Run Run Away » nike running » HRM
HRM
Question:
I recommend a HRM and a good guide book to its use is "The heart rate monitor book" by Sally Edwards. ISBN 0-96344633-0-6 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi i’m a 16 years old swimmer (6 years in high level) and started running a year ago. i wonder, should i buy a HRM??? i mean the polar ones… the question is if i really need it and can’t just stay with my original training. can it improve my performance?? (batter training, "train by your hurt"). if i should buy it, does buying one of the base polar like fitwatch will do the work?? thanks for any help sharon
Response:
Hi i’m a 16 years old swimmer (6 years in high level) and started running a year ago. i wonder, should i buy a HRM??? i mean the polar ones… the question is if i really need it and can’t just stay with my original training. can it improve my performance?? (batter training, "train by your hurt"). if i should buy it, does buying one of the base polar like fitwatch will do the work?? thanks for any help sharon
Response:
I run XC in high school, and train with the most basic polar hrm on the market. It only cost me 80$, but it works just fine. The HRM will most likely improve your training as long as you know what you’re doing with it. So if you buy find someone who can tell you how to use it, don’t just strap it on and expect miracles. But once you find out how to use your training will improve drastically, as did mine over the last 2 years.
Response:
Using a HRM should enable you to plan your training much better, since your body may not always be the best guage. Overtraining is a real danger and you may not realise the onset of problems until after your session(s). I use a software program called UltraCoach that facilitates the recording of HRM data – either manually entered or via a cable connector depending on the HRM model. All the best Ritchie
Response:
i’m a 16 years old swimmer (6 years in high level) and started running a year ago. i wonder, should i buy a HRM??? i mean the polar ones… the question is if i really need it and can’t just stay with my original training.
You certainly don’t *need* an HRM to train effectively. An HRM *can* be a useful and convenient way to ensure your training is correctly focussed. What are you training towards, track, XC, or just to supplement your swimming ??? Miles — "Focus. Relaxed Form. Stay smooth. Flow. Breathe." – gapo ‘98 Cut the .europe if you prefer to reply by email
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi i’m a 16 years old swimmer (6 years in high level) and started running a year ago. i wonder, should i buy a HRM??? i mean the polar ones… the question is if i really need it and can’t just stay with my original training. can it improve my performance?? (batter training, "train by your hurt"). if i should buy it, does buying one of the base polar like fitwatch will do the work?? thanks for any help sharon
I couldn’t run without controlling my hearth rate. It is a matter of knowing how your system is reacting to external factors. An example : my normal rate while running is 126-128 bpm. This is true 90 percent of the times. Every time it is different I can control why my system behaves differently. Some time I feel aches at the leg muscles, I look at the monitor and verify that the frequency can’t go over 115. I asked my cardiologist about it but unfortunately he can’t give any answer. Some other time i feel particularly well. Legs look to run by themselves. I check the rate, and it comes out to be 140 !! Of course I’m particularly interested in the matter since I begun running after a heart attack, but I have verified that knowing your rate allows you to learn about your heart. Among side advantages, do you know that you shouldn’t stop suddenly but let your rate slow down while still walking at good pace until you are below 90? And what about control what happens on a slope? Fitwatch is the best choice. The less expensive one with the essential functions. Happy runs, Paolo from Rome.
Response:
Nice one Jobs, Phil – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A better idea. For some real ‘advise’ learn that it’s spelled advice. –It’s geek value is limitless; –It’s cool to know that your max heart rate is xxx; –It’s really neat to discover that during a race you hit xxx and that during since we are on the topic of spelling and syntax, i guess you could do a google search for "it’s vs its." sincerely jobs
Response:
Oh well, guess there’s not a whole lot of real ADVICE out there on using these things?? Cheers, Phil. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all, Just bought myself an HRM and was wondering if anyone else out there used this specific brand, it’s an Oregon Scientific D800. Oh by the way, I am training for my first marathon and was hoping the HRM might help a bit. Any advise would be most welcome, Thanks, Phil.
Response:
Roger2k concluded I was mean; I concluded he was boring. Given the choice, I’ll take the former as a badge.
You’se guys need to read the "Hockomock Swamp Rat" if you think Jenn e fir is mean. I’ve been at this since ‘74; she won’t steer you wrong! HRMs still suck. More miles mean faster ones. Penguins are birds that are being exploited to sell running products. Ultra folks are freaks — harmless, but freaks nonetheless.
