# Are heart rate monitors any good?



## Raging Squirrel (8 Oct 2012)

Been thinking of getting one when I get my turbo trainer, basically to try and make sure i'm the "the zone" when I'm sat in the garage.

Any do's or dont's? Worth it or not?


----------



## Red Light (8 Oct 2012)

No. As so many post on here, the numbers turn out to be a bit meaningless so listen instead to your body.


----------



## black'n'yellow (8 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> No. As so many post on here, the numbers turn out to be a bit meaningless so listen instead to your body.


 
the numbers _are_ meaningless - unless you know what they mean - at which point they stop being meaningless and become very meaningful.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Oct 2012)

I find them useful, particularly so when running rather than cycling, when I have a problem running at a low level of effort. (I go too fast)


----------



## RussellZero (8 Oct 2012)

They're interesting, I used one for a lot of last year while getting fit and training for my first tri - I think its good to be aware of your heart rate while idle/training/recovering, especially if you're not as young as you once were ;-)


----------



## karl61 (8 Oct 2012)

i'm not so sure you can discount them, i was under the impression that you could train in a specific zone,(e.g weight loss) and not have to train with as much intensity as you may do without one. for my age, my zone for weight loss was 103-120,using a T T and H R M, once i was up there it was pretty easy(ish) to maintain.


----------



## numbnuts (8 Oct 2012)

There very good, I keep mine in the box


----------



## Rob3rt (8 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> No. As so many post on here, the numbers turn out to be a bit meaningless so listen instead to your body.


 
Congratulations on reaching a new level of ignorance!


----------



## slowmotion (8 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I find them useful, particularly so when running rather than cycling, when I have a problem running at a low level of effort. (I go too fast)


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


----------



## Berties (8 Oct 2012)

i wear mine on most rides,if worn correctly it seems to tell me what i want to know,max level etc it gives me levels to work to,
great for training on my turbo it is great ,a lot of programmes require hr readings,they get my vote


----------



## DCLane (8 Oct 2012)

I'm getting used to using mine - and am mentioned in one of the threads above. As per the advice I was given then, which was to get a VO2 max test, I'm having mine done tomorrow. Once I've got the max-HR worked out at least the base line will then be known.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Against somebody who said it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep wriggling


 
So...... what I gather from this thread is that the done thing having said something daft, is to start bringing up what OTHER people said in OTHER threads to sidetrack a new discussion in order to try and fill enough pages with back and forth, tit for tat bullshit in the hope that your initial ignorant comment gets lost and no-one will notice your inaccurate sweeping statement! Sounds like a plan!

TBH, I wish the OP had just used the search function or used Google, the amount of information both on the forum and on the internet in general regarding HR monitors is abundant!


----------



## Norm (9 Oct 2012)

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

Thanks.


----------



## Oldspice (9 Oct 2012)

Anyone ever slept with theres on. I did (reasearch honest) my heart beat was all over the place. I wonder what the heck do i do in my sleep


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (9 Oct 2012)

karl61 said:


> i'm not so sure you can discount them, i was under the impression that you could train in a specific zone,(e.g weight loss) and not have to train with as much intensity as you may do without one. for my age, my zone for weight loss was 103-120,using a T T and H R M, once i was up there it was pretty easy(ish) to maintain.


Weightloss and fatburning zones are pretty much myth. I'm losing weight and fat typing this,you're doing the same reading it.

HRM's are useful if you know what the figures correlate to.


----------



## G2EWS (9 Oct 2012)

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 (9 Oct 2012)

slowmotion said:


> 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 (9 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


How does a HRM help with weightloss?


----------



## Red Light (9 Oct 2012)

Norm said:


> 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 (9 Oct 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> 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 (9 Oct 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> 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 (9 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> 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 (9 Oct 2012)

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 (9 Oct 2012)

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 (9 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> 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 (9 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> 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.



Red Light said:


> 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.



Red Light said:


> 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?



Red Light said:


> 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 (9 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


 
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 (9 Oct 2012)

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 (9 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (9 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> 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)


----------



## VamP (9 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> 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.


 
Why on earth do you need to speak out on a subject you know nothing about, and at the same time adopt a position of being some kind of an authority? Pretty much all of what you say is nonsense. HR monitor based training is no longer where it's at, primarily because it has been supplanted by the use of power meters over the last ten years. Nevertheless, for many it is a cost effective means of keeping to their training objectives and as such remains widely used.

