HRM advice?
 

A member of my cycling club is working on his MA in sports physiology. He has offered to develop a training plan for any members who are interested. This would cost $50/mo plus additional cost for testing using University equipment for things like body fat and Vo2 Max. I jumped on it but asked if my age or the fact that I do not have a trainer would be issues. I've only used rollers and a gym spin bike. He assured me that neither was a problem but noted that I did have to have an HRM. Which I do have. However, it's older and I've never liked it so haven't used it much. Generally I use the chest strap on a spin bike at the gym and work with the bikes' readout on-screen. My problem with the HRM I have is that it's a PITA to set up and difficult for me to read. It's one of those watch and strap deals. Also changing batteries is a major hassle and not recommended to be done by the user according to the manufacturer. So, I am considering a new HRM and wondering if there are any out there that won't drive me crazy. I've seen some on Consumer Reports that are very highly rated but every time I read the owner's reviews half the people hate them. I'm at a loss and looking for help.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the Mio monitors. Granted, they do measure heart rate differently using an optical sensor. But I've found it to be more reliable than a chest strap because they're susceptible to things like temperature, humidity, etc. Neither of those are a big issue for indoor training, though, so you could use pretty much any watch.

Timex and Polar both make good ones.

I am going to get a Garmin strap, to match up with my Edge 500

Any ANT+ device, including a Mio Link, would work. You don't have to limit yourself to Garmin straps. You'll probably be fine in AZ, but the straps are notoriously finicky in broader weather conditions, especially cooler climates. I even bought and used electrode gel with my last one and it really did no better at more quickly and reliably measuring my heart rate.

Another vote for Mio. I have the "alpha" watch which works fine, does everything it claimed it would do, but suffers from being blue tooth only, not ANT+.

The key thing with the Mio is that there is nothing to hate. It's simply a large watch.

Just to clarify, the Alpha is a watch, whereas the Link is a wristband that is ANT+ compatible and will work with Garmin devices. They measure HR the exact same way, but the Mio Alpha is designed as a standalone product, whereas the Link requires an ANT+-capable device.

I'll never go back to HR straps again.

The difference between an HRM with a chest strap and a device like the MIO is the manner in which they work. Having used both types of technology in the medical field for 20+ years, I can tell you that, while more comfortable, the MIO will give you more problems in dropping beats than a chest strap. The MIO uses a beam of light that measures the distance between it and your radial artery between systole and diastole. Changes in temperature, musculature of the wrist, arterial disease, blood pressure among a few, often cause a difference in readings. The MIO works on the same principal as a pulse oximeter used in a doctor's office or hospital to obtain oxygen saturation and pulse.

An HRM that uses a chest strap works by picking up transthoracic electrical impulses and does not rely on the vascular system or muscle density. As long as a good connection with the skin is maintained, dropping heart beats is less likely to happen. They work on the same principal as an ECG. While a chest strap may be uncomfortable to many, it is more accurate and more reliable.

Bruce, I have a polar computer with HRM, by strap, and its a full featured cyclocomputer, you can have if you would like. All it needs is a cadence sensor, if you want that feature, the HRM strap in included. I never used it after a 50+ member gifted it to me a few years ago. You are most welcome to it, just let me know.

Bill

I'm a big fan of equipment that allows me to upload my workouts to my computer or various websites. I also like the watch style unit with chest strap because then I can have accurate data on all my workouts, no matter what: skiing, running, hiking, weight lifting, spin bike, etc. I've always used Polar units because well . . . because that's what I've always used, so maybe 17 years so far, and found them very reliable. They are also the only units that will display on gym equipment screens, which saves the bother of looking at the watch. It's still recording, I just don't have to look at it. I also prefer the type without a built-in GPS. I like the year-long battery life of the non-GPS equipment and therefore its ability to record an entire 2-week hike, for example.

For the road bike, I use a Garmin Edge 800 because that's the best approach for that application. With a battery pack, it will run for days on a bike tour and doesn't need any connection for data. I upload its data to the same website that I use for my Polar data, so all my training data is in the same place.

I'm still using a Polar S725X, which probably hasn't been made for 10 years. The current comparable Polar product is this:
RCX5 Sports Watch for Triathletes with GPS compatibility | Polar USA

Yep, costs money. Data always costs money, but I sure get my money's worth out of it in fun and ability.

There's an earlier model comparable to my S725X on ebay right now for $40:
Polar S720I Heart Rate Monitor w Cadence Sensors | eBay

Bill, thanks for the generous offer. I really appreciate it. But, I have a HRM on the way courtesy of Amazon.