The more things change, the more things stay the same. My current favorite: "Will light shoes make you faster?" Kudos to Jenn e fir for recounting these "highlights". Michael – "damn, now i have to start reading rec.running again…"
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Haven’t read the NG for a month or so. Lo and behold, my girl Jenn e fir is back! Why didn’t anyone notify me?! What have I missed? It’s been pretty damn dull perhaps. McConnell tried his hand at stand-up with some cutting edge math humour. We had a run on the typical "My ______ hurts after running _____ miles. What to do." Doug Freese was sued for sexual harrassment. Nike sucked. We learned that while the speed of light is the maximum speed achieveable in the universe, there is apparently no minimum based on some of the posted 5K times. While you were gone, Canada strung up some string that reached the U.S. and now we have Canadian posts. The Brits are more abundant and there’s even some Irish Dudes. Oz continues his search for mindless running, which coincidently he’ll eventually discover is the same as mindful running. (oops…I hate to spoil the ending). There’s been chafing, chilling, cheerleading, chance encounters with critters and characters on the run. Bernard added a section entitled "training week" which because of my poor vision, I read as "train wreck" and was at a loss for weeks as to what to post. Roger2k concluded I was mean; I concluded he was boring. Given the choice, I’ll take the former as a badge. HRMs still suck. More miles mean faster ones. Penguins are birds that are being exploited to sell running products. Ultra folks are freaks — harmless, but freaks nonetheless.
Whew! I didn’t make the highlight reel! Now I’ve just got to figure out whether that’s good or bad…
Response:
let’s talk about running?
Okay, you got it…as (name deleted to protect the innocent) has suggested, HRMs can have limited benefits. As a former religious user, I would find there would be days where I would feel much different than my HR would suggest; in other words, according to the HRM I should be dead, or at least anaerobic, when in fact my "feel" suggested I was running easily. The reverse has happened as well. Additionally, there would be times I would set up a speed workout to correspond to various HRs…and one day the thing malfunctioned at rep #3…it was an "important" workout, and I think I established a new record for throwing a watch off into a distant field. For me, the moral was, and is, "run by feel". Bottom line is that no matter what the device says if you feel like crap you feel like crap…and if you feel good, but your HRM says you’re about to go into cardiac arrest…well, I’ll rely on what my body is saying, not the device. It has been five years since my last use of a HRM, and my running and other training is doing just fine, thank you. On another note, it should be no surprise that Jenn and Roger would disagree vehemently on this issue…they are indeed polar opposites (pun intended) on this issue, as Jenn has staunchly voiced her disdain for the device, while Roger has posted race and training results replete with HRM readings. That it went "personal" should be no surprise to anyone that has been on Usenet for any length of time… Mike C
Response:
Haven’t read the NG for a month or so. Lo and behold, my girl Jenn e fir is back! Why didn’t anyone notify me?! What have I missed?
It’s been pretty damn dull perhaps. McConnell tried his hand at stand-up with some cutting edge math humour. We had a run on the typical "My ______ hurts after running _____ miles. What to do." Doug Freese was sued for sexual harrassment. Nike sucked. We learned that while the speed of light is the maximum speed achieveable in the universe, there is apparently no minimum based on some of the posted 5K times. While you were gone, Canada strung up some string that reached the U.S. and now we have Canadian posts. The Brits are more abundant and there’s even some Irish Dudes. Oz continues his search for mindless running, which coincidently he’ll eventually discover is the same as mindful running. (oops…I hate to spoil the ending). There’s been chafing, chilling, cheerleading, chance encounters with critters and characters on the run. Bernard added a section entitled "training week" which because of my poor vision, I read as "train wreck" and was at a loss for weeks as to what to post. Roger2k concluded I was mean; I concluded he was boring. Given the choice, I’ll take the former as a badge. HRMs still suck. More miles mean faster ones. Penguins are birds that are being exploited to sell running products. Ultra folks are freaks — harmless, but freaks nonetheless. Michael – ’he likes anyone…’
You must be a lawyer. Jennifer
Response:
[snip] Perhaps I should have asked how many hours per week that you don’t slam someone instead. You could probably use your fingers to count those.
