Scepticism about HRMs - what's best for running?

Options
2»

Replies

  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Looking a little at the models, are you sure the 110 uses your distance + altitude? From the literature on the 110:
    Some versions of the Forerunner 110 (men's black/red and women's gray/pink) come with a heart rate monitor to display your heart rate in beats per minute. It also provides heart rate-based calorie computations so you can accurately track your calories burned.
    (Emphasis mine)

    For best accuracy with the FT60, you need to be as close as possible with actual HRmax and actual VO2max. If you are going with factory defaults, then there is no way to quickly tell which is "most accurate", because it may be that neither one is set up with complete info, or there is no "common setup" with which to test the algorithms.
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,616 Member
    Options
    I have the version of the forerunner without the chest strap.

    I did estimate HRmax and VO2max and entered these - to be honest I can't remember the formula I used. I'll try updating these (although they won't have change dramatically) - did you have any suggestions on the best way to do that?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I have the version of the forerunner without the heart rate strap.

    I did estimate HRmax and VO2max and entered these - to be honest I can't remember the formula I used. I'll try updating these (although they won't have change dramatically) - did you have any suggestions on the best way to do that?

    So the Forerunner is using the calcs like web pages will give you. Pace, incline, weight, time.
    And walking is great test, but when you start running your personal efficiency may be all over the place compared to others.
    For instance, do you leap into the air and take like 140 strides a minute, or like pro's at 180 keeping efficiently to the ground?

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    For those stats for the HRM. The second link for VO2max is found in the study to be more accurate than sub-maximal tests.
    Of course if you enjoy the pain, I mean fun, of pushing your self all out, you can do that too if healthy.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466973-i-want-to-test-for-my-max-heart-rate-vo2-max

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/577839-hrm-s-with-vo2max-stat-improve-calorie-estimate
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    Options
    I use my Polar HRM for one thing: my heart rate. It's great for interval training, to give me an idea of whether I should work harder, ease up, or to see whether I'm becoming more conditioned over time.

    If I want to know my distance I look at the treadmill readout or I map it out. I don't trust calculations of calories burned by any device.
  • dittmarml
    dittmarml Posts: 351 Member
    Options
    None of those things are accurate, there are too many variables not taken into account. Its best to use them as a base line to improve performance as opposed to how many calories you burn in a workout. The things to watch are improvement in pace and average heart rate during a run.

    ^^^This. Probably best to use all these things to look at trends over time, rather than focus on specific numbers. Understand the curiosity aspect, but it probably will require a trip to a lab to get "real" answers.

Categories