heart rate monitors: comparison-shopping advice sought

Support | Event Directors & Organizers

Search Cool Running Community

Browse Cool Running

CoolRunning.com > Cool Running Community > Mainstream Racing >

kudzurunner

523 posts since
Dec 6, 2007

Dec 20, 2007 9:39 PM

heart rate monitors: comparison-shopping advice sought

I've finally manged to lose the strap on my Polar A-1, four years old. Rather than simply replace the strap, I'm thinking about purchasing a new device.

I'm a minimalist and want to keep the amount of info I process to a minimum. Since I'm already wearing a Garmin 201, I pretty much just want to keep track of HR. But in trying out a non-Polar HRM this morning in a running store--a unit that didn't work very well--I discovered that there's one other bit of info that would be useful: % of max HR.

In other words, what I'm looking for is a unit that gives me actual HR, but that also lets me input my max HR and tells me what percentage of that I'm running at. I do NOT want a device that bases its percentages of max HR on fixed, age-calibrated formulas. I want a device that lets me input my actual max HR (196) and perhaps my resting HR (52) and then gives me my % of max HR (and/or of HR reserve). I don't mind other info, but I don't need it and don't want to pay for it.

I'm looking, at absolute maximum, for a device that doesn't cost more than $150, and preferably not more than $100, if that.

Does such a device exist?

http://This message has been edited by KudzuRunner (edited Feb-04-2006).

junkmiles

3 posts since
Dec 20, 2005

1. Dec 20, 2007 9:39 PM

in response to: kudzurunner

quote:<HR>Originally posted by KudzuRunner:
I've finally manged to lose the strap on my Polar A-1, four years old. Rather than simply replace the strap, I'm thinking about purchasing a new device.

I'm a minimalist and want to keep the amount of info I process to a minimum. Since I'm already wearing a Garmin 201, I pretty much just want to keep track of HR. But in trying out a non-Polar HRM this morning in a running store--a unit that didn't work very well--I discovered that there's one other bit of info that would be useful: % of max HR.

In other words, what I'm looking for is a unit that gives me actual HR, but that also lets me input my max HR and tells me what percentage of that I'm running at. I do NOT want a device that bases its percentages of max HR on fixed, age-calibrated formulas. I want a device that lets me input my actual max HR (196) and perhaps my resting HR (52) and then gives me my % of max HR (and/or of HR reserve). I don't mind other info, but I don't need it and don't want to pay for it.

I'm looking, at absolute maximum, for a device that doesn't cost more than [b]50, and preferably not more than [b]00, if that.

Does such a device exist?

http://This message has been edited by KudzuRunner (edited Feb-04-2006).<HR>

Any polar model that costs more than $50. I'm pretty sure all of them give you the option to enter your own maxHR. Just check out the polar site (www.polar.com) and then shop around. You should definitely find somethiing for under $100, especially since you don't want tracking by lap, storage for multiple workouts, etc.

--jm

Tchuck

554 posts since
Dec 14, 2007

2. Feb 5, 2006 3:08 PM

in response to: kudzurunner

Polar RS200 is about $100 and as everything you need and maybe more than you need.

------------------
My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">

kudzurunner

523 posts since
Dec 6, 2007

3. Dec 20, 2007 9:39 PM

in response to: kudzurunner

Thanks. The RS-200 does indeed seem to have both an automatic age-graded HR program and a manually-entered max HR function. I'll certainly investigate this model further.

http://This message has been edited by KudzuRunner (edited Feb-05-2006).

MadXC

112 posts since
Jun 4, 2000

4. Feb 5, 2006 10:40 PM

in response to: kudzurunner

I use both a polar S150 and a nike triax c6. I like the polar because the numbers are easier to read while running. I like the nike because it has a backlight and I do a lot of night running. The S150 was designed for bicycling and I used to do a decent amount of cycling, I like being able to take it off my wrist after a run then mount it on my bike after running. Both seem to be pretty accurate but I've had a little bit of trouble with false reading from the polar. I haven't yet seen a false reading for the nike. It seems like I'm constantly tightening the Nike chest strap, like maybe once before every third run, which isn't that big of a deal, but sometimes you don't notice it has loosend until you feel it sliding down your chest, which is kind of a problem on a cold day when you're wearing multiple layers. But everything considered, I can't say whether I like one more then the other. I guess I would say I like the polar for day time running and it's nice I can also use it on the bike. I like the nike for night time.

