HR monitor advice for base training

samsbike

I have been commuting for around 4 months (2 days a week) and had no improvement. Then reading around and getting advice, I learnt that riding like I stole it was not doing me any good.

So now I am trying to train to around 65% of of MHR.

Is there any reason why a HR monitor, something around the £20, should be sufficient?

Is there any advantage to the higher devices?

My issue is that I have no idea how long I will continue cycling for, especially when the weather turns and the only time I get to get out is on my commutes (which is 1.5hrs ish each way)

thanks

itguy2

Well, you're right in saying that a lower heart rate training burns more fat and that a higher heart rate makes you more cardio fit.

So, 65% is good for fat, you'd need to be in the 75+ for cardio really.

I have a polar ft4 watch which came with a fabric chest strap and find them both excellent. I put the watch on my handlebars and just leave it on heart rate view mode when im riding. Very inspirational to see it when chugging up hills - especially if you know that your cardio heart rate is (say) 160 and you're only working at 140... I always just have an internal word with myself and say "come on chap, youre no where near what you can do, you're just being a wimp".

Works every time

dubcat

One advantage of more expensive ones is that you can upload the data to an online log. I find this very good because the site will calculate things like estimated calories burned based on heart rate, total miles (if using a gps one), elevation climbed, etc. As this data builds up to can create weekly charts nd track your progress. I did not see any use for such data but now that I have been doing it for 3 months I find that the data is a real motivator to keep me training. I can see very clearly what I have achieved in the past and whether I am slacking off in any given week.

If you send more still then your hrm will tell yu cadence too in addition to all of the above.

RandG

Yes, a cheap one will do the job, however, as pointed out, the dearer ones have more to them.

HRM's are all about zones, but first you need to find out what your MHR is (M for Maximum) once you have that, you can then work in zones dependant on what you are trying to achieve.

Read up on it, there is tons of info out there, but very few will tell you to work above 85% as seems to be what you've been doing.

HTH

Fantastic Mr Fox

I just used my HRM for the first time yesterday. Its just a cheap one that tells me my heart rate and then a percentage estimate of how close you are to your maximum. Problem is I'd like to be able to keep it to a constant high level but because south Devon is so hilly its really tough to keep it up when you're gunning it up a hill at 90% and then need a little rest on a decent after a hill it drops to say 60%.

Really as I'm training for some club stuff next year (time trials and chain gangs and one 24 hour, 280 mile endurance event) I need to keep it at around 70-80%. It'd feel too weird not giving a bike ride my all to ride at 70% I think.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Dubcat wrote:

One advantage of more expensive ones is that you can upload the data to an online log. I find this very good because the site will calculate things like estimated calories burned based on heart rate, total miles (if using a gps one), elevation climbed, etc. As this data builds up to can create weekly charts nd track your progress. I did not see any use for such data but now that I have been doing it for 3 months I find that the data is a real motivator to keep me training. I can see very clearly what I have achieved in the past and whether I am slacking off in any given week.

The most accurate way to gauge calorie burn is via power meters. A HRM,will be at absolute best a random guess.

If you send more still then your hrm will tell yu cadence too in addition to all of the above.

You must have some new NASA technology there if it can tell the cadence of your legs through heart rate.

njee20

The most accurate way to gauge calorie burn is via power meters

Really? My Garmin (which seemingly ignores power and just bases it on speed) wildly over estimates calorie consumption. General wisdom is that Polar OwnCal is the most accurate of the algorithmic guesses!

t.m.h.n.e.t

njee20 wrote:

The most accurate way to gauge calorie burn is via power meters

Really? My Garmin (which seemingly ignores power and just bases it on speed) wildly over estimates calorie consumption. General wisdom is that Polar OwnCal is the most accurate of the algorithmic guesses!

Yes, Garmin Edge bases entirely on speed.

Polar Owncal - assumptions based on assumed vo2max and maxhr via a built in test (or actual lab figures if you have them). In reality no better than a £15unit from Lidls special deals.


^The vo2max figure is calculated lying down hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

njee20

So a power meter is irrelevant if you use an Edge... Never noticed what WKO uses (if indeed it shows it).

I didn't say it was accurate, I said it was is acknowledged to be the most accurate of the guesses. As much as I'd love to pretend I burned 1600 calories riding 23 miles home last night it seems unlikely.

Either way, it's a crap metric to use for any form of fitness tracking.

t.m.h.n.e.t

njee20 wrote:

So a power meter is irrelevant if you use an Edge... Never noticed what WKO uses (if indeed it shows it).

I didn't say it was accurate, I said it was is acknowledged to be the most accurate of the guesses. As much as I'd love to pretend I burned 1600 calories riding 23 miles home last night it seems unlikely.

Either way, it's a crap metric to use for any form of fitness tracking.

Power meters are preference automatically in the edge. If there isn't one paired it will then base calorie guesstimate on speed,distance and user profile. If neither a power meter or speed reading is applicable, HRM calculations take precedence.

ollie51

itguy2 wrote:

Well, you're right in saying that a lower heart rate training burns more fat and that a higher heart rate makes you more cardio fit.

So, 65% is good for fat, you'd need to be in the 75+ for cardio really.

No, a lower heart rate will mean a greater percentage of fat is used as 'fuel' or burnt, if you're looking to lose weight (reduce your body fat content) then increasing the intensity will increase the quantity of fat burnt, given that the curve indicating calorific demand of exercise increases more steeply when intensity increases than the curve showing the proportion of carbohydrate/fat used as fuel. There's a study proving this.... somewhere.

Also the latest studies are showing that riding at around 95% of LTHR (roughly 85% of max) or 90% of FTP offer the greatest amount of aerobic adaptations, or increased 'cardio'. They call it 'Sweet Spot Training', although in reality it's little more than glorified L3 training.

njee20

Power meters are preference automatically in the edge. If there isn't one paired it will then base calorie guesstimate on speed,distance and user profile. If neither a power meter or speed reading is applicable, HRM calculations take precedence.

Then woop de doo, I burned off 1416 calories in 1:16 the other day, at a fairly leisurely 229W normalised power. Although riding in faster, marginally further and at at 10W higher used 100 fewer calories...

Like I said, it's bollocks. The Polar guess is more plausible. I know the newer Edges have a different guess, but I'd still totally ignore it.

shigllgetcha

there is a good one on amazon for £16(i think) works okay for me and does the % of max too

samsbike

thanks all, got a bryton in the end