As irrelevant as it is, ask away, but don’t expect an answer. But listen up geekboy, start a post off with "Here’s some advise, don’t listen to Jennifer" and you may realistically expect some heat. Although in most cases, I wouldn’t notice, seeing as how they are posts from you. Just don’t try crawling away with "she hit me after I hit her first." Stick to the facts; stay relevant; read the header. The header says HRM. I said (quoting): I’ve yet to find a study that actually discovers a person using the various % range improve faster or with fewer injuries or to a higher level than the non-HRMed runner. As a temporary HRM owner, its usefulness was nil and my use of it similarly limited to about 2 weeks. The money’s better used for new shoes. Anecdotally, most of the people I know eventually retire the gadget to their desk. You said: You’re mean to HRMs! I said: Read what I wrote. You said: Waaaaaa…she’s mean. I said: Just defend why you think they are useful and why you say they are useful if you yourself have abandoned yours. You said: You’re mother’s mean! I’m tellin’ on you! Well Rog, my mother’s dead and has been for years, so leave her out of it. Go ahead. Attack me all you want. Like the Bible says, you’ll reap what you sow. Jennifer – The header is HRM. I say "they suck." Discuss ‘mongst yourselves
Response:
To the principals in this, ahem, discussion about HRMs and who said what: a humble suggestion that this thread has transcended rec.running relevance and should go to email–or better yet, no email continuation of the argument. Instead, what say we have a truce and move on? Too much bandwidth spent on increasingly personal jibes, and I doubt many readers really care who said what at this point. I have enjoyed reading posts from both posters and prefer to apply ignore filters only to spammers and cross-posting political lunatics, not to runners who, er, stepped on each other’s toes and stopped to pick up a flame-thrower. What say you guys just agree to Disagree and let’s talk about running? Just a suggestion. Thanks. Chris
Response:
[vent snipped] Jennifer
You considered my question a vent? Perhaps I should have asked how many hours per week that you don’t slam someone instead. You could probably use your fingers to count those. I’ll bet you even put down people while you are running. Did your mother teach you that also?
Response:
writes: –It’s geek value is limitless; –It’s cool to know that your max heart rate is xxx; –It’s really neat to discover that during a race you hit xxx and that during Surely she’s correct in her use of "it’s"
Not all the way through. The first sentence should have been "Its geek value…" with no apostrophe; the other two sentences are correct. "It’s" is the contraction of "it is." Substituting "it is" in the sentences above, you get two that are obviously right and one that obviously isn’t: –It is geek value is limitless; (wrong) –It is cool to know… (right) –It is really neat to discover … (right) It’s an easy enough mistake to make, especially when one is setting up a parallel structure like that. Pat
Response:
Haven’t read the NG for a month or so. Lo and behold, my girl Jenn e fir is back! Why didn’t anyone notify me?! What have I missed? Michael – ’he likes anyone…’
Response:
–On Wednesday, September 19, 2001 7:33 PM +0000 Roger 2k Perhaps I should have asked how many hours per week that you don’t slam someone instead. You could probably use your fingers to count those.
Granted her posts were in her usual acerbic tone, but can you point out where she slammed a person? Didn’t she just slam the HRM? Maybe you’re so emotionally attached to the HRM that you feel slammed, too? Ob running: You’d never catch me with an HRM. I’ve lived in this body long enough to know what’s hard and what’s easy.
Response:
2. What is the rarest event? a. A mean post from Ozzie b. A nice post from Jenn i fer c. A nonsexual post from Doug d. A poor race report from David e. An eloquent, lengthy post from UJ
this is too funny 
jobs
Response:
But now that you’ve vented, would you care to logically or cogently refute / agree / disagree / append any of the points I raised regarding the usefulness or uselessness of the HRM?
Very anecdotally, I suppose I can think of a possible benefit of a HRM. A friend who runs and races hard wore a HRM on his hard runs with the express goal of not letting his HR fall below a certain level. If he slacked a little ( I can’t remember the %’s but he was running something like 90% for 10 miles) the thing would let him know. The HRM reminded him if he slacked at all and he was a pretty successful runner. I think he was 20 minutes sub Fir in the marathon. That being said, I have never and will likely never own one. I can pretty much concentrate and run hard on my own and I prefer to spend my geek-allocation on digital camera equipment. Indeed if my opinion is ill advised and you disagree, why have YOU ceased to use your valuable device. Jennifer – ‘mommy, mommy she was mean to me…"
David Olsen – Been writing too many quizzes lately Quiz 1. Who is the better author? a. Emily Dickinson b. Charles Dickens c. William Shakespeare d. E. A. Poe e. George Sheehan 2. What is the rarest event? a. A mean post from Ozzie b. A nice post from Jenn i fer c. A nonsexual post from Doug d. A poor race report from David e. An eloquent, lengthy post from UJ
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – –It’s geek value is limitless; –It’s cool to know that your max heart rate is xxx; –It’s really neat to discover that during a race you hit xxx and that during since we are on the topic of spelling and syntax, i guess you could do a google search for "it’s vs its." Why? Surely she’s correct in her use of "it’s". Apologies, it was incorrect in the first instance.
