Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Heart Rate Moniters
- Thread starter OXANDRIN
- Start date
J
jenscats5
Guest
I have a Polar too, just the basic model, got it for $99
I've had it for about 2 years, maybe 3 & the battery just died. I really like it & it helps when doing cardio to make sure you are in the zone.
I've had it for about 2 years, maybe 3 & the battery just died. I really like it & it helps when doing cardio to make sure you are in the zone.
OMGWTFBBQ
brobe
Polar, Nike, and Timex are all good enough to merit buying. All of the others that I have seen/used have either been total shit, or they are annoying to use (the FitSense FS-1 comes to mind there - decent product, but it has a huge ass watch part that you wouldn't want to use anywhere other than running).
I have used Polar stuff in the past and it is all good. The new Nike ones are actually pretty good - but you are largely paying for the Nike name.
I currently have a Timex one and it is good enough, but its watch is kind of bulky, annoying, and the lycra band absorbs sweat and therefore eventually smells.
It depends if you want something where you can upload to your computer for analysis or not - I would suggest that is a bit overkill for you.
The basic Polar models can be had quite cheap and they will get the job done.
Do note that HR monitors are only good if you are running on a flat surface on a cool day (under 70 degrees).
Once you add in heat or hills, the results you will be reading will be fairly useless.
Therefore they are pretty good for winter track work.
After a few months of using one, you will get used to feeling the way your body responds to things and then you can put it aside for awhile, and just occasionally pulling it out to see how things are going.
And usually they are fairly useless in races since the excitement of the competition will throw off the results.
I have used Polar stuff in the past and it is all good. The new Nike ones are actually pretty good - but you are largely paying for the Nike name.
I currently have a Timex one and it is good enough, but its watch is kind of bulky, annoying, and the lycra band absorbs sweat and therefore eventually smells.
It depends if you want something where you can upload to your computer for analysis or not - I would suggest that is a bit overkill for you.
The basic Polar models can be had quite cheap and they will get the job done.
Do note that HR monitors are only good if you are running on a flat surface on a cool day (under 70 degrees).
Once you add in heat or hills, the results you will be reading will be fairly useless.
Therefore they are pretty good for winter track work.
After a few months of using one, you will get used to feeling the way your body responds to things and then you can put it aside for awhile, and just occasionally pulling it out to see how things are going.
And usually they are fairly useless in races since the excitement of the competition will throw off the results.
C
Code
Guest
You could use your fingers.
I assume that method is free for you.
I assume that method is free for you.
J
jenscats5
Guest
I found the HR monitor to work better than the finger/pulse test. It's easy to set up & use and the basic model is enough to read your heart rate during exercise. The model I have also lets you conduct a fitness test for yourself.
The battery in mine just died after 2 years of use & it was also very easy to replace myself for $2.99 for a new battery. Polar recommends that you send it back to them for replacement which costs $10 in addition to mailing costs.
The battery in mine just died after 2 years of use & it was also very easy to replace myself for $2.99 for a new battery. Polar recommends that you send it back to them for replacement which costs $10 in addition to mailing costs.
J
jenscats5
Guest
Oh, and the S-series has an option for ownindexS which predicts your maximal oxygen uptake (Vo2Max).
C
Code
Guest
Which your body has no way of regulating on it's own through the respiratory system.
jenscats5 said:
I sent mine back to Polar for a battery replacement. I didn't realize you could do it yourself. My watchband clip has broken so i'm thinking about getting another one. If you look in cycling mail order catalogs you can find older models cheap. I've seen an Accurex for $75, whereas I think I paid $230 for mine new. That was near 7-8 years ago though.
You don't always have to wear the watch. Most of the lifecycles in gyms have an HR function so you can see your HR on the panel as long as you have the chest belt on. My HR is one of the best purchases i've made.