I reach my MHR probably two or three times a week. Do I always need a paramedic standing by? What kind of health and safety obsessive are you?

I have had my MHR measured in a lab setting (not that this is any kind of a requirement, it was just a part of a study I was involved in), and guess what, I now regularly reach a higher MHR (by 3 beats). My true max may be even a beat or two higher still - so what? It can change, and as someone else said, your HR reading is subject to numerous other distortions. None of which disqualify it as a tool, but it's good to be aware of them.

If you work out your threshold HR you can set your zones based on that, this is an equally valid way of using HR monitors.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (9 Oct 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> 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)


 I understand what you are saying but if i wanted to lose weight i would prefer to cycle for 2-3 hours at 60% than 30-40 minutes at high intensity (90%+). High intensity may burn more calories during the same period of time but it is limited by how long you can continue.
Far too many people are trying to lose weight with short high intense sessions. That's just not going to work.
I personally vary my training/cycling to incorporate both high and lower intensity. I find my heart rate monitor a very useful tool indeed. 
Though i personally don't use it for the above reasons.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I understand what you are saying but if i wanted to lose weight i would prefer to cycle for 2-3 hours at 60% than 30-40 minutes at high intensity (90%+). High intensity may burn more calories during the same period of time but it is limited by how long you can continue.
> Far too many people are trying to lose weight with short high intense sessions. That's just not going to work.
> I personally vary my training/cycling to incorporate both high and lower intensity. I find my heart rate monitor a very useful tool indeed.
> Though i personally don't use it for the above reasons.


 
Of course there is a time balance to be struck here and a degree of variance must be included, even for a well trained individual, you can't go hard and fast every day, you will end up ill!

IME, most people who are trying to lose weight for health reasons and not the love of cycling (i.e. not to be even lighter than light as an athlete or an already fit and slim person might, but actually because they are overweight) would like to spend as little time as possible exercising so it impacts least on their day and can be fit in around other activities (these people fit exercise in around life, rather than life around exercise as some of the more dedicated people on here do), especially after the initial enthusiasm fades, so many really would benefit from understanding the "fat burning zone" and actually jumping up out of it and going harder for less time once or twice a week. Not all the time, but regularly.


----------



## amaferanga (9 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I understand what you are saying but if i wanted to lose weight i would prefer to cycle for 2-3 hours at 60% than 30-40 minutes at high intensity (90%+). High intensity may burn more calories during the same period of time but it is limited by how long you can continue.
> Far too many people are trying to lose weight with short high intense sessions. That's just not going to work.
> I personally vary my training/cycling to incorporate both high and lower intensity. I find my heart rate monitor a very useful tool indeed.
> Though i personally don't use it for the above reasons.


 
Most people are time limited so unless you have time to do 10-15 hours a week or more then you may as well ride hard as you can for the time you have available (if weight loss is the aim). Pootling along will only burn fewer calories and hence you'll lose weight more slowly. So if you have 3 hours to spare in a day then ride as hard as you can for those 3 hours, if you have an hour then ride as hard as you can for that hour, etc. Also, no reason why you can't ride hard for half an hour then at a steadier pace for the rest of a ride. That'd be almost like training or something....


----------



## Ghost Donkey (9 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> Anyone ever slept with theres on. I did (reasearch honest) my heart beat was all over the place. I wonder what the heck do i do in my sleep


 
Snap . I was curious to see how the sleeping average HR compared to waking resting HR. No surprises with that bit but definitely all over the place with a lot of the readings.


----------



## Licramite (9 Oct 2012)

when I started out I found my one very good, you can set them to warn you when you have reached the recommended level. - I have a valve problem so I used to run till I collapsed - recover- and do it again.
so the heart rate monitor trained me to pace myself and now I don,t need it I can self monitor myself - oh I,m lying down - must have overdone it.
seriously they are a good training aid.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (9 Oct 2012)

amaferanga said:


> Most people are time limited so unless you have time to do 10-15 hours a week or more then you may as well ride hard as you can for the time you have available (if weight loss is the aim). Pootling along will only burn fewer calories and hence you'll lose weight more slowly. So if you have 3 hours to spare in a day then ride as hard as you can for those 3 hours, if you have an hour then ride as hard as you can for that hour, etc. Also, no reason why you can't ride hard for half an hour then at a steadier pace for the rest of a ride. That'd be almost like training or something....