For some reason this all reminds me of an old math joke. A professor is lecturing in an advanced math course. Near the middle of the lecture he says "Thus, it is trivial to see that…," while writing an equation on the blackboard. At this point the professor pauses, staring at what he has written. He scratches his head and walks back and forth in front of the class, muttering and occasionally glancing at the equation. Abruptly, he leaves the classroom and goes to his office. 15 minutes pass. Just before the end of the period, the professor returns to announce triumphantly "I was right. It _is_ trivial!" — Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150
Response:
–It’s geek value is limitless; –It’s cool to know that your max heart rate is xxx; –It’s really neat to discover that during a race you hit xxx and that during since we are on the topic of spelling and syntax, i guess you could do a google search for "it’s vs its."
Why? Surely she’s correct in her use of "it’s". Barry
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – –It’s geek value is limitless; –It’s cool to know that your max heart rate is xxx; –It’s really neat to discover that during a race you hit xxx and that during since we are on the topic of spelling and syntax, i guess you could do a google search for "it’s vs its." Why? Surely she’s correct in her use of "it’s".
Apologies, it was incorrect in the first instance. Barry
Response:
A better idea. For some real ‘advise’ learn that it’s spelled advice. –It’s geek value is limitless; –It’s cool to know that your max heart rate is xxx; –It’s really neat to discover that during a race you hit xxx and that during
since we are on the topic of spelling and syntax, i guess you could do a google search for "it’s vs its." sincerely jobs
Response:
[vent snipped] But now that you’ve vented again, would you care to logically or cogently refute / agree / disagree / append any of the points I raised regarding the usefulness or uselessness of the HRM? Indeed if my opinion is ill advised and you disagree, why have YOU ceased to use your valuable device. Jennifer
Response:
However,
If you ever said anything nice, you would freak out a lot of people. You really should start your post with: nice mode – off Keep up the bad work, Roger
Response:
If you ever said anything nice, you would freak out a lot of people. You really should start your post with: nice mode – off
I’ll remind you how you started your original post [begin quote] I have some [advice]. Don’t listen to Jennifer. [end quote] But now that you’ve vented, would you care to logically or cogently refute / agree / disagree / append any of the points I raised regarding the usefulness or uselessness of the HRM? Indeed if my opinion is ill advised and you disagree, why have YOU ceased to use your valuable device. Jennifer – ‘mommy, mommy she was mean to me…"
Response:
Jennifer – ‘mommy, mommy she was mean to me…"
You have probably heard that a lot in your life, maybe more than anybody. I know of mean women and what I thought was funny was when a person said, if you think Beverly is mean, you should see her mother. I guess, if you are like Beverly, I should be glad your mother doesn’t post. As for an HRM, you could tell people of your own experience with it instead of just doing a point blank attack on it. Talk about HRMs. I wonder if the guards at the military institution we will be running through on Sunday will think it’s a bomb strapped to someone. I think someone had better inform those military personal about them. It’s bad enough I’m not going to try carrying my cell phone because of the higher security on this marathon. Thanks, Roger Ok Jennifer do your slamming… So how many hours do you slam a week?
Response:
I have some advise. Don’t listen to Jennifer.
A better idea. For some real ‘advise’ learn that it’s spelled advice. As for real advise, well I use it for what is termed "cruise intervals." Where you run for 10 minutes holding it over a certain %.
My perspective, often repeated, is to ADVISE you to use the HRM for what it is: a gadget. It’s useful to glean interesting information about your heart rate during rest or exercise. –It provides useful trivial information; –It’s geek value is limitless; –It’s cool to know that your max heart rate is xxx; –It’s really neat to discover that during a race you hit xxx and that during an easy run you are at xxx. However, I’ve yet to find a study that actually discovers a person using the various % range improve faster or with fewer injuries or to a higher level than the non-HRMed runner. As a temporary HRM owner, its usefulness was nil and my use of it similarly limited to about 2 weeks. The money’s better used for new shoes. Anecdotally, most of the people I know eventually retire the gadget to their desk. I try not to look at it too often anymore. I use it more for collecting data after a race or run.
