Heart rate monitors

jontymo
jontymo Posts: 127
edited October 2009 in Road beginners
I'm after some advice and recommendations on heart rate monitors.

I have just got my 1st road bike to help me get fitter and to try and lose some weight, i'm currently on tablets for blood pressure, i'm aged 40 and 16 stone, the reason for the monitor is i live in a very hilly area and basically do not have much of a warm up before what is basically a 2 mile steepish climb, i do not fancy pushing my heart to much before hopefully getting to a decent level of fitness and trying to reverse the high blood pressure issues etc.

I don't want to spend to much but want something i can rely on, any suggestions, recommendations on monitors fitness etc will be taken on board.

Thanks all, Jon

Comments

  • Garz
    Garz Posts: 1,155
    Firstly get the cheap and cheerful aldi/lidl ones to get you using one for a nice beginner guage.
  • At 55 with a kidney problem, I also have (ridiculously) high blood pressure. I've found that the most important bit about cycling with high BP is to take it very very gradually but regularly, and steadily build up your fitness. I bought myself a dead cheap HR monitor - £10, I think - from Aldi a short while ago but I've never used it - I thought that it would make cycling feel too much like a medical examination and I decided that it was more important for me to simply enjoy being out on a bike. That's a personal choice, of course - you may motivate yourself differently. I like to know that I've climbed 25 metres more than last week or that I've kept up my mileage but it's more important to know that I've spent a good period of time on the bike.

    Bear in mind, too, that if you're taking beta-blockers (they were until recently a pretty bog-standard one-size-fits-all prescription for high BP) that they actually reduce your pulse rate. It would be a good idea to discuss this with your prescribing doctor, firstly to check whether you should lower your heart rate targets because of the tablets, and secondly, to discuss whether there are alternative medications for your condition. I found that I feel much better with ACE inhibitors and, especially, calcium-channel antagonists, which don't steal all the adrenalin from your system and set your heart to sleep mode.

    And, jonty, it sounds like the return leg of your rides could be a lot of fun - 2 miles of ''wheeeee!!''
  • tav1969
    tav1969 Posts: 49
    I have a Garmin FR60, which is like a more rugged version of the Forerunner 50. The FR60 is quite new, hence up around the £100 mark (I think I got it with HRM and running footpod for £130). The 50 should be relatively cheap though, I think around £50 complete with HRM strap. The 50 can also be paired with a foot pod, and speed/cadence sensor, should you wish to expand the functionality in the future.
  • pickled
    pickled Posts: 439
    I've no idea whether these cheapo HRM are any good or not.
    But I'd spend a little bit more on a good one with a nice comfortable chest strap.
    Polar make great ones at most price points.
    I'd definitely wear one though. It gives great piece of mind for a start, and you're right, you don't want to be pushing it too much too soon.
    The fitness will come.
    When I started running a few years back I kept a diary and noted distance, average pace and average heart/max rate.
    You will then be able to see your fitness improve as you see over a period of time the average heart rate coming down and your distances going up.

    But then I'm a loser...
  • DubaiNeil
    DubaiNeil Posts: 246
    I agree with Pickled, just recommend Garmin over Polar :wink:

    One thing I found using a more capable product (having tried an entry level HRM previously) was the added interest and impetus that came from tracking my training.

    The additional motivation to go out a record a "score" (be that good. bad or indifferent) made me feel like I actually had a training partner (what a saddo I am!) and would get me out on days where I felt like slobbing out instead.

    That, and the ability to download to a PC, map on Google Earth, create training plans to follow etc gave me a lot more value than I would have thought to start with.

    Additionally the functionality of the higher spec models may actually be safer for you, with the ability to set alarms for heart rate etc, which may not be available on the lower end models.

    Neil
  • pickled
    pickled Posts: 439
    :D
    I have the Timex triathlon setup myself.
    When I bought mine the Garmin forerunner just looked ugly, plus I wanted a watch looking device as well.
    I'd now buy the new forerunner though.(305?) It looks great.
    I thought the OP would want a cheaper option though!
  • Velonutter
    Velonutter Posts: 2,437
    I bought the Polar CS200CAD as I'm 50 shortly and was unfit.

