heart rate monitor base settings question.

elderone

My HRM is set at my resting hr and max hr,but when I look at the data it always seems to be between 90 and 100bpm for the average,Now as I ride to my hrm I try and ride in the 130-140 zone and this seems comfortable,although on hills it can go up towards the max,then I back of to bring it down a tad.
That,s all fine and as it should be,but my question is,where should I set my minimum setting so I get a more accurate average as my resting hr setting is to low.If 90% of my ride is at say 140 bpm for 2hrs then where would a good start point be?.
When I look at strava most peoples averages are much higher and similar to what my ride suggests my should be.
I use a hr watch with chest strap.
thanks.

Strith

I don't get you. Your average is just your average over a ride. Setting your resting heartrate on whatever gadget you have wont change it. It's just an average.

Or am I reading what you've written wrong?

mr_joe0606

set you minimum heart rate high i use garmin and when i heart rates goes below what i set it to it beeps at me so i push that bit harder and keeps heart rate up.

elderone

Strith wrote:

I don't get you. Your average is just your average over a ride. Setting your resting heartrate on whatever gadget you have wont change it. It's just an average.

Or am I reading what you've written wrong?

Your right it is just an average but not an accurate one.As it stands its averaging between min and max,where really it probly wants my minmum set at about 110 for example which would be a more accurate reading.
So thats what I was asking,where do others set theres.

Tks mr -joe thats what I was thinking.Would you think 110 be a better place to start or higher.

mr_joe0606

i'm no expert just set it where you feel comfertable and keep going above that level.

Strith

My average HR over ride (not that it tells me anything) is calculated using my HR for the entire ride. I record everything and and average over that.

How is it not acurate if its recording everything? Is it cropping data or something?

imposter2.0

Doesn't make sense. Assuming you understand what an 'average' is - if you want a higher average, just ride harder. What HRM are you using and how have you established your HR max ?

elderone

Strith wrote:

My average HR over ride (not that it tells me anything) is calculated using my HR for the entire ride. I record everything and and average over that.

How is it not acurate if its recording everything? Is it cropping data or something?

It is accurate but its averaging between my rhr and mhr and I want to measure the ride hr.Eg.On a ride my hr never dips below 100 while moving,so the average for the ride should fall betwwen 100 and the highest my hr goes on a ride,say 170.
Now as its set now it averages from my resting hr which is about 48,so its calculating from 48-170 for the average,when on a ride it should be between say 100-170 which would give a more accurate ride average.

Imposter wrote:

Doesn't make sense. Assuming you understand what an 'average' is - if you want a higher average, just ride harder. What HRM are you using and how have you established your HR max ?

Im well aware of what an average is.Assuming you can read properly then where did I say I wanted an higher average,when all I wanted was a more accurate average .It would make more sense if you read it properly.

charlie_potatoes

Does this website help?

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm

Strith

elderone wrote:

Strith wrote:

My average HR over ride (not that it tells me anything) is calculated using my HR for the entire ride. I record everything and and average over that.

How is it not acurate if its recording everything? Is it cropping data or something?

It is accurate but its averaging between my rhr and mhr and I want to measure the ride hr.Eg.On a ride my hr never dips below 100 while moving,so the average for the ride should fall betwwen 100 and the highest my hr goes on a ride,say 170.
Now as its set now it averages from my resting hr which is about 48,so its calculating from 48-170 for the average,when on a ride it should be between say 100-170 which would give a more accurate ride average.

Sorry this still make no sense to me. Are you saying you want to calculate your average HR from your HR measurement only when you're moving? Not when you are stopped, say at a set of traffic lights for example?

imposter2.0

elderone wrote:

Im well aware of what an average is.Assuming you can read properly then where did I say I wanted an higher average,when all I wanted was a more accurate average .It would make more sense if you read it properly.

It would make more sense if you could answer the questions I asked. How have you calculated your MHR and what HRM are you using?

elderone

Imposter wrote:

elderone wrote:

Im well aware of what an average is.Assuming you can read properly then where did I say I wanted an higher average,when all I wanted was a more accurate average .It would make more sense if you read it properly.

It would make more sense if you could answer the questions I asked. How have you calculated your MHR and what HRM are you using?

It is set from hill where I just couldn,t get it any higher.Also the actual monitor isn,t important as much as where the minimum setting needs to be.

imposter2.0

Is the brand a secret or something? Why won't you say?

When you say 'minimum' settings, presumably you mean the upper/lower target limits - in which case, they are not designed to give you an average, just a target window for your session. Giving us some kind of clue to the make of HRM would be a help, but I guess if it is a state secret, then you'll just have to work it out yourself. :roll:

elderone

Think I have sussed it now.When people use garmin to record there heart rate then upload to strava along with other data,Im now assuming the garmin records hr the same as speed.Im thinking the minimum hr figure is the start of a ride like the speed,then it records your max on the ride to get the average.So for example if you start off after clipping in and getting started with a hr of say 90 and max at 170 then the average will be between these figures,where as my device always starts at 48 my resting hr,there for will show lower average as its calculating from a lower start point not an actual riding point like a garmin.
So I will set my default to 100 and see where that goes.
,

elderone

Imposter wrote:

Is the brand a secret or something? Why won't you say?