Do what I say not what I do? Jennifer
Response:
I have some advise. Don’t listen to Jennifer. As for real advise, well I use it for what is termed "cruise intervals." Where you run for 10 minutes holding it over a certain %. For me it works out to be a little over 180. My max is 202+ and I’ve seen my resting at 48. I try not to look at it too often anymore. I use it more for collecting data after a race or run. Thanks, Roger – Two workouts left – – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all, Just bought myself an HRM and was wondering if anyone else out there used this specific brand, it’s an Oregon Scientific D800. Oh by the way, I am training for my first marathon and was hoping the HRM might help a bit. Any advise would be most welcome, Thanks, Phil.
Response:
Hi all, Just bought myself an HRM and was wondering if anyone else out there used this specific brand, it’s an Oregon Scientific D800. Oh by the way, I am training for my first marathon and was hoping the HRM might help a bit. Any advise would be most welcome, Thanks, Phil.
Response:
max with 1 min rest intervals. How would you like to hop out of bed and try *that* one every morning?
Hop? I’d be lucky if I could crawl out of bed. -Phil
Response:
I came across it while surfing. I have checked through my bookmark collection and came up with it. http://www.heartinfo.org/news97/hiexerc397.htm Interesting article. However, there were no specifics as to how long the subjects maintained the 90% MHR, or how many days per week they exercised, or what they did. I, for one, would soon break down if I maintained 90% MHR every time I went running. Any idea where I could find the full report? -Phil
Therein lies the potential pitfall in trying to look for a *one intensity fits all* approach. There have been a number of studies supporting the same general idea that have been published in the past few years. But they involve some intense work that would be highly impractical (if not impossible) for the average exerciser to follow, esp the beginner who is trying to loose weight. One study that I often cite showed that a high intensity interval workout resulted in a substantially higher post-exercise elevated resting metabolism than a 60% VO2 max workout of equal duration. max with 1 min rest intervals. How would you like to hop out of bed and try *that* one every morning? I think the message is clear: variety, variety, variety. Each type of workout–LSD to all-out interval–has its own beneficial effects, and none should be done to the exclusion of all others. For the most part, I think that the *classic* workout program, that focuses on improving fitness and performance, is also the best overall program for weight loss as well. Rick Gerwin
Response:
I came across this study on a cardiac rehab web site. Try to do a web search. I might have saved a bookmark. The study was about 6 months ago or so. 90% is near the AT, so that shouldn’t be a problem. Gary – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I read about a University of WVA study indicating that 90% intensity (of MHR) was better than lower intensity exercise for weight loss, fitness, and for decreasing the body’s appetite for higher-fat food. You should mix high with lower and active rest (e.g., golf or walking, etc.). This sounds like an orphan study. Is there anything else to support these claims? Everything else I’ve read suggests that 70%-80% is as high as anyone should go during training, with the exception of fartleks, etc. — GK FrodoJRR at Interaccess dot com OS/2 Version 4.00 Revision 9.030 There are 32 Processes with 115 Threads. This machine’s uptime is 9d 4h 41m 22s 828ms.
Response:
I came across it while surfing. I have checked through my bookmark collection and came up with it. http://www.heartinfo.org/news97/hiexerc397.htm I have not read the study itself though. If you come up with it, post it or email me. Gary – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Could you pass along where you saw this or a reference? Thanks. I read about a University of WVA study indicating that 90% intensity (of MHR) was better than lower intensity exercise for weight loss, fitness, and for decreasing the body’s appetite for higher-fat food. You should mix high with lower and active rest (e.g., golf or walking, etc.).
Response:
I came across it while surfing. I have checked through my bookmark collection and came up with it. http://www.heartinfo.org/news97/hiexerc397.htm
Interesting article. However, there were no specifics as to how long the subjects maintained the 90% MHR, or how many days per week they exercised, or what they did. I, for one, would soon break down if I maintained 90% MHR every time I went running. Any idea where I could find the full report? -Phil
Response:
That’s the same question I posted. I was too busy at the time (and now) to do a search. If I did however, I would start at the web site of the summary (heartinfo.org) and contact its webmaster. Gary – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I came across it while surfing. I have checked through my bookmark collection and came up with it. http://www.heartinfo.org/news97/hiexerc397.htm Interesting article. However, there were no specifics as to how long the subjects maintained the 90% MHR, or how many days per week they exercised, or what they did. I, for one, would soon break down if I maintained 90% MHR every time I went running. Any idea where I could find the full report? -Phil
Response:
Patrick,
I suggest you visit the Heart Zone site, http://www.heartzone.com. In the tip section you will find a very good overview of the 5 heart zones and their benefits. It will help you when setting up training sessions with purpose. Then get a copy of Sally Edwards book Heart Zone Training either by ordering from the web site or at your local book store. It is just being released in Australia by Pursuit Performance, the Polar distributors down under. The book will guide on the process of creating a individualized program for you and your heart rate monitor. You can learn about sub maximal tests to help you estimate your max hr as well as methods for testing for your real max, the best way to go. The range in which you burn fat for fuel, depends upon your individual fitness level. The higher you anaerobic threshold, the greater your ability to burn fat at a higher level of intensity. Your anaerobic threshold is a trainable factor, your max is fixed. Good luck and enjoy the quality benefits you will derive by properly planning workouts and using your hr monitor to execute them appropriately. It will help you achieve the greatest amount of benefit from your work. Bill Stainbrook endurance athlete, heart zone educator and physical educator
Response:
I read about a University of WVA study indicating that 90% intensity (of MHR) was better than lower intensity exercise for weight loss, fitness, and for decreasing the body’s appetite for higher-fat food. You should mix high with lower and active rest (e.g., golf or walking, etc.).