I agree with most of what you are saying. It's just if someone is trying to lose weight and decides to give it everything they have for 30 minutes, then that is not going to burn more fat than someone doing 2 hours at a steadier pace. It takes half an hour of aerobic exercise before your body starts trimming fat. 
You mentioned previously "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".
For me it is also the opposite. The same lazy people convince themselves that 30 minutes going hard and fast on a turbo trainer is doing them a world of good. They will soon notice that little weight is lost. If they upped the duration of the exercise (which may require less intense effort) then more weight would be lost. 
Though to be fair i don't think this was what the OP was talking about. For the record i believe that a HR monitor used correctly is a great piece of kit.....


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (9 Oct 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> Of course there is a time balance to be struck here and a degree of variance must be included, even for a well trained individual, you can't go hard and fast every day, you will end up ill!
> 
> IME, most people who are trying to lose weight for health reasons and not the love of cycling (i.e. not to be even lighter than light as an athlete or an already fit and slim person might, but actually because they are overweight) would like to spend as little time as possible exercising so it impacts least on their day and can be fit in around other activities (these people fit exercise in around life, rather than life around exercise as some of the more dedicated people on here do), especially after the initial enthusiasm fades, so many really would benefit from understanding the "fat burning zone" and actually jumping up out of it and going harder for less time once or twice a week. Not all the time, but regularly.


I personally make time for cycling even though i don't have oodles of time to spare at the moment. At nights i ride 60-90 mins fairly hard 3-5 times a week and manage 1-2 longer rides (between 60-100miles) at the weekend, again fairly hard. I in no way need to lose weight though so i only train/cycle to be faster and fitter. It's a constant theme in my life as it was with running. 

My missus already refers to herself as a cycling widow so i can't really do much more without running the risk of divorce.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I personally make time for cycling even though i don't have oodles of time to spare at the moment. At nights i ride 60-90 mins fairly hard 3-5 times a week and manage 1-2 longer rides (between 60-100miles) at the weekend, again fairly hard. I in no way need to lose weight though so i only train/cycle to be faster and fitter. It's a constant theme in my life as it was with running.
> 
> My missus already refers to herself as a cycling widow so i can't really do much more without running the risk of divorce.


 
That is the point I am making, some of us will arrange other life commitments around our cycling, we have to cycle at a certain time for a certain duration on certain days, therefore we will for example, work through lunch on a Wednesday so we can get to leave a bit earlier to get home in time to eat dinner enough in advance of a midweek training ride etc (I ride approx 10 hours a week moving time, there is ofc time chatting at the meeting points, and after a ride, or a cafe stop on a long sunday club run, cleaning the bike, shopping for consumables, picking cycling related goods up from the post office etc so likely 15 or more hours a week devoted to cycling, it doesn't just happen, effort is needed to fit this in) but for the vast majority, it is the other way round and they will get a bit of cycling/exercise in here or there when they can, rather than arrange life to ensure that the time is available, in these sorts of cases, people will tend to favour being able to get their quota fulfilled in the least amount of time possible. For these people, learning that to loose weight, you don't necessarily need to sit in a fat burning zone for hours on end, you can on a regular basis do some more intense exercise.

It should also be remembered that metabolism is speeded up following hard exercise and you will continue to burn fat for some time following the session.


----------



## Red Light (9 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> 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.


 
Most people use 220-age which has absolutely no scientific basis. The HRM manufacturers tend to include it in their instructions (I think it was Polar that first used it) and its all over the internet. We then get people coming here and saying their heart rate is too high or too low. Most however never do anything other than follow the instructions and get it all wrong, either under or over training as a result, even though they think they're doing it scientifically. If you have the knowledge and understanding of heart rates and HRMs then yes they can be useful but I would posit for most people they aren't. 

And if you are new to cycling and you do such tests they can be quite dangerous for an unconditioned heart.

