Strick28


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Strick28
hcir wrote:Studies have shown that you burn more (edit: fat) calories when you are within 50-75% of the difference between your resting and maximum heart-rate. A heart-rate monitor (such as the ones made by Polar) calculates a "zone" in which to keep your heart rate so that you can maximize the calories that you burn. I try to keep at the upper end of the zone. I know from looking at my heart-rate whether I need to slow down or put in more effort. It has made a real difference to the way that I cycle. It does not interfere with earbuds or mp3 devices.



I guess my point was I enjoy running and don't want anything strapped on me or in my ears. It takes away from the real enjoyment and high of a good run.

heartratemonitorsusa


quality posts: 0 Private Messages heartratemonitorsusa
wvarta wrote:The RS400 and strap can be used in the pool, they are waterproof



You can swim with it, just do not press any buttons. Yes this is a good deal.

heartratemonitorsusa


quality posts: 0 Private Messages heartratemonitorsusa
millerfrog wrote:Does the RS400 have an audible alarm when heart rate is in dangerous zone?



You set Target Zone Alarms for High and Low

jclarkin


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jclarkin
hcir wrote:Studies have shown that you burn more (edit: fat) calories when you are within 50-75% of the difference between your resting and maximum heart-rate. A heart-rate monitor (such as the ones made by Polar) calculates a "zone" in which to keep your heart rate so that you can maximize the calories that you burn. I try to keep at the upper end of the zone. I know from looking at my heart-rate whether I need to slow down or put in more effort. It has made a real difference to the way that I cycle. It does not interfere with earbuds or mp3 devices.




Pretty sure this is a misconception. You burn more calories (including fat calories) in a given time when you exercise harder. But you may burn less fat calories as a percentage of calories burnt.

example with made up numbers:

Low effort for 30 minutes:
100 calories burned, 50 fat calories. 50% of calories used where from using fat.

High effort for 30 minutes:
250 calories burned, 100 fat calories. "only" 40% of calories burned were from fat stores.

If a high percentage of fat burned was the goal, sleep would be the best exercise!

giolee88


quality posts: 16 Private Messages giolee88
dsclothe wrote:Polar is the best of the HR monitors, but w/o gps or Bluetooth, their product is five to seven years behind the curve, and too pricey even at this price. Check out som products from Soleus, Suunto, Garmin. Though I'm not sure watches have Bluetooth yet--anyone? Oh, and the pain w/ Bluetooth can be that you have to carry your phone while exercising. Problem for some but not all.



Contrary to popular belief, GPS is not a requirement to kicking for training. Plenty of trainers will happily kick your butt with heartrate training alone. If *you* prefer GPS, then go get the model that comes with the G3 GPS sensor. If *you* prefer bluetooth comms (at the penalty of battery life) get the series that is bluetooth enabled. I agree about the stupidity of carrying your phone in scenarios where people may very well be soaking wet (number one users of HRMs...triathletes). The phone-based tools are nice for consumer-oriented features. But limiting in its own way. You kinda have to choose.

giolee88


quality posts: 16 Private Messages giolee88
theroseknows wrote:FWIW, my doctor runs marathons/triathlons, and monitors his heart rate with his fingers and a $5 watch. He says if there was a better piece of equipment for doing it, that is what the hospitals would use.



Uhhh...has he ever heard of a pulse-ox?..When did he practice, like 1958?

giolee88


quality posts: 16 Private Messages giolee88
jclarkin wrote:Pretty sure this is a misconception. You burn more calories (including fat calories) in a given time when you exercise harder. But you may burn less fat calories as a percentage of calories burnt.


This is actually an imprecise statement that HR training is intended to combat. The truth is that there is a range of optimum calorie burning, and it is way lower than the VO2Max threshold. If calorie burning is your only objective...you can actually be more effective at a lower intensity than the (imprecise) rule of thumb that you state would imply. This is actually a fairly frequent source of injury and over-training that savvy trainers are keen to avoid.

Now...calorie burning is typically NOT the goal of most athletes. They couldn't care less about how many calories they burn. Their goals are more typically expanding their VO2Max, or their cardio capacity. They want to push into higher thresholds of heartrate. But they also need to do so carefully hence the use of dynamic measurements of their HRM on the fly. This is where HRMs are really useful.