manufactures in the industry.
Bill

pjbphd wrote:
> Can anyone suggest a good heart rate monitor? I have an older model Polar
> in the past but I'm looking to upgrade to a model that retains data that I
> can download into my computer. It want to be able to review and monitor my
> rate while I do a variety of exercises including running, bicycling, and
> using cardio machines at the gym.
>
> I see Timex, Nike, and others are in the business. Any recommendations on
> recent models are advancements?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> McGinty
>
>