    To be truthful I won't train without one, my supposed max heart rate should be 220- my age = 170, theoretically I should not exceed 145, however what I am now finding is that the fitter I get the higher my heart goes, so quite frequently it will go to 155 and I don't feel bad with it.

    The important thing is to watch out as when the pain or out of breath gets too bad, then back off or stop with nice deep breaths through your mouth.

    I now take biggish hills in the first instance in the the lowest gear i.e. 39/26 and then when I next visit the hill I move it up a gear until I no longer need to drop to the inner ring.

    It is vital that you don't overdo it on hills, there's no shame in walking up one, I however prefer to stop and catch my breath for a minute or two then commence again.

    HTH
  • cw42
    cw42 Posts: 205
    I've had expensive polar monitors in the past, and since being unable to get the battery changed went and bought the £13 aldi one. I had nothing to lose at that price!
    Man I'm surprised with the abilities of this little watch. Max/avg/min HRM for any ride. Own zones for specific training. Alarms to warn of over training. % of HRM permanently displayed while monitoring. Clear and easy to read. Light. Perfect.
    For the price, and as a beginning into the world of HRM, you can't go wrong :)
    live long, eat biscuit
  • John.T
    John.T Posts: 3,698
    Slow-N-Old wrote:
    I bought the Polar CS200CAD as I'm 50 shortly and was unfit.

    To be truthful I won't train without one, my supposed max heart rate should be 220- my age = 170, theoretically I should not exceed 145, however what I am now finding is that the fitter I get the higher my heart goes, so quite frequently it will go to 155 and I don't feel bad with it.
    You should take 220 - your age with a pinch of salt. It is most unreliable. I am 67 and can ride a 10mile TT at above my 'max' of 153. My real 'max' is closer to 170. My threshhold is probably around the 155 mark. Above this I go into the red fairly quickly.
    Assuming there are no medical reasons to not push yourself you can get a rough estimate of your max HR by doing a thorough warm up then ride hard but not b*lls out so you can maintain the speed for at least 5 min. Do this several times and average the max HR recorded. This should be around 80 to 85% of max. If you do not exede this figure too much you will not do any harm. This is a rough guide only. A proper max HR test should only be done under proper supervision.
  • Velonutter
    Velonutter Posts: 2,437
    Cheers John, I shall bear that in mind.

    Where can I get an accurate measurement done?
  • jontymo
    jontymo Posts: 127
    Cheers guys, lots of good advice, thats whats ace about this site.

    Jon
  • pst88
    pst88 Posts: 621
    I had a cheap (£10-20 so still more than i'd like to waste) one from tescos which was terrible, more like a random number generator. It'd say wildly fluctuating values that were way off from what I got if I just counted my pulse against a clock. I'd say avoid the cheap ones, pay a bit more and get a semi decent one that actually works.
    Bianchi Via Nirone Veloce/Centaur 2010
  • tav1969
    tav1969 Posts: 49
    Regarding max heart rate, I'm not sure how you measure it on a bike, but I presume one way would be some interval/hill type training. For running, you can blast as fast as you can up a hill of at least 100m, then jog down. Repeat 5 times, and the max on the last climb is pretty much your max heart rate.
  • pickled
    pickled Posts: 439
    Surely a test like that for someone who hasn't done much exercise for a long time and is, lets say of advancing years and a little wider round the waist than they used to be, could be very dangerous?

    There must be a better way of figuring out max heart rate than red lining yourself?
  • Headhuunter
    Headhuunter Posts: 6,494
    At 55 with a kidney problem, I also have (ridiculously) high blood pressure. I've found that the most important bit about cycling with high BP is to take it very very gradually but regularly, and steadily build up your fitness. I bought myself a dead cheap HR monitor - £10, I think - from Aldi a short while ago but I've never used it - I thought that it would make cycling feel too much like a medical examination and I decided that it was more important for me to simply enjoy being out on a bike. That's a personal choice, of course - you may motivate yourself differently. I like to know that I've climbed 25 metres more than last week or that I've kept up my mileage but it's more important to know that I've spent a good period of time on the bike.