There is an alternative which is also widely used in sports coaching, the Borg Perceived Exertion Scale which those who rubbished my original comments have clearly never heard of. And it works on your perceptions of exertion. Which means its automatically calibrated for every individual because its based on how you feel, not how some techno-gadget tells you you ought to feel. And the feedback is instant where an HRM might take a minute or more to settle to a new heart rate after a change of exertion levels.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (9 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> .There is an alternative which is also widely used in sports coaching, the Borg Perceived Exertion Scale which those who rubbished my original comments have clearly never heard of. And it works on your perceptions of exertion. Which means its automatically calibrated for every individual because its based on how you feel, not how some techno-gadget tells you you ought to feel. And the feedback is instant where an HRM might take a minute or more to settle to a new heart rate after a change of exertion levels.


 
Did you forget (or neglect to mention?) that the first published Borg Scale was based on heart rate? Yet is still relevant (as is the CR10 scale) to this day.


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> There is an alternative which is also widely used in sports coaching,* the Borg Perceived Exertion Scale which those who rubbished my original comments have clearly never heard of.* And it works on your perceptions of exertion. Which means its automatically calibrated for every individual because its based on how you feel, not how some techno-gadget tells you you ought to feel. And the feedback is instant where an HRM might take a minute or more to settle to a new heart rate after a change of exertion levels.


 
I am familiar with this scale, note my comments previous re. HR data being additional data to be used in conjunctions with both perceptive/subjective data i.e. perceived level of exertion and objective data i.e. power etc. Perceived exertion scales and HR data are complementary, they needn't be used and probably shouldn't be used in isolation!


----------



## black'n'yellow (9 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Which means its automatically calibrated for every individual because its based on how you feel, not how some techno-gadget tells you you ought to feel.


 
An HRM does not tell you how you 'ought to feel' - it simply tells you your heart's BPM. Quite how you interpret that data is entirely optional, in much the same way as the Borg scale. Please stop posting on this thread - I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you.....just leave quietly and we will pretend you didn't say anything stupid....


----------



## Red Light (9 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> An HRM does not tell you how you 'ought to feel' - it simply tells you your heart's BPM. Quite how you interpret that data is entirely optional, in much the same way as the Borg scale. Please stop posting on this thread - I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you.....just leave quietly and we will pretend you didn't say anything stupid....



You worry about yourself and I'll worry about me thank you.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (9 Oct 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> It should also be remembered that metabolism is speeded up following hard exercise and you will continue to burn fat for some time following the session.


 
I know some people who cycle first thing in the morning for this reason. Now that's commitment.


----------



## screenman (10 Oct 2012)

Bit off topic, but why should cycling in the morning be more commitment than at any other time? unless of course you suffer from heavy quilt syndrome.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (10 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> Bit off topic, but why should cycling in the morning be more commitment than at any other time? unless of course you suffer from heavy quilt syndrome.


Not talking about commuting here. I could think of a few reasons off the top of my head regarding pleasure riding though. 
To make it more fun why not give an answer in emoticons. 

Most be people are  in the morning and would rather read the morning .
Early mornings require extra motivation, not to mention mornings are f*cking 

If riding before  you will be seriously lacking energy. 

So to summarise, people who  in the mornings before work (not commuting) are  (read tougher) than kevlar. 
Ask Chuck Norris, he won't go near them. True story.


----------



## screenman (10 Oct 2012)

I take it you are not a morning person, as everything you have listed is the opposite of this household. I like nothing better than being out on the roads before most people wake up, and the feeling of achievement of a job done lasts with me all day. Of course there is always the opportunity to fit two rides into one day, or less of a chance of missing a ride due to unforeseen commitments that arise later in the day.

Some people can do mornings some cannot, I fully accept that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Oct 2012)

No matter what 'zone' you 'train' in for what duration, if, over time, your calorific intake is greater than your calorific burn rate you won't lose weight.


----------



## amaferanga (10 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Not talking about commuting here. I could think of a few reasons off the top of my head regarding pleasure riding though.


 
I'm another who enjoys early mornings. There are numerous reasons for that, but getting out before all the motons take to the roads is a real bonus.


----------



## Licramite (10 Oct 2012)

actualy if its for your turbo trainer , forget the heart rate monitor, get an mp3 player - ZZtop and - BURN.
I set a fan up to stop me melting - it does help and if your tough put it in front so your cycling into a headwind all the time.

