hobkirk

I hate starting yet another Garmin thread - the 305, 705, and 50 (?) seem like overkill [and more money than I wanted to spend] - but maybe I'm wrong about that. I have a wired CatEye w/ cadence and it's great. I planned to get a wristwatch HRM with a strap but the available info on features is really difficult to decipher for someone who's never has an HRM - a lot of it is designed for advertising. I had anticipated using it at the gym, although this seems like it's becoming less of an issue.

I've only been cycling since 6/1/2010, so at this stage all I need is a simple Heart Beat display, but I'd like something that can grow as I get into cycling more. I'm getting "into it" fast - I'm 64, 240#, and I did 57 miles in 4 hours yesterday [surprised myself], 125 miles in 4 rides last week.

I comprehend 5 training zones and how they could be useful. I think I grasp interval training keeping the HB in the correct zone although I'm just building a base now.

Finally to the crux. It seems that the primary goal is to know what my current heart rate is so you can put yourself into the correct zone. A computer display could show the HB and I could translate that into my HR zone or the computer could do the "translation" for me. Is that what a HRM manufacturer is talking about when they list "heart zones" as a feature?

I could mount a wristwatch monitor on my bike - but are other options better? I believe the Garmin units preserve the HB record so you can upload it and create a really anal record of the myriad of details about your ride, including your heart rate. How much does that matter to someone who has no interest in racing and has no coach?

Any suggestions about appropriate HRM's would be GREATLY appreciated!

-----------------------------

As an aside, do the Garmin 305 or 705 maps work in the sticks? I ride narrow back roads west of Boston - the rolling hills (average 50-60 feet of climbing per mile) of Concord, Acton, Stow, Harvard, Berlin, etc. I've been using cue sheets but one error can get me lost (ten miles of my 57 mile ride were while I was lost).

I'm very lucky to be mostly retired - it gives me time to ride. Thank you.

Seattle Forrest

First, don't get a wrist watch. You want to be able to know your current heart rate. I'm not sure if the watch reads your pulse from your wrist, which would prevent you from mounting it to your handlebars, or if it uses a chest strap? Either way, it will be difficult to mount, and likely difficult to read.

This might not be the best solution for a cyclist, but I use a Garmin Oregon unit, mounted to the bars with their custom mount. When I'm riding I usually keep it in the "bike computer" mode, showing my speed, heart rate, and some other info I find useful, like the trip odometer up to that point, etc.

I can't say anything about the Edge maps, but the one TOPO 100 K that comes with my Oregon has hiking trails, so I would imagine you'd be ok.

A lot of that info is great to have, and the only racing I do is Silly Commuter Racing.

At the end of a vigorous workout, it's nifty to see a chart that says I spent this much of my ride doing anaerobic exercise, and a whopping seven minutes of red line. I think if I had a coach, (s)he'd be interested in these numbers, more detailed questions, and would be yelling at me over the answers. I just like to know at a high level, and compare this against other rides I do.

More fun, a lot of free software will display this data in really cool ways. With the GPS data, you can make a map of your ride ( 2D or 3D ), and with the heart rate data, software can color your route; draw a red line in the places where your HR was above 90 %, an orange one above 80 %, and so on. Knowing most of my stomping grounds pretty well, I can see from the map "here I was working hard because I was climbing a hill, but over here I'm jamming to keep up with someone who had passed me." I can make a chart showing my HR compared to the elevation, which tells the same story, but also shows me how quickly my HR drops from workout back down to normal after I crest a hill. Your "recovery rate" is a better indicator of general health than your resting HR, I've been told.

I see the wealth of data as an opportunity to see very cool maps and charts that tell me about some of the details of my rides. This is fun right after a long ride, when I'm exhausted and don't want to go hiking or kayaking ... or it's something I don't do if I wait too long. But I enjoy it - and that's the key. It's fun to do this stuff, if you're the kind of person who's already into maps and such, but I don't think any of this is essential, or maybe even terribly useful.

umd

:facepalm:

Maybe you shouldn't answer if you aren't sure?

hint: they don't.

And they make bike mounts for them too

v70cat

Is the Garmin known to give false readings?

My Garmin sometimes shows a high heart rate for no reason (at the start of a ride or on down hill section).

RoboCheme

I used to use a regular cycle computer along with a wristwatch that gave me HR and elevation. Then I ditched both for a Garmin 705. Six months later I got a powermeter. Now when I ride, I don't pay attention to speed or HR; I just focus on power. I think that power is a better indicator of effort since HR tends to lag quite a bit.

The Garmin 500 would be a good fit for you if you don't want maps in the future, but do want the option of power.

BTW, I'm sixty.

achoo

I have to wet mine with water to get it to read accurately at the start of a ride, although most of the bad readings I get are zeros and only rarely something like 240 bpm. Once I'm all sweaty it's always seemed to work fine.

baribari

I thought it was common knowledge that HB sensors work best when slightly wet. It allows the electrical impulses to conduct into the sensor better.

jeanluc

I guess not that much, especially if you don't ride the same few courses over and over again, but go in different places. The variation in the length, elevation profile and other factors will overpower any variation in your body so any detailed analysis with the HRM is not that much useful. If today went on a different course and there was a steeper hill, your HR went up. But you knew that already. Will you be able to draw any quantitative conclusions, though?

I have a Suunto HRM and am happy with it, but find it more useful while spinning in winter time. In this case, I can control or factor in most factors (time, resistance, temperature etc) and using an HR is more useful to gauge progress. I personally find that using it for country rides takes some pleasure out. But YMMV, of course.

kleinboogie

I'm a couple rides away from putting my HRM strap in the drawer. Power is all I really need now. If you don't have power then HR is the best way to measure effort and its effects. GL

calamarichris

HobKirk: If you're really building base right now, perhaps you should forget about the numbers altogether? This is the time for your body to form the neuromuscular connections that will make you an efficient pedaler, and you can help it along by making a conscious effort toward fluidity.
Right now you are establishing habits in your base period that will make or break you later on when it's time for intervals. If you get bored while riding, or if you need music or other distractions, you are perhaps not focusing on your pedaling form. Instead of plodding along, going through the motions and thinking about your heartrate/how much longer you have to hurt, I'd concentrate on smooth, fluid pedaling form.
Try pedaling with one leg for a minute at a time, focusing only on smooth, fluid pedal strokes. The natural tendency is to simply push harder on the downstroke, so you have the momentum to continue pedaling past the weaker section (usually from the 9-o'clock to 1 o'clock.) Work on the weaker sections of your pedal stroke.
Try it just a few times, and watch how much better your two-legged spin feels.

And V70cat: your HR readings are probably being affected by your dry, (insulative/synthetic) jersey flapping in the wind on the downhills. The reason it doesn't happen later in your rides when you are moist, is the damp skin & jersey don't generate as much of an interfering static charge. Wetting the HR & the surrounding skin as Achoo mentions will usually cure this.

chasm54

I agree that this is good advice. However, the OP has indicated in other posts that he has a tendency to overenthusiasm, to pushing too hard. In these circumstances I'd recommend that he uses a HRM on the basis that it will help him to keep his easy rides easy.

OP, none of the features you've been asking about are strictly necessary, but they are interesting, and as you say you might "grow into them". When I returned to cycling after a long lay-off I was initially dismissive of all this stuff (that hadn't existed when I was younger and faster) but now I sometimes find myself looking at my rides in obsessive detail. Sad, but a man needs a hobby! And yes, garmins work in the sticks - anywhere they can get a GPS fix, which is just about anywhere.

achoo

If you're going to ride when it's really hot, just remember that one symptom of heat stroke is an elevated heart rate.

wanlogan

Haha, yes. I have that exact one, actually. Or at least something similar to it. It's a Polar S150 with a bike mount--basically a wrist HRM with bike computer functions (Speedometer, Odometer, Avg Speed, etc). You can program lower and upper limits and other workouts and intervals. Especially great if you run and bike. Weirdly enough, no backlight.
I have a bad habit of overexerting myself during workouts, so it's been really useful to me.

Got it cheap, $30 used. Was in basically new condition off Craigs.

Edit: Oh and it's easy to read and uses a chest strap.

hobkirk

CalamariChris -
Good suggestions. My focus on pedal stroke has been limited to making it feel fluid, and see if I can keep it smooth at higher cadences. I got a cadence computer and I need to focus intently to keep it smooth at 100 RPM. I ride "in the moment" - I'm not bored, I don't want music. Often I talk when I'm riding in a group. My HRM concern is not about now. Rather it's about 1 or 3 or 12 months from now, assuming I continue to progress in cycling.

Chasm54 -
Thank you for your observational skills. I've always been a techie and I'm trying to be more experiential. One of my concerns is that my "over-enthusiasm" could turn me into a Garmin dweeb and I'd start thinking about my how a ride will look on my Garmin account [OK, that's actually a little over the top!]

MONEY & TECHNOLOGY -
Money matters. My original HRM estimate was $50-$60 for something basic but adequate. Then it moved to $100-$200. Then as I read about training in Cycling Past 50 I realize that even that not be adequate. All of a sudden the price of a Garmin doesn't seem nearly so high and the too-much-technology complaint doesn't seem as sure.

Thanks all for your comments!

Cjzoller

Hey - Chris from Polar here. Not here to shill at all, just wanted to make it a point to mention that as disclaimer - though I'll try to un-polarize this post

I would definitely suggest a HRM, regardless of your level. Thing is, even if you are base training - like chasm54 above mentioned, if you have a tendency to push it hardcore - HR training is a great way to regulate that and keep you in check.

Most wrist mounted units have accessories to mount them on the bike, I have never heard of them being hard to read or anything. All reliable HR monitors come with a chest transmitter as it's the most accurate way to measure heart rate. The strap has electrodes on it that you have to wet before you use it, and keep it clean when you aren't using it so it remains reliable.

Basic HRM's give you just simply heart rate and a high/low limit which is fine to start. But as you get more into HR training you will find yourself wanting more.

The higher you get in price obviously the more features you will have. Multiple target zones and more storage files at the next level so you can recall more rides and get average heartrate, time in zone..etc..

The top end training computers start digging more into the storage and start storing samples from your ride. This is also where other factors like OUTPUT is added in the features, output like speed/distance/altitude/cadence/power..etc.. This is where HR training in my opinion really makes a huge difference. When you can plot the training file on your computer, and compare INPUT(HR) to OUTPUT(speed/cadence/altitude/power) to find your sweet spot. A good example to this would be having a nice "curve" with HR as one line, altitude another, cadence another and speed. On the ride you may be doing hill repeats and you can compare your effort to cadence and speed. Seeing this all play out post ride will give you insight that you never had.

Maps with GPS are fun and all, but I personally don't see the training benefit at all. You get faster by training with input VS output. My opinion would be to not cheap out, because you WILL upgrade once you see the benefit. And pick something that has a decent "in ride" interface with a great TRAINING software for the after ride geek out

Hope this helps!

kleinboogie

Point noted, thx.

383

If you are good at perceived exertion, you can go by that. I do that, and am generally right where I need to be, if not a little high sometimes. The numbers can get distracting and take your mind away from your bike and legs and body. Try getting more in tune with your exertion levels, perhaps using a HRM or just a watch and taking pulse to get an idea of where you should be, then trying to stay there without using the numbers.