    Bear in mind, too, that if you're taking beta-blockers (they were until recently a pretty bog-standard one-size-fits-all prescription for high BP) that they actually reduce your pulse rate. It would be a good idea to discuss this with your prescribing doctor, firstly to check whether you should lower your heart rate targets because of the tablets, and secondly, to discuss whether there are alternative medications for your condition. I found that I feel much better with ACE inhibitors and, especially, calcium-channel antagonists, which don't steal all the adrenalin from your system and set your heart to sleep mode.

    And, jonty, it sounds like the return leg of your rides could be a lot of fun - 2 miles of ''wheeeee!!''

    What exactly is the correlation between heart rate and blood pressure? My resting heart rate is quite low (between 40-48 bpm) but my diastolic (the reading you get when the heart is pumping - or is that systolic?) blood pressure has come out quite high sometimes although only a couple of times and the doctor has always said it's nothing to worry about. Why should a heart rate monitor help you watch your blood pressure? Surely you need a blod pressure reading thing?
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • Headhuunter,

    [quoteWhat exactly is the correlation between heart rate and blood pressure? My resting heart rate is quite low (between 40-48 bpm) but my diastolic (the reading you get when the heart is pumping - or is that systolic?) blood pressure has come out quite high sometimes although only a couple of times and the doctor has always said it's nothing to worry about. Why should a heart rate monitor help you watch your blood pressure? Surely you need a blod pressure reading thing?][/quote]

    I don't know the exact correlation between BP and HR but jonty mentioned taking tablets for BP and I know from experience that beta-blockers (if that's what he's been prescribed) do lower pulse rate. I don't know whether that is a planned for consequence or just a side effect of beta-blockers but they do slow the old ticker down, and the feeling with me, at least, was one of permanent energy-sapping sedation. Because the heart is being slowed down throughout the whole range of exertion, I thought that it might be wise to ask his prescribing doctor for advice about whether the max HR target should be lowered accordingly. It was ''just in case'' advice.

    The lower reading - the lowest point at which a meter can detect a pulse - is the diastolic, and the higher one is the systolic - this is the point where blood can no longer get through. There is a name for those meters and I've forgotten what it is but blood pressure meter is pretty clear
  • tav1969
    tav1969 Posts: 49
    pickled wrote:
    Surely a test like that for someone who hasn't done much exercise for a long time and is, lets say of advancing years and a little wider round the waist than they used to be, could be very dangerous?

    There must be a better way of figuring out max heart rate than red lining yourself?

    Yes I agree. I would suggest building up some base fitness first, as well as consulting a GP, possibly getting a full medical from somewhere. Everyone over 35 should consult a GP before embarking on a fitness programme, apparently.

    However, max heart rate is best calculated empirically, as far as I know.
  • zedders
    zedders Posts: 509
    If you don't have a cycle computer yet then IMO the Polar 200Cad cycle computer/HRM is a good basic piece of kit. Note sure what your budget is but one can be had for £80. But you can get a basic HRM a lot cheaper for sure. However having a cycle computer and HRM in one is nice.

    Using the HRM is pretty simple and it will record up to seven training runs before you need to download the files. Your files can be downloaded to your own account via Polar, and its free. (Note: It can be a pain to download, but that's another issue)

    Baring in mind it will also give time, speed, distance etc it is a good little training tool, to help monitor your training/fitness.

    Good look with fitness programme!
    "I spend my petrol money on Bikes, Beer, Pizza, and Donuts "

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/38256268@N04/3517156549/
  • Velonutter
    Velonutter Posts: 2,437
    I have the Polar CS200 Cad and I find it exceptionally useful.

    I have two sets of mounts and sensors, one on my Main Carbon Bike and the other on my Winter training bike.

    At nearly 50 I would n't ride a bike without one!