Polar F4 is discouraging!!!!!!
Options
Replies
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »can someone please point me in the right direction to let me know my correct training zone should be.
Zone training is a waste of tme unless you're competitive in distance running or cycling.
Work as hard as you're comfortable with for the duration of your session. Shorter session, higher effort, longer session, lower effort. They each have a fitness outcome.
So since I am not "competitive" in anything, it is a waste of time to use zone training to improve my personal lap times and lap counts on the track? What a load of bs. If she wants to do zone training, who are you to tell her it is pointless?0 -
I don't even listen to that I switched the beeping off. I love my watch I've had it nearly 3 years now and wouldn't be without it.0
-
Just for informational purposes, I am 28, 5'9" & 200. My max HR is about 192, so my 90% is in the low 180s. When running, I like to stay between 165-175 bpm, as this will maximize both my lap times and the amount of miles I can run at the pace that correlates with my hr. Right now, that pace is 6.2 mph, up from a base of 4.8 mph, looking to improve to 6.5 mph and more. If I ran balls to the wall and stepped into the 180s, this would limit the amount of laps I can run. I dont compete against anyone, I am just looking to improve myself. But anyone can do zone training to improve their fitness level. Period.0
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »can someone please point me in the right direction to let me know my correct training zone should be.
Zone training is a waste of tme unless you're competitive in distance running or cycling.
Work as hard as you're comfortable with for the duration of your session. Shorter session, higher effort, longer session, lower effort. They each have a fitness outcome.
So since I am not "competitive" in anything, it is a waste of time to use zone training to improve my personal lap times and lap counts on the track? What a load of bs. If she wants to do zone training, who are you to tell her it is pointless?
Until someone gets to a certain level of fitness, it is pointless, because it doesn't add anything of value. For the vast majority of exercisers, you can tell you're in the right "zone" simply by monitoring your breathing frequency and doing the Talk Test while running (or whatever).
If someone really wants to closely monitor their HR - sure, go for it, it won't do any harm (unless you screw it up).
0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »If I ran balls to the wall and stepped into the 180s, this would limit the amount of laps I can run.
Yes, everybody here understands that the more intense the effort, the shorter period of time it can be sustained.
The problem is that heart rate is only a mediocre proxy for power output. Too much variance - even in the same person, at a constant level of fitness, performing the same task.
Which is why the real pros don't do HR-based training, they do power-based training.0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »can someone please point me in the right direction to let me know my correct training zone should be.
Zone training is a waste of tme unless you're competitive in distance running or cycling.
Work as hard as you're comfortable with for the duration of your session. Shorter session, higher effort, longer session, lower effort. They each have a fitness outcome.
So since I am not "competitive" in anything, it is a waste of time to use zone training to improve my personal lap times and lap counts on the track? What a load of bs. If she wants to do zone training, who are you to tell her it is pointless?
Until someone gets to a certain level of fitness, it is pointless, because it doesn't add anything of value. For the vast majority of exercisers, you can tell you're in the right "zone" simply by monitoring your breathing frequency and doing the Talk Test while running (or whatever).
And what is value, I wonder? An objective thing that everybody deems the same?0 -
See above. The "zone" methodology is an attempt to use heart rate as a proxy for power output.
Heart rate is NOT an "objective" measure of anything, other than heart rate.0 -
Weird... I have the Polar F7. I always go above my range, it doesnt beep at me or anything though, it just says im in the 'fitness' zone.0
-
This. And if you're concerned, get checked by a doctor before you do any more exercise.MeanderingMammal wrote: »can someone please point me in the right direction to let me know my correct training zone should be.
Zone training is a waste of tme unless you're competitive in distance running or cycling.
Work as hard as you're comfortable with for the duration of your session. Shorter session, higher effort, longer session, lower effort. They each have a fitness outcome.
Zone training is not a waste of time. It's beneficial to work both larger arterial regions as well as capillaries. Saying anything less is being simplistic and just plain incorrect.
HIIT is zone training, as an example. LISS is zone training as well.
Seen great results zone training on cardio.
I have the FT 4 but I think others on here in previous posts have pointed out how to make the adjustments. You should just be able to mute the dang watch - if you are on equipment equipped with a heart rate monitor unto itself, you don't even need the watch.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
This. And if you're concerned, get checked by a doctor before you do any more exercise.MeanderingMammal wrote: »can someone please point me in the right direction to let me know my correct training zone should be.
