Are heart rate monitors any good?

[G2EWS]

Heart rate monitors are extremely useful for weight loss or for health reasons, but as already stated you MUST know what the figures mean.

The VO2 test or similar is critical, DCLane where are you getting yours done?

Regards

Chris

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Crikey! I wish I had your problem when I'm on the bike.

grasshopper, in order to learn to run (ride) fast first you must learn to run (ride) slow

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Heart rate monitors are extremely useful for weight loss or for health reasons, but as already stated you MUST know what the figures mean.

The VO2 test or similar is critical, DCLane where are you getting yours done?

Regards

Chris

How does a HRM help with weightloss?

 

[Red Light]

Please don't drag old stuff between threads, Red Light.

Thanks.

OK, in that case to defend myself against the accusations of ignorance without illustrations from CC, unless you have a cardiac stress test done (under medical supervision) so you know your MHR, then the numbers are meaningless. Just riding a few intervals isn't going to get your MHR without taking yourself to a heart rate where you should be medically supervised. And there are plenty of formulae out there but if you plug some different ages into those you come out with variations between formulae that are bigger than the differences between training zone heart rates. And that's before you allow for the natural variability in the population at a given age which can easily mean you are 10-30bpm out. Also heart rates running are different from heart rates cycling are different from heart rates for swimming. Its very easy for any individual who has not had a cardiac stress test MHR done to be out on the training zones by one or two zones or more.

So hands up here who has had a cardiac stress test MHR done?

At the end of the day, for most people other than athletes on a proper programme HRM figures are a curiosity of no particular meaning although people seem to enjoy slaving themselves to the numbers. But then some people like to cover themselves in techno-gadgets and some people just like to ride. Polar have a lot to answer for.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

How does a HRM help with weightloss?

Assuming you are wanting to train in a heart rate zone, then the HRM will help you achieve this more accurately.
I gather you don't believe HR has anything to do with weight loss?
In it's most basic, exercising at very low intensity might barely raise the heart rate at all and therefor not be considered an aerobic activity. The other end of the scale would be very high HR which becomes anaerobic activity.
Now if this burns glycogen rather than fat, which burns at a reported 50-85% HR, then the use of a HR monitor would be quite a useful tool indeed.
As i am sure you already no this then your counter argument must be that HR rate has nothing to do with fat burning?

 

[G2EWS]

How does a HRM help with weightloss?

Not got the information at hand, but the key is to working within a certain % of your max heart rate. The problem with most training is it takes you over that threshold where are obvious other benefits.

The first time I read about it, was the training manual for my 'commercial' cross trainer in the gym in my office. I understand it was the understanding of the fine parts of this that gave some of our athletes such as cyclists the edge some years ago.

Best regards

Chris

 

[G2EWS]

Now if this burns glycogen rather than fat, which burns at a reported 50-85% HR, then the use of a HR monitor would be quite a useful tool indeed.

That is the figure I remember!

Chris

 

[Rob3rt]

Red Light, You are correct that HR values vary between sports, but no-one said they didn't. I am fairly sure the Garmin devices aimed at triathlete's take this into account and allow several sets of zones to be defined.

As to comment on to your comment about finding MHR, you don't need exact numbers. You can get a close approximation of your MHR, this is all that is needed for the HR figures to be indicative enough to be of use.

Furthermore, some advise working from your lactate threshold as approximated using a less intense and therefore more regular testing and calculate a set of zones from there.

For a HR monitor to be useful, zones only need to be approximate for the numbers to be indicative of your intensity, you can sanity check by rating your perceived effort. Furthermore, you seem to completely miss the post-exercise benefit's of being able to monitor progression, even if your zones are substantially skewed, you can compare HR data to speed and power data and to perceived effort level ratings for given sessions over a period of time.

In the hands of a complete ignoramus they are useless, in the hands of someone who has a half decent understanding the use of such devices and the limitations, they are useful. Only a dummy goes solely on HR data, those who train smart use HR data as additional data that already includes subjective data such as feeling and objective data like power to build a better picture of what is going on etc

 

[Rob3rt]

Fat burning zones are a crock, it has been shown that you do burn a bit more fat in certain zones, however at higher intensities you will burn more total calories both during and after exercise in such a way that you offset the "fat burning zones" marginal increase in fat burning. I.e. at low intensity, calories from fat may account for a (marginally) higher percentage of total calories burnt than at high intensity, but at high intensity the total number of calories burnt will be (substantially) higher so even though a (marginally) lower percentage of the total calories comes from fat, more calories from fat are burnt regardless.

I.e. in this case, a smaller % of a lot of calories outweigh's a higher percentage of not a lot

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

OK, in that case to defend myself against the accusations of ignorance without illustrations from CC, unless you have a cardiac stress test done (under medical supervision) so you know your MHR, then the numbers are meaningless. Just riding a few intervals isn't going to get your MHR without taking yourself to a heart rate where you should be medically supervised. And there are plenty of formulae out there but if you plug some different ages into those you come out with variations between formulae that are bigger than the differences between training zone heart rates. And that's before you allow for the natural variability in the population at a given age which can easily mean you are 10-30bpm out. Also heart rates running are different from heart rates cycling are different from heart rates for swimming. Its very easy for any individual who has not had a cardiac stress test MHR done to be out on the training zones by one or two zones or more.

So hands up here who has had a cardiac stress test MHR done?

At the end of the day, for most people other than athletes on a proper programme HRM figures are a curiosity of no particular meaning although people seem to enjoy slaving themselves to the numbers. But then some people like to cover themselves in techno-gadgets and some people just like to ride. Polar have a lot to answer for.

You are correct that the most accurate way is to be tested but that does not mean you can not get close with your own testing. Don't half arse it with 220-age. That's so basic it's painful.
If you measure your resting heart rate every morning for a week then take the average that's a pretty good resting HR.
Max heart rate (cycling specific) can be measured over several outings where you warm up and get the blood pumping. Find a challenging hill and start off at a good 85-90%. After 5 mins of this get out the saddle and give it all you have for as long as you can. Usually somewhere between 15-30 seconds. Then check your readings when you upload them. Do this at least 3 times and take the average.
Are you suggesting this method would allow for your suggested inaccuracies?
If you are suggesting people are too often using the 220- your age method then i wholeheartedly agree.

 

[black'n'yellow]

OK, in that case to defend myself against the accusations of ignorance without illustrations from CC, unless you have a cardiac stress test done (under medical supervision) so you know your MHR, then the numbers are meaningless.

Wrong. As Robert says, all that is needed is an approximation.

Just riding a few intervals isn't going to get your MHR without taking yourself to a heart rate where you should be medically supervised.

Wrong again. You do not need medical supervision to ride at or near your MHR - althletes do it all the time in competition at all levels. Unless you have some kind of diagnosed heart condition.

And there are plenty of formulae out there but if you plug some different ages into those you come out with variations between formulae that are bigger than the differences between training zone heart rates. And that's before you allow for the natural variability in the population at a given age which can easily mean you are 10-30bpm out. Also heart rates running are different from heart rates cycling are different from heart rates for swimming. Its very easy for any individual who has not had a cardiac stress test MHR done to be out on the training zones by one or two zones or more.

Nobody (on this thread) is talking about '220 formulas' - so why are you? It is widely accepted that most - if not all of them - give inaccurate MHRs and it is also widely accepted that MHR differs between sports. So why even bring this up?

At the end of the day, for most people other than athletes on a proper programme HRM figures are a curiosity of no particular meaning although people seem to enjoy slaving themselves to the numbers.

Wrong again. Once you have an indication (whithin a few beats - it doesn't need to be exact) of your MHR, you can then set levels to train at which will make a real difference to your aerobic performance. Just because you don't know how to do it properly, does not mean nobody else does. Why not just leave the thread to people who understand the topic?

 

[amaferanga]

Heart rate monitors are extremely useful for weight loss or for health reasons, but as already stated you MUST know what the figures mean.

The VO2 test or similar is critical, DCLane where are you getting yours done?

Regards

Chris

Why is a VO2max test critical? All you need to know is your threshold HR (the ~HR you can maintain for ~1 hour) or your HRmax. An approximate value for either of those is good enough given the variability in HR due to e.g. stress, heat, caffeine, etc.

 

[amaferanga]

Aaaaargh the fat burning myth again!

It's a myth perpetuated by the fat and lazy as an excuse to barely break sweat when they 'exercise' and to then blame everyone but themselves when they don't lose weight.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Not got the information at hand, but the key is to working within a certain % of your max heart rate. The problem with most training is it takes you over that threshold where are obvious other benefits.

The first time I read about it, was the training manual for my 'commercial' cross trainer in the gym in my office. I understand it was the understanding of the fine parts of this that gave some of our athletes such as cyclists the edge some years ago.

Best regards

Chris

The key is diet. Nothing to do with bpm or mythical fat burning zones

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Assuming you are wanting to train in a heart rate zone, then the HRM will help you achieve this more accurately.
I gather you don't believe HR has anything to do with weight loss?
In it's most basic, exercising at very low intensity might barely raise the heart rate at all and therefor not be considered an aerobic activity. The other end of the scale would be very high HR which becomes anaerobic activity.
Now if this burns glycogen rather than fat, which burns at a reported 50-85% HR, then the use of a HR monitor would be quite a useful tool indeed.
As i am sure you already no this then your counter argument must be that HR rate has nothing to do with fat burning?

HR has zero to do with fat burning. That is a dietry issue not one based on heart rate. HR does have a part to play if you are training by it (Borg scale of RPE for example)