When you say 'minimum' settings, presumably you mean the upper/lower target limits - in which case, they are not designed to give you an average, just a target window for your session. Giving us some kind of clue to the make of HRM would be a help, but I guess if it is a state secret, then you'll just have to work it out yourself. :roll:

Its not a secret at all just cant remember as its at home and im not,(think it polaris but cant recall model number)but as I said its irrelevent as im not asking how to set the divise as i can do that,but where to set it.
The settings as I have clearly stated are my resting heart rate and my max heart rate,so where you presume upper/lower targets from I have no idea.Cant say it any simpler than I have.I know your trying to help and I thank you for that but you are asking about things I have mentioned or asked about.
And I have worked it out for myself now thankyou very much.

philwint

my HRM records my HR periodically (no idea how often, lets assume every 10 seconds) for the duration of the ride
e.g

00:00 89
00:10 103
00:20 117
00:30 127
00:40 130
00:50 131
01:00 139
01:10 140
01:20 139
01:30 142
01:40 148
01:50 150
02:00 148

I presume the average is just the arithmetic mean of these values.

in this case 131

How else could it do it and it be an average?

I believe it only uses the nominal values I have entered for min and max is to assign heart rate zones should I want to display them.

philwint

I *think* what you are saying is that when you switch yours on it reads 48.

That will be before it makes it's first reading. so in my example above the first number would be 48 not 89. I doubt you can change that. But it will make it's first reading so quickly (a couple of seconds) that that erroneous reading will not materially effect the average. just one value out of tens of thousands over an hour's ride will not make any difference.

elderone

So buy those figures Phil,if your start was 48 rather than 89 then you would get a lower average which wouldn,t be an accurate account of the ride.

philwint wrote:

I *think* what you are saying is that when you switch yours on it reads 48.

That will be before it makes it's first reading. so in my example above the first number would be 48 not 89. I doubt you can change that. But it will make it's first reading so quickly (a couple of seconds) that that erroneous reading will not materially effect the average. just one value out of tens of thousands over an hour's ride will not make any difference.

It can be changed Phil as its a number I put in,even though its never seen as its starts at the hr im at when switched on.Then i think it just uses this start number to calculate the average at the end.There is no way im doing 50miles at an average of 91bpm and 15.4mph.
As your numbers show within half a minute you at 130 touch then upwards so most of that data shows above 131 bpm for most of it,yet average of 131,so its using 89 as the start.If that was my monitor the average would show much less due to a 48 start.
My head hurts now.

mr_joe0606

from setting off at a restting heart rate eg50 bpm the divice will record 60 readings in a hour of training and find the mean = adverage. The first few mins 1-5 readings where you start of getting up to speed will not alter the over reading that much. and if you are that bothered starting with a resting heart rate do 1 minuite off skiping before you set of.

Strith

What does it matter what it reads when you turn it on? Just start recording after you start pedalling.

Are you concerned with the average on the device display or what you upload to strava after your ride.

imposter2.0

elderone wrote:

And I have worked it out for myself now thankyou very much.

yep - certainly sounds like it.

philwint

elderone wrote:

So buy those figures Phil,if your start was 48 rather than 89 then you would get a lower average which wouldn,t be an accurate account of the ride.

If that was my monitor the average would show much less due to a 48 start.

My head hurts now.

Just to make your head hurt some more I played with the numbers

ok firstly - those are made up numbers i typed randomly into a spreadsheet.

Secondly even if I put the 48 in for the first 10 seconds it only brings the average down to 126 using the 2 minute made up data above.

But

I extended my model to a full hours data

with 89 as the first value the average is 138.8087
with 48 the average is 138.6967

So over an hour your inaccurate first segment data makes would make around 0.112 beats per second difference.

If you are reading your device correctly and it is showing:

There is no way im doing 50miles at an average of 91bpm and 15.4mph

I can only surmise that either you are very very fit, or there is something wrong with it.

Does it continually display your HR during exercise? If so are you able to see what reading it is giving?

I am 99% sure that your 48 value that you entered is effecting the average calculation (as i prove above). So it must be something else.

elderone

Strith wrote:

What does it matter what it reads when you turn it on? Just start recording after you start pedalling.

Are you concerned with the average on the device display or what you upload to strava after your ride.

It,s not a recordable device,it shows your heart rate all the time,then when you stop and check data then it says average and max.
As far as strava goes the data isnt uploaded to strava as there is no way of doing it with the device.Just I noticed on strava other peoples average hr was much higher.

philwint wrote:

elderone wrote:

So buy those figures Phil,if your start was 48 rather than 89 then you would get a lower average which wouldn,t be an accurate account of the ride.

If that was my monitor the average would show much less due to a 48 start.

My head hurts now.

