 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / June 2006Heart Rate Monitor
Are these any good? The ones I see at Wal-Mart and HSN look ugly! I feel I would use it once, learn from it, and never use it again. How long will they last? Do you know of any good ones? Is it worth it, Christopher Lusardi > Are these any good? The ones I see at Wal-Mart and HSN look ugly! I > feel I would use it once, learn from it, and never use it again. How > long will they last? Do you know of any good ones? Well hopefully your fitness would improve over time, so if you were going to use it effectively you would need to use it more than once. I have one of the less expensive Polar models and have used it for 2+ years and it is still working well. There is a free method of taking your heart rate; you might try that first. Rate of perceived exertion can also work quite well. > Are these any good? The ones I see at Wal-Mart and HSN look ugly! I > feel I would use it once, learn from it, and never use it again. How > long will they last? Do you know of any good ones? > > Is it worth it, > Christopher Lusardi They work fine but you're right about what will happen. You will use it for awhile, until you get an idea about your heart rate at various speeds, then you'll stop using it. Don't waste your money. Paul >> Are these any good? The ones I see at Wal-Mart and HSN look ugly! I >> feel I would use it once, learn from it, and never use it again. How [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Paul Or you might end up using it long-term. I use my Polar HRM everytime I exercise for the past 1 1/2 years. It keeps me honest one how hard I am working and helps when I introduce a new activity/DVD. Some of the best money I spent!  SignatureTanukiki (mom of 2 wonderful boys) Pre-baby #2 weight 239 (in 2004) Started WW 01/21/06 Reached 10% 03/18/06 205.4/179.4/150 -- Leader of the Cult of Worshippers of BiPolar Long-Haired Sexy Anime Guys with Swords > Are these any good? The ones I see at Wal-Mart and HSN look ugly! I > feel I would use it once, learn from it, and never use it again. How > long will they last? It depends your goals. If you're looking to improve your aerobic capacity and endurance, an HRM can be an excellent tool to help guide you. I've used one for the past 9 years. I find that even though I can pretty much guess my heart rate, it's a good way to keep testing my fitness and improve even more. For the most part, it keeps me from pushing too hard on days that should be easy (recovery days). As for it being ulgy, well I don't wear it as a fashion statement, but lately the Polar styles have improved. Do you know of any good ones? Polar is a good quality HRM. SignaturePhil M. > Are these any good? The ones I see at Wal-Mart and HSN look ugly! It does seem like it needs a bit of lace or satin.......... I just ordered a navy blue Polar Fitness Heart Rate Monitors from HSN. I'll receive it in about 10 days. They also have bright yellow monitors. The way it works is you place a strap around your chest and it sends your heart rate to the watch. Does anybody have care instructions or suggestions on using them? Christopher Lusardi > I just ordered a navy blue Polar Fitness Heart Rate Monitors from HSN. > I'll receive it in about 10 days. They also have bright yellow [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Does anybody have care instructions or suggestions on using them? Your monitor will come with instructions. As for suggestions, what do you want it to do for you? > Your monitor will come with instructions. As for suggestions, what do you > want it to do for you? The instructions will cover everything. So, my guess is that there are no tricks such as fold it this way, apply pressure, and the straps will break. Well, I was thinking of using it to jog at the correct rate. In the past, I would jog for a 28 minutes (standing still) then jog faster for a minute, and for the last minute I would jog faster by doing 4 exercises (bring knees slowly higher, lean back, lean forward, and then a funny straddle run). When I'm done, I would use that equation that's based on your age, and weight (I think). Basically, I would time my heart rate for 6 seconds, if it's 11 beats then I did a good run. I've been doing that for almost 9 years. I might also want to experiment with it when I do my weight lifting. I've never ever done that before! I do all this to maintain good health. I'm 49 years old, and weigh 153 pounds. So, how can you help me. If you give me anything besides the equation please, please, please give me an Internet reference! Thank you, Christopher Lusardi > I might also want to experiment with it when I do my weight lifting. > I've never ever done that before! The heart rate takes a while to respond to strenuous exercise so I don't think it would be very useful to gauge the intensity of a strength training routine. It might help if you're working in circuits. Will~ >> I might also want to experiment with it when I do my weight lifting. >> I've never ever done that before! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > training > routine. > Are these any good? The ones I see at Wal-Mart and HSN look ugly! They aren't for fashion. > I feel I would use it once, learn from it, and never use it again. If you use it and learn from it, isn't that reason enough? > How long will they last? Do you know of any good ones? I got a Polar one for about $70 that I use frequently. It has a lap function i sometimes use in the pool, and an audible alarm that sounds if I get out of the range I'm using for that particular run. I particularly like it for the long slow distance zone 1 runs. It's hard to run that slow, and the alarm tells me when my heart rate is creeping up. It gives me permission to take it really easy. The other time I like it is during a race. If I get too comfortable I ought to be picking it up a bit. I've set the alarm to tell me to speed up if my heart rate drops too low. For me, having the heart rate monitor is like having a coach that knows exactly how I'm doing. I appreciate the feedback and I use it when I'm doing deliberate training runs. But if I'm just going out to sweat for half an hour with no particular goal in mind then I don't wear it. Dally I received the polar watch yesterday and tried it during my 30 minute run. I've been jogging in my home for 9 years, but I had difficulty getting into the good heart rate range! I had to run at full steam to get in there, but I would quickly fall out. My range was set to 112 to 150. This range is based on the equation 0.65 X (220 - age) < Desired Measurement < 0.9 X (220 - age). My age is 49. Does anyone have any practical suggestions on how to get and stay in that range, or should I use another equation? Thank you, Christopher Lusardi > I received the polar watch yesterday and tried it during my 30 minute > run. I've been jogging in my home for 9 years, but I had difficulty [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Thank you, > Christopher Lusardi Intervals can help to get your heart rate up. For example, run 10-20 minutes, then run hard for 5 minutes, back to pace for 5 minutes and then hard again for another 5, then continue on at a normal pace. Signaturejmk in NC > I received the polar watch yesterday and tried it during my 30 minute > run. I've been jogging in my home for 9 years, but I had difficulty [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Does anyone have any practical suggestions on how to get and stay in > that range, or should I use another equation? Any equation, and the one you are using especially, is just a rough estimate that works for some people. You can google for a "Heart Rate Reserve" formula that is a better guess for more people, but the best approach would be to use testing to determine the training zones best for you. Also be aware that it takes a little time for your heart rate to respond to exercise so you might try running at your normal pace for at least 5 minutes (longer if you are just starting your run without a warmup) before deciding that you need to run faster. > > I had difficulty getting into the good heart rate range! I had to > > run at full steam to get in there, but I would quickly fall out. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that works for some people. You can google for a "Heart Rate Reserve" > formula that is a better guess for more people You are correct about the integrity of "any equation". But the HRR formula is not an alternative for estimating MHR. Instead, it uses your MHR estimate (however you choose to determine it) to estimate a different target heart range. And ironically, the Karvonen formula (most-commonly used) computes __higher__ THR limits for the same percentages. So the OP would have an even harder time staying above the lower limit. The key is how MHR is estimated. There are several popular formulas. But IMHO, any formula should only be a starting point for you to estimate your MHR empirically. Statistically, we would expect half the population to have a lower MHR than any formula would predict. > I received the polar watch yesterday and tried it during my 30 minute > run. I've been jogging in my home for 9 years, but I had difficulty > getting into the good heart rate range! I had to run at full steam to > get in there, but I would quickly fall out. Since you are an experienced runner, do __not__ change the intensity of your routine based on the HRM readings -- at least, not right away. Instead, base your interpretation of the HRM readings (i.e. your target range) on your performance. More about that below. > My range was set to 112 to 150. This range is based on the equation > 0.65 X (220 - age) < Desired Measurement < 0.9 X (220 - age). That is the