Reebok HRM, Comments about - Page 9 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

03-10-2005, 08:45 AM

Sskb wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
>>You get what you pay for.

>>
>
>
> Using the Forerunner 301 which is Garmin's first attempt at a heart
> rate monitor. Is it not as good as the others out there?

I was speaking of my advice and how much you're paying for it.

Sorry,
I don't know much about this or that HRM.

For the record, my qualifications consist of being a certified indoor
cycling instructor, a certified personal trainer (NASM), and a
semi-serious cyclist for multiple decades. There are many people more
qualified than I to speak on these topics, but I know some things.

>>In your case, I suggest going harder. Not all the time, just enough
>>times to get your HR up there. Listen to your body, blah blah, and
>>always approach your limits with care.
>
>
> Having trouble determining those limits now with the data from the
> Forerunner. Wasn't trying to find the limits initially because the
> Forerunner calculates the stock heart rate zones based on the personal
> information in the setup. The runs were semi-cruise runs (9-10
> min/mile). That's why I was surprised the average hbm were so high
> compared to the stock numbers in the Forerunner. Resetting the zones
> to match the data estimating a 60%-70% or a 70%-80% effort would put
> the max off the chart and the 80%-90% and 90%-100% zones at very high
> levels.

My (free, and not based on personal knowledge of your background) advice
is, throw out the chart, including the chart programmed into the HRM.
You've got your body, and it's not your fault the charts are "wrong." If
you feel strong and healthy at HR's that are "off the chart," then the
chart just doesn't apply to you.

A heavy friend of mine is seriously trying to lose her extra weight.
Despite having piled on a ton of training volume in a matter of a couple
weeks, her resting heart rate remains in the 45 BPM range. This caused
some serious concern on my part, as I suspected a case of overtraining.
She went to a cardiologist, who pronounced her just fine, and gifted
with an especially strong heart. Now she has MY blessing to work her ass
off, and who knows, she might be winning open races at 40.

Your heart runs fast. It's always good advice to get odd-looking numbers
checked into, but probably, your body's just fine, if different. But,
this is your *heart* we're talking about.

>>But after a few such workouts
>>(varieties of self tests are available for the searching), you'll
>
> gain a
>
>>useful understanding of your max.
>>
>>Then you can calculate zones based on percentages, and exercise
>
> strictly
>
>>accordingly. Or, you can just work out like you usually do.
>
>
> Still do without any apparent problem at a comfortable pace. I'm not
> one of the gung-ho types I see breezing by me in the morning.
> But...the heart rate numbers make determining the zones unrealistic at
> least in this instance.

I don't see why, unless your monitor's programming just doesn't let it
function in your body's high range. Just tell it to use your parameters.

> Finally, you DON'T always get what you pay for. :^) Insurance companies
> and similar organizations are among the most profitable companies in
> America for a reason. If you look closely even the "non-profits" in
> the field are very profitable.

Can't argue with that.

--
--
Lynn Wallace [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

03-10-2005, 11:49 AM

Raptor wrote:
> You get what you pay for.

>

Using the Forerunner 301 which is Garmin's first attempt at a heart
rate monitor. Is it not as good as the others out there?

> "Moderately easy 6 mile runs" aren't a good way to estimate your max.

> But you're right in alluding to your nine months of training. I
wouldn't
> be comfortable asking a couch potato to find their max. Always ramp
up
> gradually in terms of intensity and training volume.
>
> In your case, I suggest going harder. Not all the time, just enough
> times to get your HR up there. Listen to your body, blah blah, and
> always approach your limits with care.

Having trouble determining those limits now with the data from the
Forerunner. Wasn't trying to find the limits initially because the
Forerunner calculates the stock heart rate zones based on the personal
information in the setup. The runs were semi-cruise runs (9-10
min/mile). That's why I was surprised the average hbm were so high
compared to the stock numbers in the Forerunner. Resetting the zones
to match the data estimating a 60%-70% or a 70%-80% effort would put
the max off the chart and the 80%-90% and 90%-100% zones at very high
levels.

>But after a few such workouts
> (varieties of self tests are available for the searching), you'll
gain a
> useful understanding of your max.
>
> Then you can calculate zones based on percentages, and exercise
strictly
> accordingly. Or, you can just work out like you usually do.

Still do without any apparent problem at a comfortable pace. I'm not
one of the gung-ho types I see breezing by me in the morning.
But...the heart rate numbers make determining the zones unrealistic at
least in this instance.

Finally, you DON'T always get what you pay for. :^) Insurance companies
and similar organizations are among the most profitable companies in
America for a reason. If you look closely even the "non-profits" in
the field are very profitable.

> If you're
> not a competitive or otherwise serious athlete, the latter suffices.
>
> --
> --
> Lynn Wallace [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> "We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
> a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
> them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
> could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
> instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

03-10-2005, 10:54 PM

Raptor wrote:
> I don't see why, unless your monitor's programming just doesn't let it
> function in your body's high range. Just tell it to use your parameters.

Re Raptor's suggestion:

My perceived maxHR from rowing doing Conconi tests once a week for a
month or so didn't seem to fit the Polar program/zones/whatever. On my
Polar I chose to input my age as 25, even though I'm a decade+ older. It
just seemed to fit better with the built-in curves/program.

My numbers were about 20% higher than the norm for my age, and looking
at the normalized charts I picked out age 25. I seem to remember my
maxHR varying by about 3 beats over 5 or 6 Conconi tests, lower towards
the latter tests I think. I also had been to a medical checkup a few
months before I started with a HRM so I was relatively confident I
wouldn't kill myself.

My HRM benefit is that it paces me better, allowing me to keep the
workload up for a longer period, not peaking and burning out in the
beginning. I have tried measuring my rest HR in the mornings, but it's a
hassle with the belt, and just putting it on pulls my HR up and it takes
some time to get it down, enough time for me to fall asleep again! :-)

My 2 cents worth, might not be worth any sense either...

br Franklin