Skip navigation
Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage
Cool Running homepage  Search Cool Running Community

2284 Views 10 Replies Latest reply: Aug 28, 2008 6:43 AM by DaveVause RSS
jaymacsigtau Amateur 22 posts since
Aug 1, 2008
Currently Being Moderated

Aug 19, 2008 5:44 PM

Got my First HRM today...Confused!

So a couple weeks ago, woot.com had this heart rate monitor on sale for $19.99:

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Reebok-Precision-Trainer-XT-Monitor/dp/B0012RMZ6C/ref=pd_sbs_hpc_1+

 

 

I read a bunch of positive reviews so I figured for 20 bucks I couldn't go wrong.  Has anyone else used this model?

 

 

Well, I finally got it in the mail today and I have to say I'm pretty excited to try it out.  I read through the instruction manual and everything seemed pretty easy to setup.  I also downloaded a guide for using a HRM from another sight(not sure if it's cool to mention what sight or not).  Their official calculation for for Max Heart Rate is 205 - (.5 x your age).  I'm going to try that for tonight and then maybe this weekend I'll try their all-out field test method to see how close they are. 

 

 

In case anyone is interested, I'll post the results of this evening's trial run sometime tomorrow. 

 

UPDATE: Using the calculation above, my MHR comes out to 191. However, got the treadmill up as fast as I could go and I couldn't get my heart rate over 165.  What's the deal? Could my MHR be that far off? There's no way I could train at 70% of my max if I have to run that fast. Confused.

  • lenzlaw Community Moderator 10,267 posts since
    Jan 18, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    1. Aug 19, 2008 9:11 PM (in response to jaymacsigtau)
    Re: Got my First HRM today...Confused!

     

     

     

    jaymacsigtau wrote:

    UPDATE: Using the calculation above, my MHR comes out to 191. However, got the treadmill up as fast as I could go and I couldn't get my heart rate over 165. What's the deal? Could my MHR be that far off? There's no way I could train at 70% of my max if I have to run that fast. Confused.

     

     

     

    Maybe, maybe not.  Just running fast on the treadmill is unlikely to get you there.  Check this article, which has one way to try to get a maximum.

     

     

    http://www.marathonguide.com/training/articles/HeartMonitorTraining.cfm

     

     

     

     

     

    Len

     

     





    Len

  • lenzlaw Community Moderator 10,267 posts since
    Jan 18, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    4. Aug 20, 2008 3:30 PM (in response to jaymacsigtau)
    Re: Got my First HRM today...Confused!

     

    212 is on the high side but possible.  I talked to one guy who's max is around 220.  I would look for cofirmation on a hard workout.  It's also possible to have an actual lower than what the formula predicts, but you may not have been looking at the right time.  Does your HRM let you upload the data and plot your heart rate over time?  That way you could see if the 212 was a spike, or if there was a period of ten or twenty seconds where you sustained a high heart rate.

     

     

     

     

     

    Len

     

     





    Len

  • DaveVause Community Moderator 1,447 posts since
    Jul 9, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    6. Aug 21, 2008 5:55 AM (in response to jaymacsigtau)
    Re: Got my First HRM today...Confused!

    First, there's a fair amount of individual variation in maximal heart rates.  Any formula is just an estimate.  I am concerned that you're not using the best formula.  For a good article, with background research and documentation, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate

     

    The article  is incorrec, however, in saying a stress test is the same as a HRmax test.

     

     

    Second, there are protocols for doing a maximal heart rate test.  And it can be potentially dangerous.  One of the simplest approaches is the one described by Tim Noakes in  his ground-breaking Lore of Running:

     

     

     

     

    http://books.google.com/books?id=wAa9qq9kbncC&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&dq=maximal+heart+rate&source=web&ots=cwheBN0mjx&sig=fFb-thmsfHAugyOcqzUtzC-WcfQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=101&ct=result

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Good luck and be careful.






  • lenzlaw Community Moderator 10,267 posts since
    Jan 18, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    8. Aug 21, 2008 7:16 AM (in response to jaymacsigtau)
    Re: Got my First HRM today...Confused!

     

    I'm curious what Dave will say.  He's a pretty knowledgable guy.  Personally I'd go with the 176 until you see something higher.

     

     

     

     

     

    Len

     

     





    Len

  • Jojo_tkc Pro 73 posts since
    Apr 15, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    9. Aug 27, 2008 4:33 PM (in response to lenzlaw)
    Re: Got my First HRM today...Confused!

     

    I've done a lot of running with my HRM since I've had it (about 6 mos) and I've never seen anything higher than 181 and that was me running (excuse the expression) balls out on a track outside so I don't believe the standard MHR formula works for all people.

     

     

  • DaveVause Community Moderator 1,447 posts since
    Jul 9, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    10. Aug 28, 2008 6:43 AM (in response to jaymacsigtau)
    Re: Got my First HRM today...Confused!

    Hey, Jay,

     

    Sorry its been so long.  I'd go with the self stress test.  The formulas are based on population averages.  You have no reason to assume they reflect you other than statistics.  That said, I'd re-test in six months or so.

     

    But be careful.  Maximal efforts like that are tough on the body.

     

    Good luck.






More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...