aerobic range (roughly). But you do not say what percentage requires you to "run at full steam to get in there". Hopefully it is something higher than 65%. In any case, "220 - age" is merely an estimate. Statistically, it is too high for about 50% of the population. > Does anyone have any practical suggestions on how to get > and stay in that range, or should I use another equation? None of the above. There are many factors to consider. First, what type of HR "monitor" do you have? If it does not have a chest strap and if it does not continuously monitor your HR, you might be getting misleading readings. Even with a chest strap, you might be getting faulty readings for a variety of reasons, some due to misusage. Second, even if you have an "accurate" MHR estimate, that does not mean that you "must" or "should" exercise within a particular percentage range, e.g. 80-85%. Choose a range that you are "comfortable" with. By "comfortable", I mean: you feel "exerted" during exercise, but you do not feel "exhausted" either during or afterwards. (Ignore that advice if you are training for an athletic competition. And of course, there is much to be said for interval training.) Of course, that perception will change depending on many extrinsic factors such as mood. That is why an HRM is useful, once it is properly "calibrated" to your body. Assuming that you have confidence in the HR readings, I suggest that you determine your MHR empirically, perhaps using a formula (any formula) as a guide initially. Basically, use your perceived exertion (breathing) to estimate your percentage MHR. Do this many times over a period of time -- many exercise sessions -- to home in on a consistent MHR estimate. Remember that RPE is __perceived__ exertion. Many things can adversely affect the accuracy of your perception at any one time. And some will argue that many things can adversely affect the consistency of your HR. So you can expect some variability. Here is a crude example. I use a "talk test" to determine RPE. When I am walking casually, I can easily say the first sentence (paragraph!) of the Gettysburg Address without taking a breath. When I am exercising "full tilt" but still not gasping for breath, I can say only the first few words. I assume that the HRs at those limits, say 90 and 170, represent about 50% and 90% MHR respectively. In one case, I estimate my MHR to be 180 (90 / 0.50); in the other case, I estimate 189 (170 / 0.90). Over a period of time (many exercise sessions), I fine-tune my perception using intermediate levels of RPE and the variability, so that eventually I home in on a reasonably consistent number. Some important caveats .... The high-end perceived exertion might be closer to 85% for unfit people; even lower for extremely unfit people. But by using the higher percentage of 90%, such people are more likely to estimate a lower safer MHR at first. Conversely, very fit athletic people might assume that their high-end perceived exertion represents 95% MHR. Using 95% might underestimate MHR somewhat, but that is safer than overestimating. Serious athletes should have a clinical treadmill test to estimate MHR "accurately". (There is always some degree of uncertainty.) I'm going to try the Karvonen heart rate formula tonight per the URL: http://www.getactivemagazine.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=5609 What are all these acronyms (MHR etc) everyone is throwing at me? What other acronyms are important? Still trying to use the polar watch, Christopher Lusardi > I'm going to try the Karvonen heart rate formula tonight per the URL: http://www.getactivemagazine.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=5 609 > What are all these acronyms (MHR etc) everyone is throwing at me? What > other acronyms are important? MHR is maximal heart rate; HRR is heart rate reserve. In further reading on the subject you might also see LT=lactate threshold or AT=anaerobic threshold (these two are roughly equivalent) and VO2max=roughly the maximum amount of oxygen that can be consumed. > MHR is maximal heart rate; HRR is heart rate reserve. And a couple others.... RHR is resting heart rate. THR is target heart rate or range. FYI, there is disagreement on how to determine RHR. For Karvonen, it really is supposed to be your heart rate (HR) just after waking -- ideally before getting out of bed. If you use the other definitions (what I call "relaxing heart rate"), you are likely to estimate much higher THRs. >> MHR is maximal heart rate; HRR is heart rate reserve. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other definitions (what I call "relaxing heart rate"), you are likely > to estimate much higher THRs. There is a decent explanation of this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate Signaturejmk in NC > I'm going to try the Karvonen heart rate formula tonight Why? I mean: how does that address your problem? You wrote: "I had difficulty getting into the good heart rate range! I had to run at full steam to get in there, but I would quickly fall out". Le'ts suppose you think the "good heart rate range" starts at 75%. That means that you have trouble getting your HR over 128 = 75%*MHR, where MHR is 171 = 220 - 49 for your age. Let's say your RHR is 70. If you shoot for the same THR (75%) with Karvonen, your HR will need to be over 145 = 75%*MHR + RHR*(1-75%). You have trouble reaching 128. Can you imagine the trouble you will have reaching 145? Notice how I wrote the Karvonen formula, differently than the normal x%*(MHR - RHR) + RHR. I want to emphasize that for the same percentage (x%), the Karvonen THR is always higher than the normal x%*MHR because you are adding a factor, RHR*(1-x%). However, having said that, I might point out that when you use Karvonen, you should use lower percentages for the same target intensity ("zone"). However, there is much disagreement about what those percentages are. Most people simply apply the same percentages to both normal and Karvonen methods of computing THRs. It makes their ego feel better because it is a much higher number. ("No pain, no gain". Bah!) > Still trying to use the polar watch Use your Polar to monitor your HR, but use your head to set your THRs. > > I'm going to try the Karvonen heart rate formula tonight > > Why? Well, I'm going to try the K. equation so that I can achieve my ultimate goal of living a good healthy life. I exercise just to maintain good healfh. I have never been sick in my life. I've been running in my home for 9 years (standing still so that I can go around in circles etc), but it was at a very slow pace of <= 4 miles per hour. When I tried the 0.65 X (220 - age) equation, it didn't seem appropriate to me. What seemed wrong was that in general the resting heart rates of people are different, they have different size hearts, etc, etc, etc. So, I didn't see anything in the non-K. equation that addressed that. I had to run real hard to get to 112 beats per minute and even harder to get my heart rate to 150. I have never timed my heart like this before and I was surprised to see it go so high. I thus would like to at least give the Karvonen equation a test try. Maybe it is a more realistic equation and I can learn from it. My resting heart rate is 45 beats per minute. Again, if I use the non-K equation I doubt that I will ever be able to stay in the required range for any amount of good time. But, I might speed up after I finish my research. It would probably be well below the range I have always silently believed in. I am in investigation mode right now and hoping for the best down the line "some where". Thank you, Christopher Lusardi > Well, I'm going to try the K. equation so that I can achieve my > ultimate goal of living a good healthy life. You do not need Karvonen in order to achieve "a good healthy life". The purpose of Karvonen is to push athletes to achieve their full performance potential. Of course, it cannot hurt others to use Karvonen. As you say, since it takes RHR into account, it might improve your cardio fitness. But there are other equally good ways to achieve that, for example simply by consistently shooting for higher intensity commensurate with your fitness level and by doing interval training. (Another one of your postings indicates that you already integrate resistance training program into your routine.) > I exercise just to > maintain good healfh. I have never been sick in my life. "Don't fix what ain't broke". Although there is always something to be said for making improvements. > I've been running in my home for 9 years (standing still so that I can go around > in circles etc), but it was at a very slow pace of <= 4 miles per hour. I do not understand "standing still so that I go around in circles". I think you are talking about "running in place". That is not a very effective way to run. It would be better if you could run on a treadmill, a track or some other circuit (street or field) -- some place that permits forward motion. And if you can only achieve no more than 4 MPH, I would be very careful about pushing harder too quickly. > When I tried the 0.65 X (220 - age) equation, it didn't seem > appropriate to me. As I explained, it is you max heart rate estimate (220 -age) that is most likely inappropriately. But in your case, it seems inappropriately high. I do not understand, then, why you want to aim even higher with Karvonen. Please note that Karvonen uses the same "max heart rate" estimate, however you choose to determine it (220 - age, in your case). > What seemed wrong was that in general the resting > heart rates of people are different, they have different size hearts, > etc, etc, etc. So, I didn't see anything in the non-K. equation that > addressed that. You are absolutely right. In