You don't always have to wear the watch. Most of the lifecycles in gyms have an HR function so you can see your HR on the panel as long as you have the chest belt on. My HR is one of the best purchases i've made.
toga22
SideShow Freak
I also have a Polar S810... 5 monthes out of the year I compete in many dualathon's and also in 1/2 marathons. For myself however I really don't start using it until about a month or two before I begin to race. And like OMG...BBQ said, after using it for awhile, I am almost able to predict the reading because I become intune with my body and performance.
On a side note, I did have a chance to see the new NIRS . (Near Infrared Spectroscopy...which is an optical technology which provides a means for measuring local, not systemic oxygen saturation of hemoglobin in tissue--Sto2). In a nutshell, it measures changes in muscles oxygenation by body part, so trainers/athletes can access the change in Sto2 baseline standards, thus prevent overtraining. And what is really cool is that it can determine an athletes anaerobic threshold--which is vital information for determining peak performance.
On a side note, I did have a chance to see the new NIRS . (Near Infrared Spectroscopy...which is an optical technology which provides a means for measuring local, not systemic oxygen saturation of hemoglobin in tissue--Sto2). In a nutshell, it measures changes in muscles oxygenation by body part, so trainers/athletes can access the change in Sto2 baseline standards, thus prevent overtraining. And what is really cool is that it can determine an athletes anaerobic threshold--which is vital information for determining peak performance.
OMGWTFBBQ
brobe
toga - my father did some work with a handheld NIRS system that tracked by heart rate and blood cell density count - but like you said, it was a localized report.
It was used on the fingers, so it wasn't a fantastic system to use during training due to the fact that extremities aren't getting as much blood flow.
It was neat stuff at the time, but I didn't really care too much about it then. Looking back on it I see that there was a lot of potential there.
They used that stuff during the OTC tests as well when they were doing the VO2Max type stuff.
Personally, I own a HRM and have had them in the past too - I think they are good when you are first getting back into shape - but people that rely solely on them tend to have poor training.
If you tend to overtrain (which is very easy if you are a driven/competitive person) they are a good way to prevent that - but they can also lead to not working out hard enough as a result as well.
Hence why I said on hills or heat they are largely useless. They will still give you accurate responses as to what your heart rate is - but that reading is useless towards what you need it for.
This is why I try not to use mine too much once I have the feel down.
Also, because of how tuned I am to my heart rate - if I wear headphones it throws everything off (I will run too fast, and then not breathe fast enough for that pace, and then get side stitches) - apparently I go by hearing things a lot as part of figuring out what pace to do.
It was used on the fingers, so it wasn't a fantastic system to use during training due to the fact that extremities aren't getting as much blood flow.
It was neat stuff at the time, but I didn't really care too much about it then. Looking back on it I see that there was a lot of potential there.
They used that stuff during the OTC tests as well when they were doing the VO2Max type stuff.
Personally, I own a HRM and have had them in the past too - I think they are good when you are first getting back into shape - but people that rely solely on them tend to have poor training.
If you tend to overtrain (which is very easy if you are a driven/competitive person) they are a good way to prevent that - but they can also lead to not working out hard enough as a result as well.
Hence why I said on hills or heat they are largely useless. They will still give you accurate responses as to what your heart rate is - but that reading is useless towards what you need it for.
This is why I try not to use mine too much once I have the feel down.
Also, because of how tuned I am to my heart rate - if I wear headphones it throws everything off (I will run too fast, and then not breathe fast enough for that pace, and then get side stitches) - apparently I go by hearing things a lot as part of figuring out what pace to do.
OlavZipser
New member
Polar is nice but too pricey and it has too many features that I won't ever use for my training.
I suggest http://www.sportsinstruments.com as another source for HRM. I currently use ECG-5. It's been great to me. I agree with OMGWTFBBQ. I hardly use HRM anymore because I don't feel confident about the results I would get on my watch. Now, I just listen to my own body.
I suggest http://www.sportsinstruments.com as another source for HRM. I currently use ECG-5. It's been great to me. I agree with OMGWTFBBQ. I hardly use HRM anymore because I don't feel confident about the results I would get on my watch. Now, I just listen to my own body.