This sounds like an orphan study. Is there anything else to support these claims? Everything else I’ve read suggests that 70%-80% is as high as anyone should go during training, with the exception of fartleks, etc. — GK FrodoJRR at Interaccess dot com OS/2 Version 4.00 Revision 9.030 There are 32 Processes with 115 Threads. This machine’s uptime is 9d 4h 41m 22s 828ms.
Response:
Could you pass along where you saw this or a reference? Thanks. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I read about a University of WVA study indicating that 90% intensity (of MHR) was better than lower intensity exercise for weight loss, fitness, and for decreasing the body’s appetite for higher-fat food. You should mix high with lower and active rest (e.g., golf or walking, etc.).
Response:
Gary, After reading your post, I looked around a little and re-examined the formula. Using 220-age as a MHR, I believe the formula would be (MHR-RHR) * intensity. I found this at: http://www.sportfit.com/sportfitglossary/energetics_aerobic_krvnn.html. However, I did find a reference which shows your method at: http://primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/activity/thr.htm These two seem to vary in the intensity range by which you multiply…. Any thoughts on which method is more valid? BTW, outside of a treadmill stress test how do you experimentally determine MHR?
A race when you give an all out effort at the end of say a race of 5000m or less. A good long hill with an all out effort at the top. Check with a doc first.
Response:
The only difference seems to be in how you define intensity – either it’s with respect to absolute value of heart rate, or it’s defined with respect to relative value of heart rate (with respect to RHR), therefore one has to substract RHR, multiply by intensity and then add RHR back to make it absolute again. Just two different scales for intensity. Since intensity in itself is pretty arbitrary number, it doesn’t really matter what method you use as long as you are consistantly using the same methods and understand what methods other people are using to describe workouts. Oleg
: Gary, : After reading your post, I looked around a little and re-examined the : formula. Using 220-age as a MHR, I believe the formula would be (MHR-RHR) * : intensity. I found this at: : http://www.sportfit.com/sportfitglossary/energetics_aerobic_krvnn.html. : However, I did find a reference which shows your method at: : http://primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/activity/thr.htm : These two seem to vary in the intensity range by which you multiply…. : Any thoughts on which method is more valid? : BTW, outside of a treadmill stress test how do you experimentally determine : MHR? : Patrick : The Karvonen method is: HR(exercise) = RHR + (MHR – RHR) * intensity : level. : There is no problem with this method; it is the one I use. The rub is: : what is : your MHR? Using the 220 – age correlation, I am more than 3 standard : deviations : off from the ESTIMATE – a rather lousy estimate in my particular instance. : : Gary :
: : These two methods produce similar results because of the numbers by : which : you multiply to generate the ranges. For the 220 – age method, the : recommended range is 65%-90% (or multiplying by .65 and .90). For the : 220-rhr-age method, the range is 50%-85%. : : Patrick : : For those two correlations to yield very similar numbers, the RHR : would : have to : be ZERO. The 220 – RHR – age correlation, I suspect, would be grossly : in : error : anyway. : : Gary : : : I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and : 220-rhr-age : methods and have arrived at very similar numbers. : : — Oleg
Response:
Gary, How do you decide what intensity values to use? Patrick
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gary, After reading your post, I looked around a little and re-examined the formula. Using 220-age as a MHR, I believe the formula would be (MHR-RHR) * intensity. I found this at: http://www.sportfit.com/sportfitglossary/energetics_aerobic_krvnn.html. However, I did find a reference which shows your method at: http://primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/activity/thr.htm These two seem to vary in the intensity range by which you multiply…. Any thoughts on which method is more valid? BTW, outside of a treadmill stress test how do you experimentally determine MHR? Patrick The Karvonen method is: HR(exercise) = RHR + (MHR – RHR) * intensity level. There is no problem with this method; it is the one I use. The rub is: what is your MHR? Using the 220 – age correlation, I am more than 3 standard deviations off from the ESTIMATE – a rather lousy estimate in my particular instance. Gary These two methods produce similar results because of the numbers by which you multiply to generate the ranges. For the 220 – age method, the recommended range is 65%-90% (or multiplying by .65 and .90). For the 220-rhr-age method, the range is 50%-85%. Patrick For those two correlations to yield very similar numbers, the RHR would have to be ZERO. The 220 – RHR – age correlation, I suspect, would be grossly in error anyway. Gary I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and 220-rhr-age methods and have arrived at very similar numbers.
Response:
I read about a University of WVA study indicating that 90% intensity (of MHR) was better than lower intensity exercise for weight loss, fitness, and for decreasing the body’s appetite for higher-fat food. You should mix high with lower and active rest (e.g., golf or walking, etc.). Gary – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gary, How do you decide what intensity values to use? Patrick Gary, After reading your post, I looked around a little and re-examined the formula. Using 220-age as a MHR, I believe the formula would be (MHR-RHR) * intensity. I found this at: http://www.sportfit.com/sportfitglossary/energetics_aerobic_krvnn.html. However, I did find a reference which shows your method at: http://primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/activity/thr.htm These two seem to vary in the intensity range by which you multiply…. Any thoughts on which method is more valid? BTW, outside of a treadmill stress test how do you experimentally determine MHR? Patrick The Karvonen method is: HR(exercise) = RHR + (MHR – RHR) * intensity level. There is no problem with this method; it is the one I use. The rub is: what is your MHR? Using the 220 – age correlation, I am more than 3 standard deviations off from the ESTIMATE – a rather lousy estimate in my particular instance. Gary These two methods produce similar results because of the numbers by which you multiply to generate the ranges. For the 220 – age method, the recommended range is 65%-90% (or multiplying by .65 and .90). For the 220-rhr-age method, the range is 50%-85%. Patrick For those two correlations to yield very similar numbers, the RHR would have to be ZERO. The 220 – RHR – age correlation, I suspect, would be grossly in error anyway. Gary I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and 220-rhr-age methods and have arrived at very similar numbers.
Response:
Using the first URL, you forgot to add the RHR to the %HRR. This is the Karvonen method. I did not check the second URL. I am assuming that the results from the two are identical. Gary – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gary, After reading your post, I looked around a little and re-examined the formula. Using 220-age as a MHR, I believe the formula would be (MHR-RHR) * intensity. I found this at: http://www.sportfit.com/sportfitglossary/energetics_aerobic_krvnn.html. However, I did find a reference which shows your method at: http://primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/activity/thr.htm These two seem to vary in the intensity range by which you multiply…. Any thoughts on which method is more valid? BTW, outside of a treadmill stress test how do you experimentally determine MHR? Patrick The Karvonen method is: HR(exercise) = RHR + (MHR – RHR) * intensity level. There is no problem with this method; it is the one I use. The rub is: what is your MHR? Using the 220 – age correlation, I am more than 3 standard deviations off from the ESTIMATE – a rather lousy estimate in my particular instance. Gary These two methods produce similar results because of the numbers by which you multiply to generate the ranges. For the 220 – age method, the recommended range is 65%-90% (or multiplying by .65 and .90). For the 220-rhr-age method, the range is 50%-85%. Patrick For those two correlations to yield very similar numbers, the RHR would have to be ZERO. The 220 – RHR – age correlation, I suspect, would be grossly in error anyway. Gary I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and 220-rhr-age methods and have arrived at very similar numbers.
Response:
I made a boo-boo….After further examination, I noticed that both these sites show the (MHR-RHR) * intensity + RHR method….Anyway, would still like to know about MHR. Patrick
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gary, After reading your post, I looked around a little and re-examined the formula. Using 220-age as a MHR, I believe the formula would be (MHR-RHR) * intensity. I found this at: http://www.sportfit.com/sportfitglossary/energetics_aerobic_krvnn.html. However, I did find a reference which shows your method at: http://primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/activity/thr.htm These two seem to vary in the intensity range by which you multiply…. Any thoughts on which method is more valid? BTW, outside of a treadmill stress test how do you experimentally determine MHR? Patrick The Karvonen method is: HR(exercise) = RHR + (MHR – RHR) * intensity level. There is no problem with this method; it is the one I use. The rub is: what is your MHR? Using the 220 – age correlation, I am more than 3 standard deviations off from the ESTIMATE – a rather lousy estimate in my particular instance. Gary These two methods produce similar results because of the numbers by which you multiply to generate the ranges. For the 220 – age method, the recommended range is 65%-90% (or multiplying by .65 and .90). For the 220-rhr-age method, the range is 50%-85%. Patrick For those two correlations to yield very similar numbers, the RHR would have to be ZERO. The 220 – RHR – age correlation, I suspect, would be grossly in error anyway. Gary I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and 220-rhr-age methods and have arrived at very similar numbers.
Response:
I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and 220-rhr-age
^ ^ ^ Are these minus signs or hyphens? -Phil
Response:
These two methods produce similar results because of the numbers by which you multiply to generate the ranges. For the 220 – age method, the recommended range is 65%-90% (or multiplying by .65 and .90). For the 220-rhr-age method, the range is 50%-85%. Patrick
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For those two correlations to yield very similar numbers, the RHR would have to be ZERO. The 220 – RHR – age correlation, I suspect, would be grossly in error anyway. Gary I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and 220-rhr-age methods and have arrived at very similar numbers.
Response:
These values are available at: http://www.healthcalc.net/hcn/tools.htm
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For those two correlations to yield very similar numbers, the RHR would have to be ZERO. The 220 – RHR – age correlation, I suspect, would be grossly in error anyway. Gary I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and 220-rhr-age methods and have arrived at very similar numbers.
Response:
http://www.healthcalc.net/hcn/tools.htm
Strangely, according to this web site, my resting heart rate is invalid. -Phil
Response:
The Karvonen method is: HR(exercise) = RHR + (MHR – RHR) * intensity level. There is no problem with this method; it is the one I use. The rub is: what is your MHR? Using the 220 – age correlation, I am more than 3 standard deviations off from the ESTIMATE – a rather lousy estimate in my particular instance. Gary – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These two methods produce similar results because of the numbers by which you multiply to generate the ranges. For the 220 – age method, the recommended range is 65%-90% (or multiplying by .65 and .90). For the 220-rhr-age method, the range is 50%-85%. Patrick For those two correlations to yield very similar numbers, the RHR would have to be ZERO. The 220 – RHR – age correlation, I suspect, would be grossly in error anyway. Gary I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and 220-rhr-age methods and have arrived at very similar numbers.
Response:
Gary, After reading your post, I looked around a little and re-examined the formula. Using 220-age as a MHR, I believe the formula would be (MHR-RHR) * intensity. I found this at: http://www.sportfit.com/sportfitglossary/energetics_aerobic_krvnn.html. However, I did find a reference which shows your method at: http://primusweb.com/fitnesspartner/library/activity/thr.htm These two seem to vary in the intensity range by which you multiply…. Any thoughts on which method is more valid? BTW, outside of a treadmill stress test how do you experimentally determine MHR? Patrick
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Karvonen method is: HR(exercise) = RHR + (MHR – RHR) * intensity level. There is no problem with this method; it is the one I use. The rub is: what is your MHR? Using the 220 – age correlation, I am more than 3 standard deviations off from the ESTIMATE – a rather lousy estimate in my particular instance. Gary These two methods produce similar results because of the numbers by which you multiply to generate the ranges. For the 220 – age method, the recommended range is 65%-90% (or multiplying by .65 and .90). For the 220-rhr-age method, the range is 50%-85%. Patrick For those two correlations to yield very similar numbers, the RHR would have to be ZERO. The 220 – RHR – age correlation, I suspect, would be grossly in error anyway. Gary I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and 220-rhr-age methods and have arrived at very similar numbers.
Response:
I have been running for several years (the Army got me started) and was recently convinced of the benefits of a HRM. While I’m waiting for it to arrive in the mail, I was wondering if anyone could clarify an issue for me. I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and 220-rhr-age methods and have arrived at very similar numbers. I have read, however, that different ranges (i.e. 70-85%) within your target rate are recommended for cardiovascular fitness, "fat-burning", etc. Any opinions on this stuff? Thanks, Patrick — (For e-mail reply, pick out the JUNK from my address)
Response:
For those two correlations to yield very similar numbers, the RHR would have to be ZERO. The 220 – RHR – age correlation, I suspect, would be grossly in error anyway. Gary – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have calculated my target heart rate using the 220-age and 220-rhr-age methods and have arrived at very similar numbers.