I hate exercise in the morning , 6.15 - 3mile run I hated it, and I was useless (well my mates said I was useless all the time)
But it is definately harder. - in my younger days I liked early morning cycle rides.

as for loosing weight, if you burn 400calories on your bike, you can eat 400calories for fre
but its true - exercise all you like , you have to eat sensibly all the time to loose weight.


----------



## Rob3rt (10 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> *actualy if its for your turbo trainer , forget the heart rate monitor, get an mp3 player - ZZtop and - BURN.*
> *I set a fan up to stop me melting - it does help and if your tough put it in front so your cycling into a headwind all the time.*
> 
> I hate exercise in the morning , 6.15 - 3mile run I hated it, and I was useless (well my mates said I was useless all the time)
> ...


 
A HRM comes into it's own when working on the turbo trainer! Headwind.............. LOL - Are you serious?


----------



## 400bhp (10 Oct 2012)

It's an interesting thread this and most of you talk a lot of common sense.

In a nutshell, that's what it's about really. 

From experience, a HRM is another broad gauge for me to see how hard I am working. I find interesting when my body is telling me one thing and my heart rate tells me another (that's for another thread).

Like with most things to do with your body, fitness and exercise, using one measure is too simplistic.


----------



## black'n'yellow (10 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> No matter what 'zone' you 'train' in for what duration, if, over time, your calorific intake is greater than your calorific burn rate you won't lose weight.


 
I don't use an HRM for weight loss - I use it to tell me how fast my heart is beating and for gauging what % of my max I am riding at. It's not much use for anything else...and the calorie estimates on HRMs are completely useless anyway...


----------



## Hacienda71 (10 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> I don't use an HRM for weight loss - I use it to tell me how fast my heart is beating and for gauging what % of my max I am riding at. It's not much use for anything else...and the calorie estimates on HRMs are completely useless anyway...


I am the same. Tells me roughly how hard I am pushing myself. I wouldn't try to read too much else into it. Apart from if it stopped I am either dead or it needs a new battery.


----------



## Licramite (10 Oct 2012)

your turbo trainer ussually has a cycling computer on it giving you calorie data ectra.
the heart rate monitor is a good safety device to stop you over exercising.

I admit I set the fan up behind me as I must go faster with a tailwind


----------



## Rob3rt (10 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> *your turbo trainer ussually has a cycling computer on it giving you calorie data ectra*.
> the heart rate monitor is a good safety device to stop you over exercising.
> 
> I admit I set the fan up behind me as I must go faster with a tailwind


 
No they don't!


----------



## amaferanga (10 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> your turbo trainer ussually has a cycling computer on it giving you calorie data ectra.
> the heart rate monitor is a good safety device to stop you over exercising.


 
Eh? Calorie estimates based on HR data are little better than a wild guess.


----------



## tadpole (10 Oct 2012)

amaferanga said:


> Eh? Calorie estimates based on HR data are little better than a wild guess.


 Ok, how do you calculate the burn more accurately?
I’ve seen/used MET table values and they come pretty close to what my HRM says. I’ve used online calculators and they too are within 100 to 150 Calories. What other way do you suggest?


----------



## Licramite (10 Oct 2012)

I thought the equivalent of a cycling computer was fairly standard on all indoor cycling trainers,
didn,t realise some didn,t have them.
how accurate they are who knows? I rely on mine to give a figure to work too for calories burned - its probably set on - not to depressing -mode.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (10 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> I take it you are not a morning person, as everything you have listed is the opposite of this household. I like nothing better than being out on the roads before most people wake up, and the feeling of achievement of a job done lasts with me all day. Of course there is always the opportunity to fit two rides into one day, or less of a chance of missing a ride due to unforeseen commitments that arise later in the day.
> 
> Some people can do mornings some cannot, I fully accept that.


I am very much a morning person but start work too early to even consider going out before hand. I cycle after work. 
At the weekends i am out in the morning before the other half wakes up. It's almost like sneaking out if i a honest. 
​


----------



## screenman (10 Oct 2012)

I just seen where you live, what a great place for cycling I was up there last month.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (10 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> I just seen where you live, what a great place for cycling I was up there last month.


If you mean moi then i have always lived in the sticks. Yes it is an amazing part of the country for cycling. Where i live there are some rather large climbs on one side and some flat tasty TT country on the other. Best of both worlds.


----------