Just to make your head hurt some more I played with the numbers

ok firstly - those are made up numbers i typed randomly into a spreadsheet.

Secondly even if I put the 48 in for the first 10 seconds it only brings the average down to 126 using the 2 minute made up data above.

But

I extended my model to a full hours data

with 89 as the first value the average is 138.8087
with 48 the average is 138.6967

So over an hour your inaccurate first segment data makes would make around 0.112 beats per second difference.

If you are reading your device correctly and it is showing:

There is no way im doing 50miles at an average of 91bpm and 15.4mph

I can only surmise that either you are very very fit, or there is something wrong with it.

Does it continually display your HR during exercise? If so are you able to see what reading it is giving?

I am 99% sure that your 48 value that you entered is effecting the average calculation (as i prove above). So it must be something else.

Im not very fit so it,s not that Phil.It does continually display hr and I look at it a lot as I use it as a tool to pace myself.As you say,that makes my head hurt more .I give up now,just getting to confusing as it doesn,t make sense,must be the device having a tit.
thanks for all the useful replies folks.

elderone

Imposter wrote:

elderone wrote:

And I have worked it out for myself now thankyou very much.

yep - certainly sounds like it.

Bet that makes you feel better now.Have a chill pill it,s just the interweb.

imposter2.0

Someone who ignores sensible advice - what's not to like? Other people's averages are completely irrelevant to yours. And average HR is just that - an average. I know you said earlier that you knew what 'average' meant, but I'm not sure you do...

elderone

Imposter wrote:

Someone who ignores sensible advice - what's not to like? Other people's averages are completely irrelevant to yours. And average HR is just that - an average. I know you said earlier that you knew what 'average' meant, but I'm not sure you do...

What are you on :?: Your waffling,what sensible advice have I ignored.I know you said earlier you know how to read but im not sure you do.I know every ones average is different to mine,it,s not rocket science.
Every thing you have said has nothing to do with what I asked in the Op.As I said if you read the OP properly then you would have seen that all yours replies were nothing to do with what I asked.
Any way im fed up now,your just getting boring and whether you think I know what an average is by the by.So be a good boy and take your toys back to the play pen and shut the door on your way out. :roll:

danlikesbikes

Used to have a Polar and have had a few & setting min/max can be a pain as need it to be realistic but also not too wide so you don't end up in 'the zone'.

I have used & online calculator before such as;
http://www.healthchecksystems.com/heart.asp
http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/cal ... target.asp
Which are pretty good but Polar also do their own http://education.polarusa.com/trainingz ... atecal.asp but I guess they all use the same formula for working it out for you.

philwint

elderone wrote:

Im not very fit so it,s not that Phil.It does continually display hr and I look at it a lot as I use it as a tool to pace myself.As you say,that makes my head hurt more .I give up now,just getting to confusing as it doesn,t make sense,must be the device having a tit.
thanks for all the useful replies folks.

Well if the continually displayed results are a lot higher than your supposed average then I can only assume you are miss reading the 'average' from the device. Or at least misunderstanding what you are looking at when you think you are looking at the 'average'.

So to get a feel for what your average is - it will be around what is normally displayed when you are exercising.

imposter2.0

elderone wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Someone who ignores sensible advice - what's not to like? Other people's averages are completely irrelevant to yours. And average HR is just that - an average. I know you said earlier that you knew what 'average' meant, but I'm not sure you do...

What are you on :?: Your waffling,what sensible advice have I ignored.I know you said earlier you know how to read but im not sure you do.I know every ones average is different to mine,it,s not rocket science.
Every thing you have said has nothing to do with what I asked in the Op.As I said if you read the OP properly then you would have seen that all yours replies were nothing to do with what I asked.
Any way im fed up now,your just getting boring and whether you think I know what an average is by the by.So be a good boy and take your toys back to the play pen and shut the door on your way out. :roll:

listen - so long as you think you know what you're doing - that's the main thing. :?

chrisaonabike

Come on you two, stop it!

There's obviously something strange about whatever his device is quoting as 'average', since the average is the total number of beats, divided by the total number of minutes - any settings of min and max should be completely irrelevant.

So let's get to the bottom of what the settings are, what they mean, and whether it's either finger trouble, or something wrong with the device - rather than starting a flame war.

Strith

elderone wrote:

Strith wrote:

What does it matter what it reads when you turn it on? Just start recording after you start pedalling.

Are you concerned with the average on the device display or what you upload to strava after your ride.

It,s not a recordable device,it shows your heart rate all the time,then when you stop and check data then it says average and max.
As far as strava goes the data isnt uploaded to strava as there is no way of doing it with the device.Just I noticed on strava other peoples average hr was much higher.

Well I'm at a loss as to what's wrong with the device then, or at least what you need to do to help you with it.

FWIW I wouldn't even worry about your average. If you're trying to do some kind of constructive training just set some zones, look at all the different methods on line as a rough start. If you're just cycling for leisure I wouldn't even bother with HRM, just enjoy the scenery.