Zone training is a waste of tme unless you're competitive in distance running or cycling.
Work as hard as you're comfortable with for the duration of your session. Shorter session, higher effort, longer session, lower effort. They each have a fitness outcome.
Zone training is not a waste of time. It's beneficial to work both larger arterial regions as well as capillaries. Saying anything less is being simplistic and just plain incorrect.
HIIT is zone training, as an example. LISS is zone training as well.
Seen great results zone training on cardio.
I have the FT 4 but I think others on here in previous posts have pointed out how to make the adjustments. You should just be able to mute the dang watch - if you are on equipment equipped with a heart rate monitor unto itself, you don't even need the watch.
Meaning... you can use the heart rate chest strap and let the equipment tell you what your HR rate is - so it's really simple and easy.0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »Just for informational purposes, I am 28, 5'9" & 200. My max HR is about 192, so my 90% is in the low 180s. When running, I like to stay between 165-175 bpm, as this will maximize both my lap times and the amount of miles I can run at the pace that correlates with my hr. Right now, that pace is 6.2 mph, up from a base of 4.8 mph, looking to improve to 6.5 mph and more. If I ran balls to the wall and stepped into the 180s, this would limit the amount of laps I can run. I dont compete against anyone, I am just looking to improve myself. But anyone can do zone training to improve their fitness level. Period.
So there's a difference between using HR to determine your pace, and zone training. You're correct, a lower level of effort can be sustained for a longer period of time, but that's not zone training.
The concepts behind zone training are that training in different HR ranges have different physiological effects. Whilst that is correct the size of the effect is negligible until one has a solid performance base.
Essentially for someone using a limited functionality consumer grade HRM then there is little value in zone training. You're largely talking about the idea of the fat burning zone, so whilst operating in the fat burning zone does burn a slightly higher proportion of fat during the session there is more effect from operating in a higher intensity range, so burning more gross calories. A slightly higher prioportion of a lower gross calorie expenditure is still less than a smaller proportion of a more significant expenditure.
I'd also observe that for it to become meaningful one must have a good knowledge of the actual MHR, which needs to be determined in a lab. Again for someone working with a device like an FT4 that lab testing is probably disproportionate for their needs. If I ever get to the stage when I'm running a 45 minute 10K it might be worth the expense to get me down to 42 minutes or so.
My best 10K time is 47 minutes at the moment, so I've got a couple of years until I'm thinking about it.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »My best 10K time is 47 minutes at the moment, so I've got a couple of years until I'm thinking about it.
By then, power meters for runners will be ubiquitous.
http://blog.stryd.com/
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »My best 10K time is 47 minutes at the moment, so I've got a couple of years until I'm thinking about it.
By then, power meters for runners will be ubiquitous.
http://blog.stryd.com/
Cycling power meters are just now approaching affordable status for normal people .... it will be years before those for running become widespread.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »My best 10K time is 47 minutes at the moment, so I've got a couple of years until I'm thinking about it.
By then, power meters for runners will be ubiquitous.
http://blog.stryd.com/
Cycling power meters are just now approaching affordable status for normal people .... it will be years before those for running become widespread.
We're already there.
That one is $150, today (if you can get to the top of the backorder list).
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »My best 10K time is 47 minutes at the moment, so I've got a couple of years until I'm thinking about it.
By then, power meters for runners will be ubiquitous.
http://blog.stryd.com/
Cycling power meters are just now approaching affordable status for normal people .... it will be years before those for running become widespread.
We're already there.
That one is $150, today (if you can get to the top of the backorder list).
It's a single unit marketplace with that single unit yet relatively untested and evaluated in the wild.
0 -
**** CAUTION ******
I am a runner and I used a heart monitor and pushed myself way past the recommended heartbeats per minute for my age,size etc. for many years.
Well when I asked and inquired if it was okay to push the limit I really never got much guidance, by my doctors or on-line.
I developed an Aortic Aneurysm and my deep suspicion was that I pushed myself well too far even though I felt great after my workouts and runs.
My surgeon and cardiologist cant say what caused the aneurysm ( bad genes, bad luck?)
and we really don't know the consequences of pushing the heart too fast and too hard.
But if I had to do it again I would run with caution, at least not continuously at maximum.
Just my thoughts0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions