Heart Rate Monitors

Headhuunter

I've started using a heart rate monitor on my rides and runs, just out of interest really to see what levels my HR reaches.

According to most of the equations, my max HR should be between 180-185bpm (I'm 38 ys old). So far I've had it up to 162 but generally on the commute it seems to hover around 140-150ish when I'm moving at full pace.

I am wondering about the accuracy though. It's a cheap HR monitor, not some kind of fancy Polar job and sometimes I get very random readings. I don't know if they're real or not. For example, when I've just got in from the commute or a ride of some kind, it seems to give readings which yo yo from 48/49 then suddenly up to 75, then down to 51, then back up to 72 or something. Is that normal?

Butterd2

Jumping around like that is not normal, I suspect a dodgy connection, but you could well have a lower heart rate than "average". Heart rate seems to bear little relation to fitness, it's just a personal thing.
I'm 40 my max is 182 so the 220- age almost works for me.

First.Aspect

How fast does it jump? 50 up to 70 is a getting up from the sofa and walking to the end of the garden sort of a jump in HR. Could just be a spike in the reading. The sensors can get interference from al manner of electronic devices. If I happen to leave my coded Polar chest strap in range of my watch when I'm driving, it reads about 225.

The general numbers sound about right though. It can be hard to get your HR anywhere near maximum when cycling (as compared to say running or rowing). I can (could) get to about 184 on a rowing machine quite easily, but I have to absoluely bury myself to get into the 170s on the flat when I'm cycling. I guess my legs are (were) the limiting factor there.

My HR goes higher in sustained climbing efforts, when using more of my upper body.

Besides, 150 bpm is over 80% of your maximum, so fairly high. I know it varies from person to person, but there is a good chance that 162bpm would be above your anerobic threshold (which could be anywhere between about 150 and 170).

My watch stopped downloading properly a while ago, so I stopped using it. I barely missed it in the end. I still know when I'm going well or when I'm working hard but with lead in my legs. Putting a number to it (in addition to average speed, distance and altitude, etc) doesn't really make any difference. My name is Thomas Voeckler. (It isn't).

reformedfatty

I don't manage to get near my max HR very often on a bike

This mornings ride in - casual tootle with a bit at the end where i raced a car down the hill into work. Most i've seen is 202 - I'm 30

http://www.endomondo.com/workouts/jCtFyD5J-xE

Headhuunter

There's definitely something weird going on. I was just wearing it sat at my desk and it suddenly started reading 120bpm! So I took my own pulse manually and it was something like 65 or 70....

Headhuunter

The 162 measurement was whilst climbing a bit of a hill in SE London but pushing it along the flat I don't get much higher than 155bpm but mostly 150-ish

First.Aspect

I think a HRM is just a small radio wave transmitter/receiver system (possibly microwave) and it can pick up regular signals from your computer, phone, bicycle computer, etc. don't worry about it. If you invest in a slightly more expensive one at any stage, interference isn't too much of a problem when you are out on a bike, or even in a gym.

davmaggs

Butterd2 wrote:

Jumping around like that is not normal, I suspect a dodgy connection, but you could well have a lower heart rate than "average". Heart rate seems to bear little relation to fitness, it's just a personal thing.
I'm 40 my max is 182 so the 220- age almost works for me.

The age formula is rot spread about in daft magazines that happens to fit some people.


OP; electric equipment can cause interference. Also if the band isn't on the right place or moist enough then the connection can come and go

First.Aspect

davmaggs wrote:

Butterd2 wrote:

Jumping around like that is not normal, I suspect a dodgy connection, but you could well have a lower heart rate than "average". Heart rate seems to bear little relation to fitness, it's just a personal thing.
I'm 40 my max is 182 so the 220- age almost works for me.

The age formula is rot spread about in daft magazines that happens to fit some people.


OP; electric equipment can cause interference. Also if the band isn't on the right place or moist enough then the connection can come and go

Noooo it isn't. Its a moderately useful rule of thumb which will give you an estimate to within +/-10 beats (less, for most people) of your max HR.

Its "absolute rot" in the same sense as double it and add 30 is absolute rot when you are converting celcius to farenheit.

Headhuunter

First Aspect wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Butterd2 wrote:

Jumping around like that is not normal, I suspect a dodgy connection, but you could well have a lower heart rate than "average". Heart rate seems to bear little relation to fitness, it's just a personal thing.
I'm 40 my max is 182 so the 220- age almost works for me.

The age formula is rot spread about in daft magazines that happens to fit some people.


OP; electric equipment can cause interference. Also if the band isn't on the right place or moist enough then the connection can come and go

Noooo it isn't. Its a moderately useful rule of thumb which will give you an estimate to within +/-10 beats (less, for most people) of your max HR.

Its "absolute rot" in the same sense as double it and add 30 is absolute rot when you are converting celcius to farenheit.

Yes I agree, it's not absolute rot, it just gives you an approximate idea of what you max HR should look like, of course people vary but this is a good indicator. It seems there are quite a few scientific study results that have produced varying calculations which for me give results between 180-185bpm as max HR.

These caclulations are as much "rot" as BMI. Everyone seems to believe that BMI does not apply to them but in reality is a good general/approximate indicator for the average Joe or Jane of how much lard they are carrying about...

davmaggs

First Aspect wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Butterd2 wrote:

Jumping around like that is not normal, I suspect a dodgy connection, but you could well have a lower heart rate than "average". Heart rate seems to bear little relation to fitness, it's just a personal thing.
I'm 40 my max is 182 so the 220- age almost works for me.

The age formula is rot spread about in daft magazines that happens to fit some people.


OP; electric equipment can cause interference. Also if the band isn't on the right place or moist enough then the connection can come and go

Noooo it isn't. Its a moderately useful rule of thumb which will give you an estimate to within +/-10 beats (less, for most people) of your max HR.

Its "absolute rot" in the same sense as double it and add 30 is absolute rot when you are converting celcius to farenheit.

No need to believe me, I shall point to a sports science journal:

"The research which gave rise to the formula for maximum heart rate (220 minus age in years) has never been published. Moreover, it assumes that the maximal heart rate for a particular age is uniform. Given the considerable individual variation in maximum heart rate, this assumption will inevitably result in some people overtraining while others undertrain."

source:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0895.htm

The point of using these devices is to start bringing more precision to the planning and execution of training. Using vague guestimates when you wearing the very device that can provide more accurate numbers starts to undermine the point of using them.

The age formula is an idea that went viral and keeps getting repeated.

davmaggs

I gave a talk on this a while back, forgot that I had this link when posting the above.

This is the history of the age formula myth:

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/max.htm

Headhuunter

OK yes, it's not entirely accurate, but as a general, quick calculation (like BMI, like the formula for calculation from celsius to farenheit or back) it gives you a rough idea and gives a result which is not miles away from "proper calculations".

For example:
220-age (my ages is 38), gives me 182bpm

Various othe scientifically derived calculations give the following:

205.8 - (0.685xage) = 179.77bpm
206.3 - (0.711xage) = 179.282bpm
217 - (0.85xage) = 184.7bpm
208 - (0.7xage) = 181.4bpm

So the "scientific" caclulations of my max HR range from 179-184bpm and good old 220-age gives 182bpm, pretty much slap in the middle.

Of course, as I mentioned above, these caculations do not suit everyone but they give an approximate idea of how max HR should look...

Headhuunter

My age is 38....

First.Aspect

A quote from "the maximum heartrate myth" article:

she was astonished to find that the formula was meant only as a rough guideline

Personally, it was only ever presented to me by coaches and gyms as a rough guideline, and I know what is meant by the term rough guideline.

If you are looking for a formula to "calculate max HR" at all, you have a problem. I bet some people would read the article think, "Aaah, so the 220-age thing is nonsense, the REAL formula is 208-0.7*age!"

No no no no no no no no no and no. There is no golden rivet. Your max HR is the number on the machine right before you puke into a bucket. The rest is just estimation.

Do you think the author of that article intended to be ironic, or if they really have missed the point that badly?

davmaggs

Headhuunter wrote:

My age is 38....

The point you are missing is that the rough formula appears to fit you (at the moment) and self-confirmation isn't a scientific fact. The geeks at the sports Universities put a lot of effort into looking at this stuff and rather than believe me or you people interested in this type of training should look at reputable sports science articles.

This is important because HRM posts come up on BR often and because people are in very different physical states they find that their HR stats are not consistent with gym 'facts' and they start to doubt the training value or the believe the figures coming out of their device.


[PS I hold no qualifications at all, just read sports science books so people keep showing me their new devices when they appear to be giving the 'wrong' figures]

Twostage

To get good readings from your HRM there needs to be a good electrical contact with your skin. During exercise sweat tends to do the job. You can wet your chest with water (tap or spit) where the strap goes beforehand so there is some moisture initially. You can also get ECG gel from your local chemist.

Strip lights can interfere (as can overhead power-lines) but these tend to give very high reading - in the 200+.

When you get back from your ride it will take quite a while for your heart rate to settle back to the resting rate and could be elevated for a few hours so 48/52 seems a bit low. So I think it is missing beats and the getting a good signal which is the 72 bit and then losing it again.

Does your watch give you a visual indication (like a flashing heart symbol) when it detects each pulse ? If so you should be able to feel your pulse and watch the display to see if it matches up.

You could try changing the battery in the strap.

Headhuunter

Twostage wrote:

To get good readings from your HRM there needs to be a good electrical contact with your skin. During exercise sweat tends to do the job. You can wet your chest with water (tap or spit) where the strap goes beforehand so there is some moisture initially. You can also get ECG gel from your local chemist.

Strip lights can interfere (as can overhead power-lines) but these tend to give very high reading - in the 200+.

When you get back from your ride it will take quite a while for your heart rate to settle back to the resting rate and could be elevated for a few hours so 48/52 seems a bit low. So I think it is missing beats and the getting a good signal which is the 72 bit and then losing it again.

Does your watch give you a visual indication (like a flashing heart symbol) when it detects each pulse ? If so you should be able to feel your pulse and watch the display to see if it matches up.

You could try changing the battery in the strap.

Yes, the watch does show a pulsing heart symbol but it doesn't seem to match up with my heart rate ever! There seems to be some kind of lag. My absolute resting HR is generally around 50bpm, 1st thing in the morning it hangs around the 48bpm mark. I just took my pulse manually, sat at my desk and it's about 50-55bpm. The battery in the strap and watch are both brand new - I changed them both on Sat. It's probably the contact... I wet my chest before putting the strap on, but I suppose once I stop cycling, it starts to dry out....

mudcovered

Headhuunter wrote:

It's probably the contact... I wet my chest before putting the strap on, but I suppose once I stop cycling, it starts to dry out....

On my polar HRM you have to get the monitor pads on the chest strap wet (a couple of drops of water from the tap on each is sufficient) rather than relying on transfer from the skin. After that the only noise problems I've had are when the batteries are low or static effects from the wind blowing a polyester jersey.

Mike

brog183672

Hi Is there any one from Ny that is an expert in heart rate monitors?