I'm maybe looking to replace my HRM. What monitors does everyone else use and what features turned out to be worth the effort? Right now I've got the Polar rs800. I like being able to program in workouts especially intervals so I don't have to keep peeking at the watch to see when I'm done. I got the fancy watch to get the PolarProTrainer software. Don't use it that much except as an easy way to log hours.
Dave
FasterSkier Forums » Gear
which HRM and why?
(7 posts)-
Posted 11 months ago #
-
I have a Garmin 305 and have not been impressed with it. I do not get a reliably good heart rate signal with it in the summer, and more often then not do not get a good signal in the winter. I have tried different straps and gels with no success. I am also on my or fourth one. The first one lasted 2-3 years. The next one the beep became too quiet to hear pretty rapidly. The third would sporadically drop satellite signal and the beep got too quiet to hear roller skiing again. All of the replacements were refurbished units provided by Garmin. I suspect a lot of the beep problems are due to sweat getting in the speaker area.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Hi Dave,
You're right, why is at least as important as which HRM. How well you us'm is way more important than which one. I've have or do own, a Polar, Timex, 3 different Garmins & others. I have not had the beeper problem w/ my Forerunner 305 but that has been a universal problem w/ all brands I've owned eventually. Sometimes a new battery fixes that. I've had both Garmins & Polars that would not provide a reliable HR signal.
At this point I like GPS-HRMs for several reasons. Seeing how I do on different parts of a race course, MapMyRide, providing course maps w/ elevation profiles (use the Edge 305 for that), & etc.
The nice thing about Polar is their web site does a pretty good job of supporting you to make good use of their HRMs. The most important aspect of HRM us is establishing your training Zones. Polar is a big help w/ that & the 800 is one of their top models. And the Polar software will track time in zone cumulative over a year/season.
Dave how are you setting your HR Zones?
Are you using a training plan w/ HR goals?Posted 11 months ago # -
Originally, I set the HR zones just by % of max. I sort of fine tuned them after some 3km time trials and some advice from Yuri at CXC. This year, I've just started following the ideas of Joe Friel, the triathlon coach. The HR zones are based on your lactate threshold as determined by a 20 minute time trial. Interestingly, the end results for what HR to use are pretty similar.
DavePosted 11 months ago # -
Dave, sounds like we've followed a similar route. Over 25 yrs., I've done blood lactate tests & 30 or 60 min. time trials. Like you my LTHR produced by these tests have been very similar. The 30 min. TT usually produces an LTHR that is 2-4 beats higher & Friel has written something similar in at least one of his books. And if you conduct the TT at altitudes of 5,000' or more, you need to drop the average HR you get by 5 or so beats.
But this leaves an important Zone without an easy measure - Zone 1. Then there is the question of what do you do w/ the info? As best I can tell, current research literature is not able to answer this basic question. A 2007 article by ESTEVE-LANAO, FOSTER, SEILER, & LUCIA: IMPACT OF TRAINING INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION ON PERFORMANCE IN ENDURANCE ATHLETES can be found with Google & may be worth your read. They state: "Although the underlying physiological adaptations
associated with improved endurance
performance with training are well established,
debate abounds regarding how one
should train to induce these adaptations and
translate them to performance gains. A key issue of debate
is the intensity of training and how the day-to-day
training intensity should be distributed."These researchers go on to use a 3-HR zone system to train a group of runners & show that too much training time in the middle, Zone 2, leads to reduced performance. Zone 1 goes up to 78% of max HR, top of Zone 2 goes to 90% of max. The max HR used in the study is a measured value not predicted. Max HR is what can be sustained for 30 sec?? I think. That's different from what my polar shows -max for 1 sec.
There are other ways to train but I like this simpler approach - do 80% of your training w/ HR below 78% of max HR & 20% doing intervals. Half of the interval time should be above your LTHR. You don't plan a workout to spend time in Zone 2 but you get some Z2 time on your way to Z3 during your intervals. Looks like the old LSD+intervals plan actually works.
A good HRM w/ good software makes it easy to track these goals.
Elite training programs may well have collected the data to support more complex training plans. Friel & several other authors propose more complex systems but so far there is no controlled study of these.
Today, nordic skiers are training more like sprinters with a very big endurance base of training. So 15+% of training volume is now devoted to strength & power training in addition to the LSD+intervals. I've not seen any HR specifications for strength/power training but you'll certainly get the heart pounding.
Hope this is helpful.
Posted 11 months ago # -
PS
I use a Mac & a shareware program called Ascent does a terrific job of downloading & displaying data from various HRMs.Posted 11 months ago # -
My friend puts in his two cents:
I have both Garmin and Polar 800.
Both have their + & -'s. The advantage of Garmin is the ability to track speed (= distance/time) and effort.
Polar only works on time and effort, thus assuming the user knows the distance.
Both units don't work efficiently near EHV environments (ie. streetcar or train lines).
The Polar has a better calorie counter, based on age and pulse. Garmin's is very basic, based on speed.
My opinion, go with Garmin.
Posted 11 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
