Are heart rate monitors any good?

[VamP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.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]

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]

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]

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]

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.