effect, the non-K formulas assume a resting heart rate of zero. The purpose of Karvonen is get people's heart rate higher into the "heart rate reserve" range; that is, higher above their resting heart rate. > I had to run real hard to get to 112 beats per minute > and even harder to get my heart rate to 150. [.... ] I thus > would like to at least give the Karvonen equation a test try. A person has to do what a person has to do, to paraphrase "Dirty Harry"(?). I just want to be sure that you understand clearly that Karvonen will set your target heart rates higher, not lower, because of your resting heart rate. > Maybe it is a more realistic equation and I can learn from it. Yes it is, to some degree. On the other hand, considering the statistical "error" for all of these formulas, we are really talking about a small degree of "realism". The more important thing is to estimate your max heart rate better. The best way is a clinical test, which few us can afford, much less need. I offered an alternative procedure that you can easily do yourself. > My resting heart rate is 45 beats per minute. Again, if I use the > non-K equation I doubt that I will ever be able to stay in the required > range for any amount of good time. And you will be even less likely to stay within the "required" range based on Karvonen. You might be mistakenly thinking that a lower resting heart rate will lower your target heart rate. Well, it does. But the point you might not realize is: the non-K formulas effectively use zero for the resting heart rate. You cannot get any lower than that. > I am in investigation mode right now and hoping for the best down > the line "some where". That's cool. I am a strong believer in making informed decisions based on research. I hope my comments help in your understanding, interpretation and application of that research. Good luck! >> > I'm going to try the Karvonen heart rate formula tonight >> >> Why? Just a thought, but www.about.com has quite a lot of fitness stuff, and uses a "Perceived Exertion Rate", which could be another option. Jen > Are these any good? The ones I see at Wal-Mart and HSN look ugly! I > feel I would use it once, learn from it, and never use it again. How > long will they last? Do you know of any good ones? > > Is it worth it, > Christopher Lusardi I tried the Karvonen heart formula and like it. It's based on the equation: 0.65 X (220 - age - RHR) + RHR < HEART_RATE < 0.85 X (220 - age -RHR) + RHR where RHR is resting heart rate. My range (82 < heart_rate < 152 is easy to maintain. My RHR is 45. What do you think? Christopher Lusardi > > Are these any good? The ones I see at Wal-Mart and HSN look ugly! I > > feel I would use it once, learn from it, and never use it again. How [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What do you think? If you like the results, run with it. But you might want to check your math; it looks like you forgot to add back the RHR on the first part so it should be 127-152. But as already been mentioned, that might not be right for you. > > I tried the Karvonen heart formula and like it. It's based on the > > equation: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it looks like you forgot to add back the RHR on the first part so it should > be 127-152. But as already been mentioned, that might not be right for you. Well, I have to try that for a while. Thanks, Christopher Lusardi Can someone explain how to use the Karvonen heart formula zones (1 to ?). I don't compete, and I am only interested in leading a long healthy life. Christopher Lusardi clusardi2k@aol.com wrote: > Can someone explain how to use the Karvonen heart formula zones (1 to > ?). I don't compete, and I am only interested in leading a long healthy > life. Here's a site that I think explains it pretty well: http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/activity/thr.htm SignaturePhil M. > clusardi2k@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Here's a site that I think explains it pretty well: > http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/activity/thr.htm What about the zones described here: http://www.best-running-tips.com/heart-rate-monitor-training-karvonen.html Thanks, Christopher Lusardi In order to be politically correct, I'm going to begin using the following equation every Thursday. 0.65 X (220 - age) < Heart Rate < 0.90 X (220 - age) Thus, for 7 minutes, I will run in that range for a minute, run slower for a minute, run in that range for a minute, run slower for a minute, run in that range for a minute, run slower for a minute, run in that range for a minute. That's 4 minutes total and doesn't sound daunting. Okay, that's my intentions for today. I'll keep my fingers crossed all day and maybe it will work out in the end. I may increase the time if all goes well. If it doesn't work out for me then I may try moving this exercise to a day when I don't lift weights for an hour or reduce the runs to 8 thirty second exercises or something. Any suggestions? I'm running only for the health benefits, and am not revving up for competition. Last week was the first time I tried my polar watch. I don't know if it was psychological or not but for days afterwards my heart felt like it was water logged. Thank you, Christopher Lusardi >In order to be politically correct, I'm going to begin using the >following equation every Thursday. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Thank you, >Christopher Lusardi If you're new to running, you may find that you need to slow down to a walk in the "rest" minutes, rather than a slower run, to get your heart rate to go down below the designated running range before the minute is up. Of course that depends on whether you're running at near the bottom or near the top of this range. (Also, it will take you a little time initially to get up into that range -- you won't just start there in your first minute on the treadmill.) Anyway, it's a fine idea to start with something that doesn't seem daunting to you and work up. I seriously doubt the use of the polar watch is affecting your heart. I suppose the exercise you did wearing it could do so, but your symptom (felt "water-logged") doesn't sound like anything I recognize. Did you do some kind of exercise that felt extremely stressful? Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 > I seriously doubt the use of the polar watch is affecting your heart. > I suppose the exercise you did wearing it could do so, but your > symptom (felt "water-logged") doesn't sound like anything I recognize. > Did you do some kind of exercise that felt extremely stressful? I think I felt water-logged because I have been drinking more water lately! I admit I felt a little stiffer for a few minutes this morning. And, a little pain in my heart, funny! I've been running 5 days a week for 9 years (at about 4 miles per hour for a half hour) without seriously worrying about my heart rate durning my runs. I do not use a tread mill because I get to run around in circles, make weird patterns on my exercise mat, and move my arms freely with weights etc. I also weight lift 4 hours a week. Anyway, I did the 4 minutes, as I describe above, without any difficulty. And, it really is embarresing to think that I felt it would be hard! (The combination of the new functionality of the watch and the fact that I never had to do this before caused my emotional distress and confusion.) You are right it took a while for my heart to get in the required range. So, I've decided to run 6 minutes straight in the range for four days a week. I'll try it every Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Sunday. I'll throw out Thursday if I have difficulty! I feel that if I do more than this it will put me in the category of pre-anorexic. This is because I run for the health benefits and not to compete. I also like some variation. Is this good or bad? Thanks, Christopher Lusardi >I've been running 5 days a week for 9 years (at about 4 miles per hour >for a half hour) without seriously worrying about my heart rate durning [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >fact that I never had to do this before caused my emotional distress >and confusion.) Yeah, it was your anxiety about that that made me conclude you were a beginning runner. You just need to get used to the monitoring idea :-). >You are right it took a while for my heart to get in the required >range. So, I've decided to run 6 minutes straight in the range for four [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >pre-anorexic. This is because I run for the health benefits and not to >compete. I also like some variation. I don't understand why you think that running more than 24 minutes a week would make you pre-anorexic. That really isn't very much running, and the target range shouldn't be that taxing. I can certainly see that you wouldn't want to do all-out sprints for long periods, but this shouldn't be anything like that, at least unless you're going for the top of the range. I will generally run that long in the target range in a single session. (And I'm 58 years old, by the way, and not a competition runner or anything near it.) Exercise anorexics are more like people who run 10 miles a day or some such to support a goal of being super-skinny. You don't seem even close. I agree that variation is good. Your running plan doesn't sound like it involves much variation. You might want to consider a plan where you do a long, slow day (where "long" is up to you, and probably increases over time), a short, faster day, and an interval day -- or something along those lines. I change my cardio around all the time. (I also lift 4 hours per week and do yoga 2 or 3 times a week.) Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.