If I was going to purchase a heart rate monitor right now, I would buy the polar S625X. The reason is, to keep track of my improvements and training, I stick to mostly the same courses day in and day out because I know the measured distances to a high degree of accuracy. With the S625X, I would probably be more adventerous on my runs (depending on how accurate the monitor is) and probably run on some more enjoyable trail runs instead of sticking to the same densly populated heavy traffic urban and suburban routes that I run now. I originally got a monitor without the bells and whistles, but now that I've become more involved with hrm training, I'd definately go for more features. My polar monitor tells me % of max hr, but according to a pre-determined formula which is different then my actual percentage. I use the Karvonen formula. (max hr - resting hr) (multiplied by percentage) - resting hr (or something like that).

sea biscuit

12 posts since
Mar 17, 2004

5. Feb 7, 2006 11:34 PM

in response to: kudzurunner

I use the polar S210 which will give you he percentage you're looking for. It has some extra bells and whistles as it also has a bike computer which I like because it 1) allows me to use my bike to make course measurements and 2) leaves me the option of using it for triathalon training.

The only problem is it takes a straight perecentage of the input Max HR, and this is not really a very good way to calculate target zones. A more accurate way to calculate target zones is what MadXC describes, though I never knew it had a name.

Target = ((MHR - RHR) x percentage of interest) + RHR where MHR is Max Heart Rate and RHR is resting heart rate.

If you think about what this formula says, it makes much more sense. It says figure your target by taking a percentage of the RANGE over which your heart rate travels and adding that to the starting point of your resting heart rate; What you're really interested in is the amount your heartbeat is elevated above resting, not zero. I like to check my RHR upon waking in the morning.

No monitor that I know makes this calcuation. I have found Polars to be the most reliable overall however; I believe that their technology is based upon the telemetry used by NASA to measure the astronauts' heart rates.

Best of luck.

kudzurunner

523 posts since
Dec 6, 2007

6. Dec 20, 2007 9:39 PM

in response to: kudzurunner

I just bought a replacement sending unit and strap: $39.95 + tax. I'm happy.

My max HR is 196.

I don't need more than the basic unit. Today I used it on a 16-miler. I averaged 8:21 pace: 8:50 pace out (HR 152; 77% of max); 7:52 pace back (HR 174; 88+ % of max).

170, or 86%, turned out to be a great, notched training zone; I locked in there on the way back. Submax steady state, and quite sustainable, with a breathing rate of 3/3.

With three miles to go, I hit it hard. 182, or about 92%, seems to be my highest sustainable threshold pace. I'd thought threshold was 179, with 182 more like 10K pace, but today I was feeling good--and could hold a 3/2 breathing rate, with maximum ventilation.

At 185, I need to switch to 2/2. That's where I'd peg the beginning of my V02 max zone. 186 is 95% of max. 192 is 98 %. Pfitz says VO2max is 95-98%.

On Friday I ran 9.8 miles with three cruise miles @ 6:35, 6:37, 6:39, with 2:00 jogs between. Av. HR was 181 in all three case. I basically let HR rise to 183-184 and kept it there. That's my 10K zone--and pace. Again, this HR was the maximum at which I was able to maintain a comfortable, fully-ventilated 3/2 breathing rate. At 185 or 186, I needed to kick into 2/2. That's where my 5K racing zone begins: at 95% of max HR.

Once I've made all these connections, I don't need more complex metrics. I'm fine with Basic.

http://This message has been edited by KudzuRunner (edited Feb-12-2006).

Dec 20, 2007 9:39 PM

heart rate monitors: comparison-shopping advice sought

New Runners

Training

Competition

Age Groups

Fitness

The Lighter Side

Feedback

Related Links