I'm really happy with my Mio Global Alpha. No chest strap and doesn't rely on electrical contacts. It is worn like a wrist watch and uses light to detect the pulse. I've tested it against $20,000 ambulance monitors and against the monitoring equipment in our cardiac rehab department. It is spot on and I've never lost signal nor had any glitches in the data. I've worn it on several very sub-freezing rides and in the gym. Nothing but praise so far.

Oxygen and Potassium, Bruce.

Bill

What did you finally buy? And how do you like it after using it for a bit?

Haven't received it yet but I bought a Polar. Really only because I also asked the advice of the guy who is doing the programs and he said Polar is what they use at the school labs. They seemed to think they are very accurate when compared to other instruments they use. He also advised that I not throw money at one with all the bells and whistles. He said the two things I would want were the calorie count function and programmable zones. So, I ended up with a Polar H7. It was the highest rated HRM by Consumer Reports. I have to say that I have a love-hate relationship with technology. I totally understand it's value and while I don't always understand the technology of a variety of devices in my world I have discovered that I am quite able to learn. The problem is the learning takes time and although I enjoy knowing how things work and how to use them I am often frustrated by the multiplicity of functions that I neither need nor want. Just trying to set up bicycle computers can drive you crazy. So, I'm hoping this HRM will be relatively simple. If not I will have my new trainer around to help. I hope.

Oh, FWIW I meet with the trainer in two weeks to start to do the baseline testing and then develop a program. He advises me that in the meantime he wants me to do 4-5 hrs/wk on a trainer at 50-75% max. HR. Currently I'm at the gym on the spin bike working to spinning videos for 40-50 min about 5 days/wk. My question, which I am about to pose to him, is what to use for a max. HR. I have found that if I program my video by age (mine being 68) I feel like I'm not really working. So, I've been programming at 55 or 60 but I'd really like to know what my max HR is. Using the standard 220-age formula leaves me at 114 bpm when working at 75%. When I am riding to a video I am always up to around 130 and not overly stressed by any means. So, I don't know what's real. Guess I better shoot out that email.

I feel naked riding without my chest strap HRM.

Bruce,
As to your question about your MHR, someone here can probably come up with the estimate method for that metric, I understand that you can do a fairly good estimate with a TT type ride, of a given distance, not sure of the details about this, though. The number you gave, 114 sounds a little low, for your level of fitness, to me. The Joe Friel book, The Cyclist Training Bible, has a method for getting this without doing a stress test type MRH measurement, also, (great reference book, if you don't already have a copy, I use mine frequently for my education.)

Please keep us updated on how this goes for you, and what happens in the sessions. I am interested in learning about this.

Bill

Bill,

Just got a response from Aaron, the trainer. He said they have never been able to find a quick formula for an athlete's max HR. He suggested that I do a 30 second seated sprint, 3 min. rest, another 30 second seated sprint, average the two max HRs and add 5 beats. I'm off to the gym right now so I will try that and see if it looks reasonable. I will check out that Joe Friel book. Thanks.

bruce

Maybe it's just that Garmin can't make a strap worth a damn or the fact that we just can't rely on them if we live in cooler, drier climates, but I've never found any Garmin strap to work reliably unless it's hot outside. It often takes 2-3 miles or so for a Garmin strap to pick up a reading for me in colder weather, so in my book that's not very accurate.

I totally understand what you're saying about the different design capabilities and flaws, but to me missing signal for 2-3 miles is a lot worse than dropping a few beats. I've also done side by side comparisons and found the Mio worked as well or better than my Garmin HRM strap.

Other riders in the club suggested the Garmin strap.......but since we are in AZ maybe that is the reason

Could change the run to a bicycling equivalent effort and see what you come up with........Your Maximum Heart Rate - How to Establish It and How It is Used.

Just a suggestion from an oldtryguy who will find out in 11 days if his lottery dream to participate in the Kona Ironman World Championship Triathlon comes true and in 12 days goes for another prostate biopsy.

Use a gel, like Spectra Gel. You might also prefer to use a Polar strap, snapping your Garmin transmitter to it. I get 100% results from mine. Pretty cheap to find out if either of these are the problem.

Thanks much, Bruce, I am not surprised that a quick and easy method won't do the trick. Cutting corners usually gets me into trouble, hope everything goes well when you get going.

Bill

A much more reasonable way to go about this is to find your LT using the CTS Field Test:
http://www.indoorcyclingassociation....R-or-Power.pdf

Your trainer should be able to provide you with zone HRs given your LTHR, and much more accurately. If you still want an estimate of MHR, divide LTHR by .9. For most people, that's more accurate than trying to find MRH on the bike.

I actually use Spectra Gel, especially in cold weather, and don't really see any big difference. To your point, though, it could be that the Polar strap makes a difference. The one you link says it's a Bluetooth version. It will work with a traditional Garmin transmitter (at least one that snaps off the band?)